eGovernment research in the EU member states

1,561 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
1 Comment
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Glitter Graphics



    Hello, hope everything is oky by the grace of GOD im fine.its attractive yr profile ,i wanna talk to u,have a little time for me.my yahoo id is:
    gift_willian@yahoo.com
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,561
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
31
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
39
Comments
1
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

eGovernment research in the EU member states

  1. 1. eGovernment Research in the EU: an overview Symposium IRC 2007, Bordeaux, 27th Sep 2007 (pre-conference event of Ministerial Conference on eGov 20-21 st Sep 2007) D. Osimo, C. Centeno Institute for Prospective Technological Studies - IPTS Joint Research Centre - European Commission www.jrc.es The views expressed by the authors are not necessarily those of the EC
  2. 2. IPTS : Part of DG JRC of the EC: 7 Research Institutes across Europe Mission : “to provide customer-driven support to the EU policy-making process by researching science-based responses to policy challenges that have both a socio-economic as well as a scientific/technological dimension” <ul><ul><ul><li>JRC -IPTS </li></ul></ul></ul>Modus operandi: desk research, expert groups, modelling, centres of expertise
  3. 3. EGOVERNET project <ul><li>Aim: Coordinate the creation of national eGovernment RTD programmes and initiatives while also encouraging the integration of existing national eGovernment programmes. </li></ul><ul><li>Partners: organisations with national programming responsibilities for innovation and research in eGovernment </li></ul><ul><li>Coordination action supported by FP6 IST programme </li></ul><ul><li>www.egovernet.org </li></ul>
  4. 4. The approach: 3 different policy domains of e-gov R&D
  5. 5. Research needs to reach the vision (top 10) <ul><li>Data and knowledge mgt </li></ul><ul><li>Value chains </li></ul><ul><li>Integration and interoperability </li></ul><ul><li>Trust and security </li></ul><ul><li>eDemocracy </li></ul><ul><li>Change in public sector </li></ul><ul><li>User needs </li></ul><ul><li>Multi-channel </li></ul><ul><li>Quality and performance </li></ul><ul><li>Networked government </li></ul>User needs eDemocracy Value chains Trust and security Networked government Innovative governance Socio-economic inclusion Public value creation Change in public sector Data and knowledge mgt Past and current research (2002-05) Future research needs (2006-) 397 articles / interviews, 875 stakeholders 131 interviews Source: IPTS (2006) Towards the eGovernment vision for the EU in 2010: Research Policy challenges , by DTI, EIPA
  6. 6. Country overview <ul><li>Countries with DEDicated programmes: Sweden, Norway, regions of Flanders and Emilia-Romagna </li></ul><ul><li>Countries with programmes EXPLictly stating eGovernment : FI, ES, FR, D, IE, HU, LV, SK, SI, BG, CZ </li></ul><ul><li>Countries with programmes POTentially funding eGovernment : all others </li></ul><ul><li>But in reality, each country is a mix of the different forms </li></ul><ul><li>Fragmentation very much exists at national level too </li></ul><ul><li>National information sheets published on www.egovernet.org </li></ul>
  7. 7. Other cases <ul><li>Institutional funding to universities </li></ul><ul><li>Procurement of research (Slovenia, IPTS, and all) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Specifically to support policy-making </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus on socio-economic research, policy impact, foresight </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Research embedded in deployment projects </li></ul><ul><li>Bottom-up funding (no priority indicated ex-ante) </li></ul><ul><li>Creation of dedicated research centres (Ireland, Flanders, Toscana, Estonia, etc.) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Partnerships with universities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Strong relation with e-gov deployment </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Soft coordination efforts under way in many countries </li></ul>
  8. 8. Conclusions <ul><li>Contrast between the: </li></ul><ul><li>(high) declared policy importance of eGovernment research, </li></ul><ul><li>(small) actual funding and fragmented in different programmes and instruments, and </li></ul><ul><li>(large) amount and growing integration of research projects carried out on the ground </li></ul>Policy Projects Programmes
  9. 9. Conclusions <ul><li>DED: not the only or best solution, but effective in integrating the research field across boundaries </li></ul><ul><li>Research programmes are not the only or the largest source of funding: institutional research, procurement and partnership. </li></ul><ul><li>Thematic priorities not consistent across countries. Future recommended research themes such as users needs not visible in research programmes </li></ul><ul><li>Fragmentation of eGovernment research even at the national level, between different policy areas, strategic goals and funding mechanisms </li></ul><ul><li>Programmes and funding mechanisms are often more fragmented than the actual research carried out </li></ul>
  10. 10. From parallel funding streams…
  11. 11. … to an integrated approach
  12. 12. Next steps <ul><li>EGOVERNET: definition of a common framework for eGovernment research </li></ul><ul><li>IPTS: Supporting the definition of research priorities on eGovernment </li></ul><ul><li>IPTS: Researching the impact of web2.0 on public services </li></ul>
  13. 13. Merci <ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>http://is.jrc.es </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.egovernet.org </li></ul>
  14. 14. BACK-UP SLIDES
  15. 15. Institutional setting <ul><li>Most research programmes falling under R&D policy </li></ul><ul><li>Only in 5 cases e-government implementation programmes include measures for research </li></ul><ul><li>Important role of EU cohesion/structural funds in Portugal, Greece and some New Member States </li></ul><ul><li>Significant role of regional level (Flanders, Emilia-Romagna, French regions) </li></ul><ul><li>Joined-up e-government R&D not yet there… </li></ul>1 2 3 4
  16. 16. Budget <ul><li>DED programmes: multi-annual, budget between 2 and 6 Million Euros per year. Met by equivalent co-funding by private players. </li></ul><ul><li>Difficult to measure budget of EXPL and POT, but likely to be smaller </li></ul><ul><li>Overall investment: marginal if compared to eGovernment implementation </li></ul><ul><li>By comparison, eHealth attracts greater research investment, despite smaller implementation expenditure </li></ul>Sources: EGOVERNET, EC, EGEP 1 2 3 4 11,900 eGovernment implementation programmes, EU Member States 2004 (latest available data) 46 Budget for eGovernment research in FP6 WP 2005/2006 34 Total budget of eGovernment research programmes in EU Member States, 2005-2006 Budget (M €) Type of programme
  17. 17. Stages of research and multi-disciplinary approach <ul><li>eGovernment as field of applied IST research </li></ul><ul><li>General problem of separation between research and deployment (see also WP5) </li></ul><ul><li>Specific policies to address the issue in Norway and Sweden </li></ul><ul><li>Most research programmes are technology-centred </li></ul><ul><li>Some require multidisciplinarity: DED and France </li></ul><ul><li>Socio-economic research is mostly for policy support and often funded through procurement and partnership with universities. </li></ul>1 2 3 4
  18. 18. Thematic priorities <ul><li>Few national research programmes define priorities in such a precise way as FP 6 did </li></ul><ul><li>The themes most often mentioned are: e-democracy, security, knowledge management, semantic web in government context, services to citizens and business, broadband application, and, of course, socio-economic studies in support of eGovernment policies </li></ul><ul><li>The research theme &quot;understanding users needs&quot;, indicated by previous research as one of the key research challenges, appear not to be considered in any research programmes, although “customer satisfaction” surveys are often carried out. </li></ul><ul><li>DED programmes often have a cross-public sector and are more precise in priorities-setting; procurement used for specific requests and (relatively) clear needs </li></ul>1 2 3 4
  19. 19. Beneficiaries <ul><li>In order of importance: </li></ul><ul><li>Universities and companies </li></ul><ul><li>Public authorities </li></ul><ul><li>Strongly related to strategic goals </li></ul><ul><li>Strengthening the R&D system and a competitive ICT sector </li></ul><ul><li>Improving public services </li></ul>1 2 3 4
  20. 20. Project selection and programme evaluation <ul><li>In research programmes, open calls are used, and proposals are evaluated by external experts (see also wp7) </li></ul><ul><li>Sometimes consultation/negotiation procedures are used (Netherlands, Flanders-B), also in combination with open calls. </li></ul><ul><li>Finally, as previously mentioned, procurement procedures are often used for socio-economic studies for policy support. </li></ul><ul><li>Programme evaluation not available, also because of their recent history </li></ul><ul><li>Generally successful in leveraging private investment, if national eGovernment market is significant </li></ul>1 2 3 4
  21. 21. Research and competence centres <ul><li>Widely felt need to consolidate eGovernment research </li></ul><ul><li>Many countries created dedicated central research centres, physical or virtual, in partnership with university </li></ul><ul><li>Centres sometimes also used to distribute funds </li></ul><ul><li>Dedicated umbrella project being created </li></ul>1 2 3 4

×