EPAN – eGovernment EPAN Good Practices Information System

1. EPAN – eGovernmentEPAN Good Practices Information System Luxembourg, 12 May 2005

2. Context of the study DG Resolutions approvedin Maastricht - Nov. 2004 IPSG European Commission Started as of 20 January 2005 IDABC is a Community programme managed by the European Commission's Enterprise and Industry Directorate General Initiator Exploration, in close collaboration with the eGovernment working group, http://europa.eu.int/ida/ of the potential benefits of entering a co-operation with the European Commission regarding the E-government Good Practice Framework which is being set up and financed by the European Commission with regards to Good Practices. • Human Resources Working Group • Innovative Public Services Group • eGovernment Working Group • Directors and Experts of Better Regulation eEurope awards (Como 2003) Collaboration Good Practice Framework is a Community programme managed by the European Commission's Information Society Directorate General EIPA http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/egovernment_research/gpf/index_en.htm Hosting www.eupan.org EPAN, eGovernment, 12.05.2005EPAN GPIS

3. Objectives of the study • Collecting the needs of the EPAN for an “EPAN Good Practices Information System“ (GPIS) which could be useful • for the EPAN members • for all the administrations at the different levels of the EU. • Analyzing existing or planned "Good Practices Information Systems", in order to propose some ways to assure, using one or a combination of the existing or planned systems, the management of good practices in the different areas and at the different levels in the most efficient way, both for providers and users. EPAN, eGovernment, 12.05.2005EPAN GPIS

4. Approach & timing of the study Final report we are here Final report writing January February March April May June Presentation@ DGs meeting(09-10) Inventory and synthesis of documents describing, on the one hand, the EPAN (and the public administrations) needs and, on the other hand, existing or planned "Good Practices Information Systems“ (e.g. eGovernment : EC DG Enterprises : IDABC eGovernment Observatory, EC DG IS : eEurope Awards, Good Practice Framework), as well as contacts by the Consultant and the Presidency with members of the eGovernment WG, the EIPA and the European Commission. Presentation & discussion@ eGovernment WG meeting(12-13) Presentation & discussion @ IPSG meeting (28-29) Draft report "EPAN Good Practices Information System" Presentation@ European Commission Contacts : IPSG/Germany <> EC DG IS (GFP) Progress report & discussion @ eGovernment WG meeting (24-25) Report"EPAN Good Practices Information System" Progress report & discussion @ IPSG meeting (17-18) EPAN, eGovernment, 12.05.2005EPAN GPIS

5. 2 surveys • 1st survey : eGovernment working group • A questionnaire was sent out by the end of January 2005. • More than 15 answers have been received from eGov members. • 2nd survey : IPSG • A questionnaire, focused on design of an ideal global central GPIS, has been sent beginning of April to IPSG members. Germany has been consulted for finalization of this document. • About 10 answers have been received so far. EPAN, eGovernment, 12.05.2005EPAN GPIS

6. Main learning from 1st survey (eGov WG) • Think about re-usability rather than only about content. “Who cares understanding (and addressing) obstacles to transfer of good practices ?” • Searching a good practice is not an common reflex. We are still in the supply-era rather than in the demand-driven-era. • So many different GPIS : no clarity regarding respective objectives, limits and audience. EPAN, eGovernment, 12.05.2005EPAN GPIS

7. Level of finalization • In the coming pages, some potential recommendations (most significant ones) will be presented. • Some are clear and mature enough, while others need further investigation and clarification. • Determining accurately who should be acting and taking responsibility of each recommendation is a very difficult topic, partially addressed. • These recommendations aim only at suggesting some ways of improving the current and planned systems, and their coexistence. EPAN, eGovernment, 12.05.2005EPAN GPIS

8. Some recommendations (1) • Our feeling is that GPIS should now take care of final user effective use of available good practices. This is, relatively, quite easy. • Another clear focus should be put on favouring good practices publishing, even at lowest level in public organisations. This is largely more ambitious. • Modifying the number, and diversity, of GPIS remains an open issue, but a second priority debate. A limited list of GPIS would obviously facilitate final users demands but efforts for achieving such optimization could be not the most pertinent as like as out of reach. • Many recommendations are mainly common sense. Some are very easy to adopt while others do require more complex discussions and agreements. EPAN, eGovernment, 12.05.2005EPAN GPIS

9. Some recommendations (2) C.o.m.p.a.r.i.n.g. • An overview of GPIS (1 descriptive form for every GPIS), acting on generic matters, should be made available, updated yearly, at European level, and largely diffused (available at all levels, from national to local). EPAN web site could be an ideal media for supporting this global picture. • A standard taxonomy for describing any good practice (let’s imagine « XGPRL », a derivative of XML) should be agreed and used as a first common language by major GPIS. Such taxonomy could be held (specific working subgroup ?) and promoted inside IPSG activities or by the European Commission. We believe that favoring largest use of an “esperanto” for talking of good practices would be valuable because of very conceptual matter. Globally, for all GPIS EPAN, eGovernment, 12.05.2005EPAN GPIS

10. Some recommendations (3) S.e.a.r.c.h.i.n.g. • Classifying good practices must be done according a list of typical issues (e.g. cost optimization, leadership, audience increase, wide geographical area coverage, multilingual services to offer, old agents, quick recruitment, etc.). This is very different from traditional classification based on public administration activities (tax, transport, etc.). • Type of usage, from the user point of view, should also be supported by the various GPIS. Depending on an usage type, “hits”, and level of details, would be very different, potentially in different GPIS. Examples : • Figures for building an estimation • Facts for justifying an initiative • Reasons for failures • Pre-requisitebefore starting a re-use . Individually, at GPIS level EPAN, eGovernment, 12.05.2005EPAN GPIS

11. Some recommendations (4) S.e.a.r.c.h.i.n.g. (ctd) • Close knowledge of final users concerns (and related requests) is to be completely handled. Intelligent features (e.g. subscribing facilities, screens to describe the characteristics of good practices required) should be provided systematically. • When users do search for practices, they do not necessarily want to focus on « good » practices. GPIS must be able to answer also to this kind of demand by presenting a full panorama of practices. Sometimes it is more important to decide what strategy to retain, simply taking into consideration other public administrations options. Whatever best practice, good practice or simply a practice. Individually, at GPIS level EPAN, eGovernment, 12.05.2005EPAN GPIS

12. Some recommendations (5) S.e.a.r.c.h.i.n.g. (ctd) • Search engine must be top-quality (speed, look & feel, advanced features (user preferences, highly parameterized capability for presenting results, comparing data, etc.)), comparable to best systems on Internet (Google, Amazon, etc.). Is it something realistic for very conceptual matter ? • GPIS should be first evaluated upon their ability to answer, quicklyand adequately to final users investigations. That means that a « basic » call centerwith experts investigating for you could be a relevant solution for many situations. • It can be more efficient for finding something related (even not directly) to your search. • When you are in a hurry or do not have the time to search, it can be a powerful accelerator. Individually, at GPIS level EPAN, eGovernment, 12.05.2005EPAN GPIS

13. Some recommendations (6) F.i.n.d.i.n.g. • Good practices presenting an approach (to manage an issue, a complex process, such as transformation, etc.) must be the ones on which bring top priority efforts. Such practices are easy to re-use, usually not very culture-specific and they are the very first step of any process. Specific difficulty (and most important aspect in the added value) : processes of analyzing options, and criteria to retain, must be registered quickly since usually poorly documented. • GPIS « hits » (even if none) are very important for efficient knowledge of final beneficiary demand. Such information should be better exploited : • suggesting other, similar, good practices, • or assisting this user, for future demands, • or identifying domains in which GPIS catalog remains poor . Individually, at GPIS level EPAN, eGovernment, 12.05.2005EPAN GPIS

14. Some recommendations (7) (R.e.) U.s.i.n.g. • Pre-requisites for re-use should be part of the description of each good practice. • Additionally, real concrete situations of re-use should be handled and added in the global picture of each good practice : publishing a good practice is not a one-stop process. • One recognized central GPIS, among the most important ones, could be dedicated to promote and favor reuse of good practices, identifying proactively potential administrations that could benefit from such reuse.Any obstacles (juridical, language, volume, any cultural behavior, low sponsorship, etc.) for reuse would be a valuable result to share. Individually, at GPIS level EPAN, eGovernment, 12.05.2005EPAN GPIS

15. Some recommendations (8) P.u.b.l.i.s.h.i.n.g. • Why would a public agent, or a public organization, be incited to formalize and publish a good practice ?Not the culture and not the mission of a public organization. In the different competitions (eEurope awards, ..) only finalists and winners are diffused. • There is not one unique definitive answer to this question, but different options to combine : • Select some central, pan-European, entities (such as EIPA for example), possibly relying on a network to perform investigations, at local, regional and national level, to identify valuable good practices. If more efficient, delegate to a private company, paid on results, such investigations. • Introduce cooperation, at national and pan-European level, as an aspect of public organization mission. • When “competition” (or first, comparison) with private sector, or with other public entity, is a reality, do insist on benefits organizations would gain out of publishing. EPAN, eGovernment, 12.05.2005EPAN GPIS

16. Next steps • The report, common to IPSG and eGovernment WG, will be finalized in the coming weeks. • Presentation to the DGs (9-10/6/2005). • Presentation to the European Commission (end of June 2005). • Among other information, this report will contain : • Identity cards for major GPIS • Synthesis of the 2 WG activities (survey & analysis) • A list of recommendations (« one could imagine …») • A list of conclusions (« EPAN could do …») Final report EPAN, eGovernment, 12.05.2005EPAN GPIS