180 likes | 364 Views
Measuring Impact of E-Government on Administrative Reform Four cases from India. Subhash Bhatnagar Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad subhash@iimahd.ernet.in. Rationale for the study. Significant interest and investments in egovernment by developing countries
E N D
Measuring Impact of E-Government on Administrative ReformFour cases from India Subhash Bhatnagar Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad subhash@iimahd.ernet.in
Rationale for the study • Significant interest and investments in egovernment by developing countries • Need for developing concrete yard stick for defining success. Existing evidence is anecdotal. • Evolve a methodology for measuring costs and benefits • Lessons: understanding of factors that contribute to long term viability.
Methodology of Evaluation studies • Identification of stake holders • Design of a survey instrument for key stake holders • Quality of service on different parameters • Perceived benefits and measure of benefits • Awareness and impact on transparency and corruption • Random sample survey of ever users and non users • Measurement of costs and assessment of benefits • Analysis and presentation
Report Card on Gyandoot • Declared successful after one year, based on anecdotal evidence. Being expanded with support from Media Lab Asia -CORDECT • Survey of 31 users, 41 non users, 28 kiosks • Offers 22 services: Mandi prices (30%), grievance (13%), certificates promised in 8 days (25%) • A user fee of Rs 10-15 for services • Kiosks offer training, copying, word processing services for bulk of revenue
Doubtful Economic Viability • Dwindling attendance at Kiosks. 5602 (85% males) over 2 years logged in 18 kiosks. Attendance averages to one a day per kiosk • Handle very small proportion of any type of transactions • Investments of Rs 2.5 million for network. • Kiosk needs Rs 75K worth of equipment • Solar power will need Rs 75 K of investment • Operating expenses of Rs 1200 pm • Average revenue from user fee Rs 150 pm/ kiosk
Reasons for Poor Sustainability • Back end not reformed-- no computerisation or reengineering. Visits to district and payment of speed money for collection of documents. • Inadequate value delivered to clients Survey reports unsolved grievances and price data not updated. • Lack of awareness amongst poor. 80% non users have not heard of Gyandoot. • Many Kiosks not functioning. Problems of power outage (6-72 hours), connectivity(50%) • Change of initial team. Not a part of state wide program.
Interstate Checkposts in Gujarat • Project implemented in 9 months at a total cost of Rs 630 million (70% on civil work). Yearly expenses: Rs 20 mln • Proportion of trucks checked increased from 2% to 100% , revenue up in 2 years- Rs 930 to Rs. 2370 million. Growth in mln Rs 310(98),560(99),930(00),1660(01),2370(02) • Corruption due to collusion. Not just administrative • Penalty reduced from Rs 2000 per Ton to Rs 250 • Survey of 142 drivers at 3 check posts • Following components do not work • conversion of video image of registration plate • creation of a data base on all trucks • monitoring of images at a central point
Report Card: Gujarat Checkpost • Waiting times have reduced by 30 mts It was 1 hr 45 mts. Except weighing no improvement perceived in cash collection, document checking. • No impact on transparency-weight not displayed nor printed on receipt. • Corruption continues: Rs 20-50 charged from every driver • 33% overloaded trucks let go with no fines. Bribes average Rs 120 and are 10% of fines • 77% report no change in overloading • Most components not working. Revenue at increased levels but growth not likely. If corruption is plugged revenue can be increased by 60%.
Gujarat Checkpost: Reasons for Poor Sustainability • Cost-Benefit --Whose point of view? • Changes in political (chief minister, minister transport) and administrative leadership (4 commissioners in 2yrs) • Lack of motivation to continue work of predecessor • Quick implementation: partial automation, not fully owned by department, use of untested technologies • Lack of comfort in contracting with private sector • Focus on revenue increase and not on benefits to truckers, society, employees, transporters • Technology as the only tool for reform. No other reform.
Land Record Computerization Bhoomi, Karnataka, India • 20 million records, 6.7 mln farmers, 9000 villages. VAs issued RTCs and processed mutation in earlier system • RTC issue took 3-30 days and a bribe of Rs 100-2000. Mutation can take up to 2 years (30 days)Encroachment of public land • 180 centers operational for one year where RTCs are issued on-line for a fee of Rs 15. Mutation request filed on line • 5.2 million users, Rs. 80 mln collection goes to dept. • Investment of Rs 180 million • Operational expenses: Rs 40 million at 5 million users
Report Card on Bhoomi is GOOD • Survey: 180 users from 12 kiosks and 60 non users 4 taluks • Ease of Use: 78% of users who had used both systems found Bhoomi simpler; 66% used Bhoomi without help vs. 28% in manual • Complexity of Procedures: 80% did not have to meet any one other than at kiosk: In manual 19% met one officer and 61% met 2-4 officials • Errors in documents: Bhoomi 8% vs manual 64% • Rectification of errors: sought correction 93 % vs 49%, timely response 50% vs 4% • Cost of service: 84% one visit to Bhoomi center at Taluk HQ • Corruption: 66% paid bribes very often vs 3% in Bhoomi • Staff behavior: Bhoomi Good (84%) vs manual Average (63%)
Ensuring Sustainabilty in Future • Continuity of administrative leadership • Do not over project collection of user fee • Strenghten existing functionality • Incisive MIS reports for follow up on mutation • Facilities management and hardware training • Improve collection of crop data. Experiment with PDAs and involve 9000 VA Begin a pilot. • Expand functionality • Connecting to courts and Banks • Connecting to rural kiosks • Deliver Information from other departments • DO Not Expand scope- coverage at Hobli level • Will be difficult to implement and monitor • Survey the farmers to know if expansion is needed
FRIENDS:Payment Centers • 13 centers operational for 1-2 years at district HQ which collect a variety of payments on-line for utilities, taxes, license fees and fees for university • Back-end in departmnets not computerized • Typically a citizen visits 7 depts per month • Survey of 1573 users (from 30,000 customers), and 137 officers • Monthly collections have varied from Rs 25 million to Rs 67 million. • Investment of Rs 2.5 million per center and operational costs of Rs 0.78 mln a year excluding manpower cost
FRIENDS: A Report Card • 97.4% prefer FRIENDS over dept counters • Time saving of 42 minutes per month • 35 % willing to pay a nominal user fee • Low awareness-40% have not heard • 33% use FRIENDS 26% do not use • Awareness source: Newspaper(39% ), neighbors (32% ). 50% do not know of Sunday working and extended timing • Increased Female users in FRIENDS (11.3%) vs. Departments(3.1%)
Is FRIENDS Viable? • Monetized saving per payee/ month is Rs 20 • Used by middle class, rich pay through agents and poor make fewpayments • Revenue of Rs 12000 is small from telecom • User fee can be added but can raise 0.1 mln • Cost of departmental centers need to be cut • Employees support the idea of more centers • Additional services and outsourcing to private operators • Expansion to 140 locations on anvil
Learning from Evaluations • Success is measured as • Implementation and use sustain over long periods • Measurable benefits delivered to all stakeholders • Success can not be measured in first 1-2 years. Projects are still vulnerable. • Success needs to be measured through independent evaluation seeking formal feedback from all stake holders • Awards instituted by multilateral agencies, Governments, professional bodies to rate egovernment have been dysfunctional: • Not based on systematic evaluation. Provide incentive for over projection of achievements • Premature stamp of success distracts from acknowledging short comings and correcting them
Sustainability Risk Factors • Frequent changes in administrative leadership is the strongest risk factor • Hurried implementation and/or lack of resources • Project scale ambitious in scale and scope narrowly defined. • Egovernment not implemented in a context of wider change/ administrative reform • Close identification of a project with a single champion • Change based on tighter monitoring and supervision without systems being institutionalized • Change affected by by-passing employees • Partial automation(back-end not computerized) and automation without reengineering.