EPAN eGovernment Working Group Dublin 23rd April 2004 In search for “Eurexemps” -European exemplary public services- Rein During Capgemini Nederland B.V. EPAN eGovernment Working Group Dublin 23rd April 2004

Objectives of this presentation Exchange of views in the study Reflection on analysis framework Reflection on selection of “Eurexemps” Prioritise conditional changes in the back office Call for help in contacting the right persons © 2004 Capgemini - All rights reserved Eurexemps study, Rein During, Dublin, 23rd April 2004

Objective of the study Demonstrate that it’s worth investing in eGovernment by collecting information on a number of “European exemplary public services – Eurexemps” with significant changes in the back office of the public organisations involved Focus Improved quality of service by using modern ICT Particularly benefit analysis © 2004 Capgemini - All rights reserved Eurexemps study, Rein During, Dublin, 23rd April 2004

Develop and agree on an analysis framework with attention to Approach Develop and agree on an analysis framework with attention to Returns on investments Conditional changes in the back office Make an inventory of candidate services from a number of sources Select 8 exemplary services to be studied in detail using agreed selection criteria Do the case studies using agreed questionnaires Analyse the data and report on the results © 2004 Capgemini - All rights reserved Eurexemps study, Rein During, Dublin, 23rd April 2004

Analysis Framework A guideline for analysing and describing the best practices in a unambiguous, logical and consistent way Case background Objectives Motives (e.g. government policy, cutbacks, customer needs, …) Background information on organisations involved Actual, improved situation Improvements made, compared to the former situation Return on improvements (in quality and quantity) For society For the organisations involved Conditional changes in the back office Change approach Steps taken Co-operation between parties Critical success factors Barriers and solutions © 2004 Capgemini - All rights reserved Eurexemps study, Rein During, Dublin, 23rd April 2004

Instances of improvements and returns (not meant to be linked to each other) (Process) Improvements Single point of access Forms online Sharing data Sharing services Pro-active services Case management Intergovernmental co-operation Tracking & tracing Returns Customer satisfaction Delay reduction Cost reduction (efficiency) Higher transparency Reduced red tape Political achievements Checklists (or questionnaires) will be developed for each topic to structure the analysis © 2004 Capgemini - All rights reserved Eurexemps study, Rein During, Dublin, 23rd April 2004

Aspects of conditional changes © 2004 Capgemini - All rights reserved Eurexemps study, Rein During, Dublin, 23rd April 2004

Selection criteria Minimal requirements Innovative public services using ICT Visible, appealing profits in services and in back office operation (evaluation or external recognition) Multiple changes in back office processes Complex (sharing of information between several organisations) Operational (real-life cases) Acceptable level of variety within: Geographic level mix of European Union members and acceding countries mix of regions: continental, south, east, and north Policy domains Preferences Interoperable (use of open standards and/or open source software) © 2004 Capgemini - All rights reserved Eurexemps study, Rein During, Dublin, 23rd April 2004

Proposed “Eurexemps” (1) AEAT – Spain Income tax declaration Expected: customer satisfaction; delay reduction Bremen online services – Germany Online registration, transactions and payment Expected: customer satisfaction; cost reduction Data exchange between official registers – Slovenia Public administration Expected: cost reduction; reduced red tape EOS – The Netherlands Housing benefits © 2004 Capgemini - All rights reserved Eurexemps study, Rein During, Dublin, 23rd April 2004

Proposed “Eurexemps” (2) ID-card and, among others, e-TaxBoard – Estonia Income tax declaration Expected: customer satisfaction, delay reduction, cost reduction My student – Denmark Online student loan and grant Expected: customer satisfaction, delay reduction, transparency Platform service public-local – France One-stop-shop service delivery Expected: customer satisfaction, reduced red tape VAHTI and TYVI – Finland Environmental related permits for businesses Expected: delay reduction, cost reduction © 2004 Capgemini - All rights reserved Eurexemps study, Rein During, Dublin, 23rd April 2004

Next steps Draft questionnaires Identify and contact key person(s) for each “Eurexemp” Any assistance you can render is welcome! Organise and prepare one group interview for each “Eurexemp” Draw up and ask feedback from the interviewees Analyse the data and report the results Presentations to This Working Group, September 13/14 The 3rd Quality Conference, September 15-17 This Working Group, October 28/29 The DG Conference, November 22/23 © 2004 Capgemini - All rights reserved Eurexemps study, Rein During, Dublin, 23rd April 2004

Draft contents final report Management summary Introduction Objective and scope Justification Analysis framework Case studies Conclusions / lessons learned Recommendations Annexes List of candidate best practices Selection criteria and foundation for selected best practices Standard questionnaire Details cases studies Standard presentation of the results © 2004 Capgemini - All rights reserved Eurexemps study, Rein During, Dublin, 23rd April 2004

Contact Rein During Capgemini Nederland B.V. P.O. Box 2575 3500 GN Utrecht The Netherlands Telephone +31 6 15 03 06 93 Fax + 31 30 689 5560 Email rein.during@capgemini.com © 2004 Capgemini - All rights reserved Eurexemps study, Rein During, Dublin, 23rd April 2004