1. 4QC – Feedback of the conference
eGov_4QC_feedback_8a_eGov
4QC – Feedback of the conference
eGovernment Working Group
Helsinki

2. 4QC feedback and evaluation
The evaluation;
The independent report by the Scientific Rapporteurs
Questionnaire to all participants at the 4QC website
Questionnaire to IPSG members and best practice presenters
The satisfaction survey for the conference participants
4QC team self assessment

3. Questionnaire to all conference participants at the 4QC website

4. Feedback received from the conference participants through the questionnaire at the 4QC website
The possibility to give feedback through the 4QC website was open to all conference participants
The feedback was collected during 2.10 – (15 days to answer)
162 person answered (23 % Directors, 40 % experts, 37 % others).
ca. 70 % answered that 4QC was their first ”QC”
Nearly 50 % already were sure that this was not their last ”QC”.

16. Questionnaire to IPSG members and best practice case presenters
Questionnaire was sent by
49 answers
Focus on the evaluation of the conference preparations and the organising of the best practice workshops

21. eGovernment issues at the 4QC
eGov in agora session
Are we playing the same game? – ICT as part of delivering strategy
Is ICT everywhere – Expect in productivity statistics?
The stories of the previous best practices, Swedish Customs “from one stop shop to no stop shop”

22. eGovernment issues at the 4Q
eGov in Best practice workshops
Public e-procurement programme – Portugal
Enabling efficiency and transparency through information technology governance – European Commission
E-office for Clients – Poland
Implementing a common project management methodology for IT projects – Luxemburg
etc.

23. From 4QC to 5QC – First Lessons learned
The general concept still works:
Conference attracts participants from different levels and different sectors of administration
Participants evaluate different parts of the programme similarly
The BP case nomination still works:
wide range of cases is a value in itself: allows for many different learning aspects
allowing the countries to nominate the cases freely is important: it gives the real innovations a possibilty to arise; we might learn something we did not know was important
nomination process creates activities in the member states (”Quality Movement”)
The quality of presentations still vary:
more attention to the preparations in advance to the conference is needed
less presentations does not automatically result in better quality BUT it results in fewer possibilities to learn.

24. 4QC website www.4qconference.org
Thank You !
4QC website