1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. Contact Rein During Capgemini Nederland B.V. P.O. Box 2575
3500 GN Utrecht
The Netherlands
Telephone
Fax
© 2004 Capgemini - All rights reserved
Eurexemps study, Rein During, Dublin, 23rd April 2004