Inhoudsopgave van deze pagina:
Delen
COU CIL OFBrussels, 25 October 2011
THE EUROPEA U IO
15928/11
-
FI 774 FSTR 62 REGIO 104 TELECOM 149
COVER OTE
from:
Mr Vítor CALDEIRA, President of the European Court of Auditors date of receipt: 25 October 2011
to: Mr Radoslaw SIKORSKI, President of the Council of the European Union
Subject: Special report No 9/2011: Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective? Sir,
I enclose a copy of special report No 9/2011 "Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?" together with the Commission's replies. The special report, which is shortly to be published, was adopted by the Court at its meeting on 13 July 2011 and is accompanied by the replies from the Commission, which was notified of the preliminary findings on 15 April 2011.
(Complimentary close).
(s.) Vítor CALDEIRA
________________________
Encl.: Special report No 9/2011: Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?
EURÓPAI SZÁMVEVSZÉK
TRIBUNAL DE CUENTAS EUROPEO IL-QORTI EWROPEA TAL-AWDITURI
EVROPSKÝ ÚCETNÍ DVR EUROPESE REKENKAMER
DEN EUROPÆISKE REVISIONSRET EUROPEJSKI TRYBUNAL OBRACHUNKOWY
EUROPÄISCHER RECHNUNGSHOF TRIBUNAL DE CONTAS EUROPEU
EUROOPA KONTROLLIKODA CURTEA DE CONTURI EUROPEAN
O EURÓPSKY DVOR AUDÍTOROV
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS CORTE DEI CONTI EUROPEA EVROPSKO RACUNSKO SODISCE
COUR DES COMPTES EUROPÉENNE EIROPAS REVZIJAS PALTA EUROOPAN TILINTARKASTUSTUOMIOISTUIN
CÚIRT INIÚCHÓIRÍ NA HEORPA EUROPOS AUDITO RMAI EUROPEISKA REVISIONSRÄTTEN
Special Report No 9/2011
(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)
Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?
together with the Commission's replies
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-
Paragraph
Glossary
Executive summary I - VI
Introduction 1 - 12
Definition and objectives of e-Government 1 - 3
Lisbon Strategy, eEurope and i2010 4 - 8
EU Financial support 9
The principles of ERDF management in the 2000-06 programme period
10 - 12
Audit scope and approach 13 - 15
Observations 16 - 51
Have the projects been selected according to assessed needs? 16 - 27
Initial strategies were not based upon identified needs 19 - 23
Project selection rarely assessed whether the projects selected were the most likely to offer the best value for money
24 - 27
Were projects well designed and delivered as planned? 28 - 42
Project objectives were too general and project design did not deal adequately with non-technical issues
30 - 34
Projects mostly in line with EIF principles 35 - 36
Most projects not in line with planning 37 - 42
Are the projects useful and durable? 43 - 51
Expected advantages partially achieved 45 - 49
In most cases project maintenance was assured 50 - 51
Conclusions and Recommendations 52 - 60
3
Have the co-financed projects been selected according
to assessed needs?
55 - 56
Were projects well designed and delivered as planned? 57 - 58
Are the projects useful and durable? 59 - 60
4
GLOSSARY
Broadband High-speed data transmission in which the bandwidth is shared by more than one simultaneous signal
DG INFSO Directorate General Information Society and Media of the EC
DG REGIO Directorate General Regional Policy of the EC
EIF European Interoperability Framework
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
ICT Information and Communication Technologies
Interchange of Data between Administrations - programme aiming at promoting the development and operation of trans-European ICT networks for data interchange between Member State administrations and/or the Community institutions IDA
Interoperable Delivery of European e-Government Services to public Administrations, Businesses and Citizens. Successor of the IDA instrument IDABC
Capability of different programs to exchange data via a common set of exchange formats, to read and write the same file formats, and to use the same protocols Interoperability
IS Information Society
ISA New programme for the period 2010-15 "Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations"
NDP National Development Plan
Open Source Software Broad general type of software license that makes source code available to the general public with relaxed or non-existent copyright restrictions
Any communication, interconnection or interchange protocol, and any interoperable data format whose specifications are public and without any restriction in their access or implementation Open Standard
PLN Official ISO 4217 currency name for Polish zloty
Project Management Methodology is a process-based method for effective project management. The PMM provides a method for managing projects within a clearly defined framework. It describes PMM
5
procedures to coordinate resources and activities engaged in a project, giving indication on how to design and supervise the project, and how to react if the project has to be adjusted to respond to changes
SF Structural Funds
SMART Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. Public administrations in the period covered by this report saw e-
Government as a means of lessening the administrative burden of citizens,
businesses and other administrations. It can also serve to improve the services
they deliver. This is in keeping with the achievement of the Lisbon goals
(competitiveness and innovation), the reduction of barriers to the internal
market, the mobility of citizens across Europe, and regional development.
II. The Court's audit focused on ERDF expenditure of the 2000-06 programme
period in four Member States: France, Italy, Poland and Spain. The Court
examined the relevant strategic and programming documents and visited 28
administrative projects developing e-Government. An on-line survey sent to a
sample of project managers supplemented this work.
III. The Court examined whether these e-Government projects:
(a) have been selected according to assessed needs;
(b) have been well designed and delivered as planned;
(c) are useful and durable.
IV. The Court concluded that the e-Government projects supported by the
ERDF have contributed to the development of electronic public services.
However despite the fact that the majority of them are technically operational,
due to insufficient focus on project results the benefits obtained are much lower
than could have been expected.
V. More specifically the Court observed that:
(a) Despite the fact that e-Government programming at national level gradually
improved during the programme period, weaknesses in early strategies
meant that projects did not focus on addressing priority needs for e-
7
(b) Projects generally delivered their outputs. However, these were often
delivered late or with a reduced scope due to poor design or lack of a sound
implementation methodology.
(c) Most audited projects were technologically sound and developed IT
applications providing electronic services to public bodies, businesses and
citizens. The systems co-financed by the ERDF, in general were
appropriately maintained and financially sustainable. However, in the
absence of the measurement of actual project benefits, it is not possible to
evaluate projects or accumulate knowledge for future programmes.
VI. Therefore the Court recommends that:
(a) Member States should develop strategies for e-Government, which are
based upon identified needs, have clear objectives and assign
responsibilities to the bodies accountable for the achievement of these
objectives.
(b) Managing Authorities should select e-Government projects for ERDF
support on the basis of an assessment of likely project costs and benefits.
(c) Managing Authorities in Member States should ensure that e-Government
projects selected for ERDF funding focus not only on project outputs but
also on the changes in processes or organisation necessary to fully benefit
from the systems developed.
(d) Managing Authorities should emphasise the practical application of best
practice and strongly recommend the use of an appropriate project
management methodology for e-Government projects in receipt of ERDF
funding.
(e) The Commission should ensure that the EU principles and
recommendations enabling trans-European interoperability, in particular the
EIF principles, are considered by projects benefiting from the ERDF, in
8
order to increase the European added value of a project and facilitate
further EU-wide systems integration.
(f) When selecting e-Government projects, Managing Authorities should
ensure that all significant costs, including maintenance have been
sufficiently provided for in the cost-benefit analysis which should underpin
the financing decision.
(g) The Commission should ensure that Managing Authorities monitor and
evaluate project results and impacts in order to demonstrate the effective
use of EU funding and provide important feedback to improve the design of
9
INTRODUCTION
Definition and objectives of e-Government
-
1.Electronic Government (e-Government) refers to electronic transactions
between government and citizens or businesses, or between different
governmental administrations. e-Government requires the use of Information
and Communication Technologies (ICT) combined with organisational change
and new skills in order to deliver better quality public services2.
-
2.Public administrations in the period covered by this report saw e-
Government as a means of reducing administrative burden and waiting times,
whilst improving cost effectiveness, and raising productivity. It was in line with
the Lisbon Strategy goals in competitiveness and innovation, aid regional
development and reduce barriers in the internal market. It can also facilitate the
mobility of citizens across Europe.
-
3.In order to avoid the emergence of so called electronic barriers3, the
Commission recommended that European public administrations should
respect a number of general principles, which were set out in the European
Interoperability Framework4 (EIF) published in November 2004.
Lisbon Strategy, eEurope and i2010
-
4.The Lisbon European Council held in 2000 set the ambitious objective of
Europe becoming the most competitive and dynamic economy in the world and The role of eGovernment for Europe's Future, COM(2003) 567 final of 26.9.2003, p. 7. 3For example lack of interoperability between IT systems could be a barrier hampering exchange of administrative data. 4The European Interoperability Framework was endorsed in June 2002 by the 15 Member States and was supported in the Manchester and Lisbon declarations of 24 November 2005 and 19 September 2007, respectively.
10
recognised the need for Europe to grasp the opportunities offered by the new
economy and the Internet in particular.
-
5.The European Commission launched two successive eEurope Action Plans
for the period 2000-05 aimed at stimulating services, applications and internet
content, covering both online public services and e-business. The Action Plans
were also designed to address deficiencies in broadband infrastructure and
security measures. These actions were to be reinforced by such activities as
the dissemination of good practices and benchmarking of ICT development in
Member States.
-
6.From the outset6, the Commission considered e-Government as important
and the transformation of public services became a cornerstone of ICT policy.
Following the eEurope2002 Action Plan , the Commission published a
communication7 expanding on the e-Government actions contained in the
action plan and detailing the steps necessary for transforming public services
with the use of ICT.
-
7.In 2005 eEurope Action Plans were replaced by a new strategic framework,
i2010 European Information Society 2010 laying out broad policy
orientations8. This renewed strategic framework put even more emphasis on
e-Government. Indeed according to recent studies9 there is a strong link
between modern and efficient public administration and national eEurope 2002: Impact and Priorities, COM(2001) 140 final of 13.3.2001. 7COM(2003) 567 final. i2010 A European Information Society for growth and employment, COM(2005) 229 final of 1.6.2005. 9World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Reports -
http://www.weforum.org/documents/GCR0809/index.html, Citizen Advantage: Enhancing economic competitiveness through e-government -
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan022639.pdf.
11
competitiveness and innovation. A 2006 Commission communication10,
described previous achievements and set out new objectives for e-Government
policy. The political commitment of Member States and other stakeholders is
important for such actions and at a number of conferences11 Member States
demonstrated this by signing declarations to this effect. The first significant
legal act12, the "Service Directive" (see Box 1 ), published in 2006 and required
to be in force in 2009, requires certain public services for business to be
available electronically.
Box 1 The Services Directive
The Directive requires Member States to simplify procedures and formalities that
service providers need to comply with. In particular, it requires Member States to
remove unjustified and disproportionate burdens and to substantially facilitate:
- the establishment of a business, i.e. cases in which a natural or legal person
wants to set up a permanent establishment in a Member State, and
- the cross-border provision of services, i.e. cases in which a business wants to
supply services across borders in another Member State, without setting up an
establishment there.
Pursuant to the Directive Member States are obliged to set up "points of single
contact", through which service providers can obtain all relevant information and deal
with all administrative formalities without the need to contact several authorities. The
"points of single contact" have to be accessible at a distance and by electronic means. i2010 eGovernment Action Plan: Accelerating eGovernment in Europe for the Benefit of All, COM(2006) 173 final of 25.4.2006. 11 Ministerial Declarations approved unanimously in Brussels (2001), Como (2003), Manchester (2005) and Lisbon (2007). 12 Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 36).
12
-
8.In parallel with its action plans, the Commission developed a number of
initiatives13 in specific fields with various objectives such as removing
technological bottlenecks or facilitating exchange of best practice. Amongst
more specialised programmes and initiatives, the IDABC14 programme
deserves mention as it facilitated cooperation between the Commission and
Member States in working out common interoperable standards15.
EU Financial support
-
9.Approximately 11 billion euro16 of EU support was earmarked for the
Information Society in the 2000-06 programme period. Amongst its aims were
the development of new secure technologies, infrastructural capabilities and
connectivity between regions through broadband. ERDF funding accounted for
6,7 billion euro (61 %) of this. No aggregate figures are available for
e-Government actions.
The principles of ERDF management in the 2000-06 programme period
-
10.The ERDF management system reflects the principles of subsidiarity and
partnership17, with responsibilities and management shared between the 13 Programmes such as Modinis, eTEN, IDABC, CIP-PSP, ePractice.eu. 14 Decision 2004/387/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on interoperable delivery of pan-European e-Government services to public administrations, business and citizens (IDABC) (OJ L 181, 18.5.2004, p. 25). The programme expired in 2009. 15While the IDABC was more focused on the digitisation of public administrations, its follow-on ISA aims at elaborating concrete generic tools and common services which could be directly applied by interested Member States. Decision No 922/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on interoperability solutions for European public administrations (ISA). 16 The Court calculation made on the basis of information published by the Commission on the www.europa.eu 17For the 2000-06 programme period, the Structural Funds and European Regional Development Fund was funded on the basis of the following legal acts: Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1) and Regulation (EC)
13
European Commission and Member State governments. The ERDF
programming and the implementation process of co-financed actions in force
during the audited 2000-2006 programme period is set out in Figure 1 in
simplified form.
No 1783/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the European Regional Development Fund (OJ L 213, 13.8.1999, p. 1).
14
Figure 1 - Simplified ERDF management process for 2000-2006
WhatWhoFeedback
Multiannual programmes
Operational ProgrammesPrepared by the competent
or bodies in the Member States on
Single Programmingthe basis of ex-ante evaluation
Document comprising a set of priorities and measuresApproved and supervised by
the European Commission
Annual
DG
implementation One or more measures
in the programme might REGIODG
report
include actions f or e-INFSO
Government Aggregated
developmentinformation on
Inter-service consultationsoutputs, results and impacts
Programme Complement ERDF setting detailed criteria for Managing Authority measuresat national level
Aggregated information on outputs, results and impacts
Selection of e-Government Intermediary bodies at projectsregional or local levelIntermediary bodies at regional or local levelIntermediary body at regional or local level
Monitoring reports
Detailed information on output, result and impact of individual Project design, projects implementation and useFinal beneficiaries Final beneficiaries
15
-
11.The multi-annual programmes were drawn up by Member States following a
process of dialogue with the relevant public authorities and the economic and
social partners. Member States identified broad programme priorities, and, after
negotiations, the Commission approved all programming documents. The
broad description of measures was included in the operational programmes
while the detailed measures and the choice of projects was made by Member
States.
-
12.The programmes contain established and approved priorities to be
implemented during the programme period. Each Operational Programme or
Single Programming Document has an associated Programme Complement
which describes programme measures in detail. Measures may include specific
actions for the development of e-Government.
AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH
-
13.The main objective of the audit was to assess whether the audited e-
Government administrative projects supported by the ERDF:
(a) have been selected according to assessed needs;
(b) have been well designed and delivered as planned;
(c) are useful and durable.
-
14.The Court's audit focused on the 2000-2006 programme period and four
Member States: France, Italy, Poland and Spain who between them accounted
for 3,0 billion euro (45 %) of expenditure from the ERDF on the Information
Society.
-
15.The audit work included:
(a) A review of the Commission strategic framework on e-Government policy.
(b) An examination of national and relevant regional e-Government strategy
documents for the 2000-2006 period, in the countries visited, combined
16
with an analysis of National Development Plans, relevant Operational
Programmes and supporting Programme Complements.
(c) Visits to national and regional authorities responsible for e-Government
development and project selection in the visited Member States.
(d) An examination of 28 regional projects with total funding of
216,9 million euro and the ERDF contributing some 127,2 million euro of
this. The average e-Government project visited had a value of
7,8 million euro with an average ERDF contribution of 4,5 million euro. 10
of the projects were of less than one million euro with the largest four
projects ranging from 27 to 50 million euro. For the types of project
examined (see the Table and Box 2 ).
Table - Types of e-Government projects visited on-the-spot
Type of projectSpainFranceItalyPolandTotal
Geographical Information System13313141111231777728
(e) An on-line survey sent to 363 project managers of e-Government projects
co-financed by the ERDF in the visited countries. Replies were received
17
Box 2 - Examples of projects providing e-Government services
Geographical Information System (GIS) Tuscany Region, Italy
The development of a GIS accessible online by citizens, public bodies and
professionals was one of the objectives of the projects of the Single Programming
Document of Tuscany Region. Within this framework, the provincial authority of
Florence supported the creation of a spatial database linked to the theme of
hydrogeology, as well as the development of software to manage the administration of
the use of ground and surface water. It also sought to manage fully on line the
submission of groundwater search requests and the issuing of authorizations.
Workflow system - Warmia i Mazury Region, Poland
The main objective of the project was to create a web portal allowing on-line contact
between the public and 112 authorities. Electronic document circulation procedures
were developed for three levels of local administration, aiming to improve operational
efficiency whilst ensuring full interoperability of data processed by the administration.
OBSERVATIONS
Have the projects been selected according to assessed needs?
-
16.The purpose of e-Government is to enhance access to government
services and information for the public, businesses and other administrations,
leading to better service quality and improved effectiveness and efficiency.
-
17.Bringing this about requires an overall strategy based upon a needs
assessment, the definition of priorities and a consideration of the likely costs
and benefits of the strategy.
-
18.The Court examined whether:
(a) The national or regional strategic framework had been developed on the
basis of identified needs and knowledge of what was being provided by
existing IT systems, taking into account guidance issued by the European
18
(b) Project selection procedures were based upon consistent and coherent
selection criteria which addressed the most urgent needs and delivered
added value for stakeholders; with individual project objectives complying
with the priorities of the strategic framework.
Initial strategies were not based upon identified needs
-
19.In the 2000-2006 period communication patterns evolved from those based
upon telephone and paper to an extensive use of the internet and broadband. A
number of countries began to adapt their administrations accordingly.
-
20.In the European Union, the eEurope Action Plans prioritised
e-Government related initiatives, which linked regional competitiveness and
effective public administration. Throughout the period, Member States
committed themselves, by way of ministerial declarations to proposing relevant
actions at national level, leading to the preparation of national strategies in line
with the eEurope initiative.
-
21.At the beginning of the programme period, the strategies for
e-Government in the Member States visited had been prepared in terms of
broad declarations, rather than based upon real identified needs.
-
22.The Court examined the relevant strategy documents for the Member
States visited and detected the following weaknesses:
(a) The needs of citizens, businesses and administration were not determined
in advance and strategic objectives were too general and lacked specific
targets. There was insufficient analysis of what was actually required. For
example, in certain countries, the necessary legal provisions for allowing
electronic transactions were not in place.
(b) Responsibilities for the achievement of objectives had not been clearly
attributed to the responsible public bodies (see Box 3 ) or these bodies
lacked sufficient authority for effective implementation. Monitoring systems
19
were not established thus preventing timely corrective actions being taken
and the accumulation of experience for future improvements.
Box 3 - Example of unclear assignment of responsibilities
Strategy "e-Poland for the years 2004-2006"
The main weakness of the strategy was a failure in all cases to clearly define areas of
responsibility. There were 83 specific tasks allocated to various ministries and
agencies and 30 of these had more than one entity responsible for its implementation.
However in these cases, no indication had been given as to who was responsible for
coordination. Insufficient coordination and cooperation amongst ministries was
highlighted in the final strategy evaluation as being one of the factors preventing the
achievement of objectives.
-
23.A comparison of early strategies with those prepared at the end of the
audited period clearly indicates some improvement in quality. In addition, some
countries prioritised e-Government, recognising it as a way to modernise public
administration. However at Member State level there was little methodological
support offered to the authorities responsible for project delivery, in particular
as regards project management techniques and technical guidelines. See
Box 4 for an example of methodological support which was actually given.
Box 4 - An example of methodological support
The Italian National Centre for the Information Systems in the Public Sector (CNIPA)
was established in June 2003 as a public agency under the aegis of the Italian Ministry
of Public Administrations and Innovations.
CNIPA became responsible for putting into operation the e-Government plans devised
by the ministry and were specifically charged with:
(a) Enacting rules, standards and technical guidelines for the introduction of ICT
within the public administration.
(b) Assessing and monitoring projects developed by local, regional and national
20
(c) Drafting opinions for the public administration on the strategic coherence of
projects.
Project selection rarely assessed whether the projects selected were the
most likely to offer the best value for money
-
24.The project selection procedures were organised and managed by national
authorities responsible for ERDF management and usually followed one of the
models below:
(a) Model A - Projects were pre-selected, named and their scope indicated in
the ERDF programming documents (e.g. Programme Complement).
(b) Model B - Following a call for proposals, projects were selected on a
competitive basis, with grants being offered to projects best fulfilling
measure objectives. Specific amounts of money were made available for
such measures, as the development of electronic public administration.
-
25.The Court analysed 28 projects selected on the basis of the two procedures
(11 A, 17 B):
(a) The centralised approach (Model A), with ERDF grants being assigned in
advance to named projects. There was little attention paid to any analysis
of costs or benefits and quite often there was no formal grant application
procedure.
(b) The other approach (Model B), designed to select the best projects. This
addressed priority issues defined in the programming documents, on the
basis of project content comparison carried out by independent experts.
"Cost Benefit Analysis" was an obligatory part of the application procedure
in Poland. The bodies responsible for selection did not set out a timetable
for the overall procedure other than the deadline for applications. When
there were many applicants, there were long delays in the assessment of
applications and in Poland the original start date of four of the projects
visited had to be postponed due to the longer selection procedure.
21
-
26.Authorities sometimes tended to select ambitious projects in terms of goals,
scope and estimates of the number of potential users, whilst not sufficiently
assessing the promoters' ability to manage complex IT projects or establish if
they had sufficient and appropriately qualified staff. In one project in Poland,
the first project manager was appointed in 2006, 17 months after the financing
was granted. During 2007, five different project managers were responsible for
the task, whilst the composition of the steering committee overseeing the
project was amended four times. This lack of stability was cited in an internal
audit report as being partly responsible for project delays. In a final assessment
report on an Italian project, delays in implementation were attributed to
changes in the project management team and a lack of coordination between
local bodies participating in the project.
-
27.In fact, most projects which failed to meet their original objectives were very
complex as regards the number of stakeholders involved and the sophistication
of services offered. This situation, in combination with the need to finish
projects before the closure of the programme caused a significant scope
reduction in some cases (see paragraph 39).
Were projects well designed and delivered as planned?
-
28.An e-Government project, as with any IT project, should be planned in detail
to ensure a smooth realisation. The plan should include clear objectives with a
detailed description of the actions necessary for project completion, and an
estimate of time and resource constraints.
-
29.The aim of the Court was to assess whether projects were carried out as
initially planned and to identify the reasons for major deviations. For each
audited project the fundamental project elements were examined:
(a) Planning and design - special attention was paid to the appropriate setting
of project objectives and targets in the form of SMART indicators and the
use of best practice, such as the use of recognised project management
22
(b) Compliance with European Interoperability Framework (EIF) principles -
the incorporation in project design of EIF principles was examined.
(c) Implementation - the process was examined in terms of the management
of time, budget and project scope.
(d) Availability for use - the existence of project assets (e.g. IT software,
servers, platforms) as well as planned services was checked during on-the-
spot inspections.
Project objectives were too general and project design did not deal
adequately with non-technical issues
-
30.The setting of detailed project objectives was a necessary pre-requisite for
public bodies applying for an ERDF grant. However projects were normally
defined in general terms in relation to national or regional strategies and
objectives contained in the ERDF programming documents. Project added
value was rarely determined as apart from the projects in Poland, cost benefit
analyses were not prepared.
-
31.The quality of project documentation varied significantly from project to
project and in extreme cases no documentation was available for examination.
The responsible authorities had not set out minimum standards in terms of
documentation amongst other things.
-
32.For the majority of projects visited, objectives were set which were too
general and not quantified. For instance, setting objectives as vague as "to
improve service quality". Moreover where targets were set, they referred mainly
to outputs (e.g. number of servers purchased) , rather than focusing on benefits
for the entity or end-user (e.g. decrease the running cost of the department by
x %). According to the project promoters surveyed (Figure 2 ) impact indicators
were defined for only 42 % of projects.
23
Figure 2 What type of project objectives were set?
Number of projects
100%
92 %
90%Output (e.g. number of servers, sof tware installed, etc.)
80%75 %
70%
60%Result (e.g. time savings, increased ef f iciency, higher service quality, cost reduction, etc.) 50% 42 %
40%
30%Impact (e.g. higher competitiveness, job creation, more investments, etc.)
20%
10%
2 %
0%None of the above
The output and result objectives were clearly set in most of the cases, but objectives in terms of impact were less often established.
Source: European Court of Auditors' survey.
-
33.Project planning was strongly focused on technical aspects, often
neglecting important issues such as the redesign of administrative processes to
benefit more fully from the new technologies and thereby lessening the
potential impact of projects.
-
34.Failure to consider coordination between departments or organisational
issues such as the reconfiguration of processes and workflows for different
projects resulted in the duplication of procedures, project delays, problems with
data exchange and in some cases projects which were not developed as
expected, underused or even abandoned (see Boxes 5, 7 and 9 ).
24
Box 5 - Example of inadequate coordination and its impact
Integrated Broadband Platform for Sicily, Italy
One of the objectives of this project was the development of a web portal for tourists
with specific interactive features such as booking and paying for holiday packages
online.
The lack of coordination between different directorates within the regional
administration caused significant delays and scope reduction with some planned
features not being developed.
Projects mostly in line with EIF principles
-
35.The European Interoperability Framework (EIF) was published in November
2004 and defines a set of guidelines for
e-Government services so that public administrations, enterprises and citizens
can interact across borders in a pan-European context. The 15 projects visited
which started in 2005 or later were examined to see to what extent they had
taken into account these guidelines.
-
36.The Court assessed these projects for compliance with the principles of:
(a) Accessibility - access was mainly through the internet and in a few cases
other channels of communication, such as mobile phone was used. Most
projects used recommended guidelines18 for the design of web pages and
interfaces. 18 The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international community that develops standards to ensure the long-term growth of the Web.
(http://www.w3.org/standards/)
25
(b) Multilingualism - the front-office services were mainly limited to the national
language(s) and only 17 % of them provided information in more than one
language.
(c) Security and Privacy - the Court found that due consideration had been
given to the problems of security and privacy of data and there was a
proper level of security and compliance with the relevant legislation.
(d) Use of open standards and open software - the use of open standards is
common and many projects could produce and exchange data in various
open formats. Open software is frequently used as it allows IT contractors
to offer a more competitive price. The systems examined were developed
using a mixture of commercial and open source solutions.
Most projects not in line with planning
-
37.The Court examined the project documentation of all 28 visited projects,
assessing project progress compared to planning, implementation procedures
and the quality of project management.
-
38.The vast majority of audited projects delivered their outputs as planned,
however, 82 % (23) were not implemented in line with the planning defined in
the grant application (Figure 3 ). The main reasons for deviations were as
follows:
(a) Planning and design - As a consequence of inadequate or imprecise
planning, issues such as the clarification of objectives and responsibilities
or the recruitment of supplementary staff, had to be dealt with during
implementation.
(b) Procedural - certain procedures were more time consuming than foreseen
in the original planning, most commonly issues related to procurement, or
co-ordination. There were also general administrative delays linked to
bureaucratic procedures, the insufficient empowerment of project teams or
26
(c) Human resources of the small number of public administrations who
decided to develop systems themselves, two lacked staff experienced in IT
project management resulting in project delays and a high turnover of key
personnel.
(d) Exogenous - factors having an impact on deadlines which were not
controllable by project beneficiaries (e.g. behaviour of contractors and their
ability to deliver products, changes to the national legal framework).
Figure 3 - Was the project delivered on time?
Number of projects
35%32 %
30%
25%24 %25 %Yes, ahead of schedule
Yes
20%No, delay < 6 months
15%14 %No, delay 6 to 12 months
No, delay > 1 year to 2 years 10% No, delay > 2 years
5%3 %3 %
0%
Only 35 % of projects were completed on time, and 17 % were delayed by more
than one year.
Source: European Court of Auditors' survey.
-
39.The majority of delays were of less than one year and did not affect project
deliverables or markedly increase overall costs, as most contracts included a
fixed-price clause which protected against cost increases. However, delays of
more than one year combined with the need to finish projects before the
closure of the programme had an adverse impact on three projects leading to a
reduction in scope (see Box 6 ).
27
Box 6 - Example of scope reduction resulting from delays
Electronic Office - Online procedures in the Canary Islands, Spain
The rules for the 2000-2006 programme period required all ERDF co-financed projects
to be completed before the end of 2008. Due to poor planning, the project experienced
a delay of five years, posing a risk that the ERDF grant would have to be returned. To
avoid the loss of EU co-financing ,the original scope of the project had to be
significantly modified .Although they had intended to include over 50 procedures for
electronic processing, the project managers decided to focus on the main two,
accounting for approximately 75 % of the total number of files processed.
-
40.Of the 28 projects visited 10 (36 %) used a project management
methodology. Results from the survey revealed that only 23 % of projects had
been implemented using PMM principles. The Court found that 50 % of visited
projects which had used a recognised PMM had been completed on time and
90 % within budget. In the 18 projects where PMM was not used, only 22 %
were on time and 56 % had kept within budget.
-
41.In one such case, insufficient focus on organisational issues meant that the
IT system that had been developed could not be used. The contracts
necessary for obtaining the data to be input to the system had not been signed
in due time and therefore a technically operational system was redundant.
-
42.Another factor having an impact on the use of systems resulting from
e-Government projects was the commitment of management to exploit the new
solutions and services. These systems often offered new functions beyond
those traditionally provided by public administrations, such as electronic
tendering or personalised user profiles for members of the public. Such
features constitute the main added value of new electronic systems and enable
the modernisation of public administration. However in some cases the benefits
arising from new technology were unrealised (see Box 7 ).
28
Box 7 - Example of unused functions of IT systems
Internet Portal of the Maritime Office in Gdynia, Poland
The computerized system was designed to provide on-line access to services for
customers of the Maritime Office. The system offered a procurement module which
made electronic tendering possible. A feasibility study estimated positive benefits from
the use of electronic tendering and an objective of organising 30 on-line auctions per
year was set but despite full system implementation by the time of the audit visit, no
internet auctions had taken place.
Are the projects useful and durable?
-
43.Maintenance of an IT product refers to the processes needed to sustain it
throughout its operational life cycle including training for key staff and actions
necessary to provide support for users, such as the provision of a help-desk.
-
44.For this part of its audit the Court focused on the following issues:
(a) Usefulness - The final project stage was examined, focusing on how useful
were the project outputs, with an assessment of the actual take-up of new
services and the related economic benefits yielded by the project.
(b) Maintenance an assessment of appropriate project maintenance in the
foreseeable future without EU intervention and an evaluation of the
financial and operational sustainability of projects, taking maintenance into
account.
Expected advantages partially achieved
-
45.Almost all audited projects19 were put into operation shortly after
completion, replacing and digitising many existing internal procedures. Despite 19 The only exception were two cases where due to coordination issues and lack of project ownership the use of systems was indefinitely postponed or completely abandoned.
29
the fact that outputs were achieved projects were less successful at delivering
improved results or positive impacts (Figure 4 ).
Figure 4 - Have all project objectives presented in the application been achieved?
Number of projects
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Output Result Impact
(e.g. number of (e.g. time savings, (e.g. higher
servers, sof tware increased ef f iciency, competitiveness, job
installed, etc.)higher service quality, creation, more cost reduction, etc.)investments, etc.)
N/A 3% 6%31%
Too early to say 2%11%18%
No 0% 0% 4%
Partially 7%23%16%
Yes88%60%31%
In general objectives linked to outputs were met, but there was less success with regard to results and especially impact objectives.
Source: European Court of Auditors' survey.
-
46.It is clear that there is interest within public administrations for the
development of e-Government services but the take up on the part of business
or the general public has remained below the estimates contained in the project
applications. The Court considers that there are a number of reasons cited by
project promoters when interviewed which could explain this:
(a) Electronic identification - Most services carried out by public
administrations require identification. For digital services electronic
identification is normally required but its level of use varies from country to
30
country. In certain Member States such as Spain, the electronic signature
is embedded in the national identification card, therefore access to
identification card readers can become a barrier to its use. Whereas in
Poland, for example, the e-signature is sold as a separate certificate and
therefore cost can limit access to digital services.
(b) Legal framework - Paper based transactions are embedded in our culture
of administration. There are still executive regulations requiring the
presentation of original paper documents, making impossible the full
electronic handling of applications and lessening the potential benefits from
electronic communication.
(c) Access - Although not a problem in some countries and in urban areas,
lack of access to computers and broadband networks still impacts on
service take-up. Computer literacy can also be a problem affecting demand
for electronic services.
-
47.According to the project promoters interviewed, the benefits are particularly
noticeable in organisations where IT systems replaced a significant part of their
standard processes and where they are used by the majority of operational
departments. The benefits stated were the following (Figure 5 ):
(a) Simplification of procedures - IT systems allow for single-access or contact
points where requests are automatically directed to the appropriate
personnel within an organisation and this makes access more
straightforward for the end-user.
(b) Better case monitoring - more sophisticated back-office systems are a
powerful monitoring tool for public bodies. Better information about
workloads and available resources allows for more accurate planning and
better use of human resources.
(c) Time savings - access to centralised files and digital documents allows
quicker response times and eliminates time lag linked to document
31
circulation. It also facilitates access to both current and archived files (see
Box 8 ).
(d) New channels of communication - The internet and e-mail provided new
channels of communication for the exchange of information and allowed
the public to access services in a more convenient and user-friendly way.
Figure 5 - What were the benefits from the project and for whom?
Number of projects
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Better case Increased Easy access to New channels 'Simplified Time savedmonitoring and efficiency of services Increased New services
of proceduresservice qualityoffered transparencyadministrationofferedcommunication
End-users of your services66%83%53%49%84%79%74%12%
Your organisation63%72%73%78%52%71%55%81%
No benefits18% 4%17%12% 8% 7%19% 4%
In the opinion of project managers, the projects delivered a wide range of benefits for users.
Source: European Court of Auditors' survey.
32
Box 8 - Example of efficiency gains
Land Information System for the City Of Lód - Phase V, Poland
This project consisted of the building of a modern portal and system of databases of
geographical information, to provide on-line land and property information on the city
of Lód.
According to calculations made by management, the project has resulted in a
considerable increase in efficiency (20 % to 52 %, across the various departments),
estimated at having a value of approximately 4,5 million PLN in 2009 (ca. 1,1 million
euro). This was in excess of the 3,2 million PLN (ca. 0,8 million euro) estimated in the
Feasibility Study for 2009.
-
48.However the Court considered that in general insufficient attention had been
paid to possible project benefits and the advantages offered by advanced
technology were not fully exploited. In one Italian project, the software
developed was used for internal administrative purposes only although the
planned objective of the project was to extend the electronic service to the end-
user. Moreover, certain projects visited in France and Poland kept paper based
processes running in parallel with IT workflow systems with no defined end
date, leading to duplication and reducing the potential benefits of the IT
development.
-
49.Globally in the absence of project monitoring or measurement of the actual
benefits, it is not possible to determine to what extent new services increased
the quality of public administration. There was only one project in the sample
which could quantify the tangible benefits resulting from the aid granted.
Without such measurement, valuable feedback knowledge is not being built up
and the experience gained from these projects, which could lead to better
planning of future projects, is being lost.
33
In most cases project maintenance was assured
-
50.A significant majority of the projects ensured proper technical and
organisational (e.g. help-desk) maintenance for the systems developed.
Usually maintenance and upgrading were carried-out by contractors during the
warranty period which lasted from one to three years. After this period, the IT
systems were supervised by in house IT Departments or the maintenance was
outsourced, depending on the availability of IT staff in-house. The result of the
survey provides a similar view to that from the projects visited (Figure 6 ).
Figure 6 - Is a maintenance contract in place for your IT product?
The product is under guarantee
7 % 7 % Yes, the contract is/will be signed
25 %
No, the maintenance is ensured by internal IT specialist(s)
19 %
No, we see no need
No, other reasons
42 %
The maintenance for 86 % of the projects was assured by internal IT Departments or outsourced experts.
Source: European Court of Auditors' survey.
-
51.Where planning of the full project life cycle was included in a "Cost Benefit
Analysis", maintenance costs were budgeted for. In those cases there was little
risk for project continuity as beneficiaries had anticipated the resources
required. However in three cases, underestimation of maintenance costs posed
34
a risk to projects being put into use or continuing. Failure to factor in
maintenance costs meant that beneficiaries were unable to finance operational
costs in whole or in part and in one case, caused the project to shutdown after
the warranty period (see Box 9 ).
Box 9 - Impact of maintenance costs on project sustainability
e-Government: Centre for services to citizens and businesses and infrastructure
services in Sicily, Italy
The aim of the project was to establish a technological infrastructure, shared by
57 participating bodies, and to implement a number of IT applications for the joint
management of a raft of e-Government services.
The system was developed and became operational in April 2007. As the maintenance
costs and its allocation between the participating bodies had not been foreseen at the
planning stage, in May 2008, the application was shut down.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
-
52.The Court concluded that the e-Government projects supported by the
ERDF have contributed to the development of electronic public services in the
four selected Member States. However, despite the fact that the majority of
projects are technically operational, insufficient focus on project results has
meant that the benefits obtained were much lower than expected.
-
53.The recommendations below have relevance for the European Commission
as responsible for the execution of the budget and for the application of the
principle of sound financial management and Member States' Managing
Authorities in the context of e-Government actions for the remainder of the
2007-2013 Programme Period and for the design of future
e-Government or similar schemes.
35
-
54.The Court's conclusions and recommendations related to each of the audit
sub-questions are as follows:
Have the co-financed projects been selected according to assessed
needs?
-
55.Despite the fact that e-Government programming at national level gradually
improved during the 2000-2006 programme period, weaknesses in early
strategies meant that the co-funded projects did not focus on addressing
priority needs for e-Government development.
-
56.This is mainly due to the following:
(a) Early e-Government strategies were prepared mainly in response to
political declarations instead of a rigorous needs assessment. As a result
strategies and their objectives were unable to address the most important
and urgent issues which could unlock and boost e-Government
development (see paragraph 20).
(b) When projects were pre-selected centrally, there was little or no evaluation
of the costs or benefits of projects or their potential impacts and results.
(see paragraph 25).
(c) In cases where insufficient consideration was given to the capacity of
project teams, in terms of skills and resources, to deliver e-Government
systems as planned, this resulted in significant scope reductions (see
paragraph 26).
Recommendation 1
(a) Member States should develop strategies for e-Government, which are
based upon identified needs, have clear objectives and assign
responsibilities to the bodies accountable for the achievement of these
36
(b) Managing Authorities should select e-Government projectsfor ERDF
support on thebasis of an assessment of likely project costs and benefits.
Were projects well designed and delivered as planned?
-
57.The projects audited achieved results in the areas of increasing the
availability of electronic public services and in the development of technical
means within public authorities.
-
58.Project outputs, although generally delivered, were often delivered late or
with a reduction in scope due to poor design or lack of an implementation
methodology. The main identified systemic problems were as follows:
(a) Most project promoters failed to identify and quantify project benefits and
as a result objectives were mainly set in terms of outputs. In consequence,
project benefits (see paragraph 32) were rarely completely achieved and
the possibilities given by new technologies were not exploited to the full.
This reduced the potential benefits of projects for
end-users (see paragraph 46). Organisational and administrative issues,
when addressed, often proved more difficult to resolve than technical
problems (see paragraph 33 and 34).
(b) In many cases, the lack of a project management methodology in addition
to inadequate planning impacted negatively on project implementation,
causing delays or scope modifications. Visited projects which used PMM
performed better in terms of being completed on time and on budget (see
paragraph 40).
(c) Most of the EIF principles were well addressed in the design of projects,
however consideration should be given to the provision of services in more
than one language when this is of assistance to significant user groups
37
Recommendation 2
(a) Managing Authorities in Member States should ensure that e-Government
projects selected for ERDF funding focus not only on project outputs but
also on the changes in processes or organisation necessary to fully benefit
from the systems developed.
(b) Managing Authorities should emphasise the practical application of best
practice and strongly recommend the use of an appropriate project
management methodology for e-Government projects in receipt of ERDF
funding.
(c) The Commission should ensure that the EU principles and
recommendations enabling trans-European interoperability, in particular the
EIF principles, are considered by projects benefiting from the ERDF, in
order to increase the European added value of a project and facilitate
further EU-wide systems integration.
Are the projects useful and durable?
-
59.Most of the projects audited were technologically sound and the IT
applications developed provided electronic services to public bodies, citizens
and businesses. In general, the systems co-financed by the ERDF, were
appropriately maintained and financially sustainable.
-
60.However, many projects did not deliver all of the expected benefits to end
users and indeed the quantification of results, in any precise way, was usually
not possible. This situation was mainly due to the following:
(a) Organisations rarely re-configured their processes or structures to take
optimum advantage of the possibilities created by the new systems. In
38
some cases extra work was created by running paper and electronic
versions of the same process in parallel. (see paragraph 48);
(b) Underestimation of maintenance costs or the failure to take them into
account at all put a financial strain on projects and in three cases posed a
risk to their continued operation (see paragraph 51).
(c) There was little or no project follow-up providing management information
related to project results. The lack of such data makes proper project
evaluation impossible and prevents the accumulation of experience which
can lead to better e-Government project design in the future (see
paragraph 49).
Recommendation 3
(a) When selecting e-Government projects, Managing Authorities should
ensure that all significant costs, including maintenance have been
sufficiently provided for in the cost-benefit analysis which should underpin
the financing decision.
(b) The Commission should ensure that Managing Authorities monitor and
evaluate project results and impacts in order to demonstrate the effective
use of EU funding and provide important feedback to improve the design of
future programmes.
This Report was adopted by Chamber II, headed by Mr Morten LEVYSOHN,
Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 13 July 2011.
For the Court of Auditors
Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA
REPLIES OF THE COMMISSIO TO THE SPECIAL REPORT OF THE COURT OF AUDITORS
"HAVE THE E-GOVER ME T PROJECTS SUPPORTED BY ERDF BEE EFFECTIVE?"
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. E-Government practices and applications have developed rapidly over the last decade as the understanding of its rapidly changing potential and rapid changes in supporting technologies have been progressively understood by public authorities across Europe.
In the years 2000-2005, e-Government was mainly about back office automation in transactional services. Today it is still about efficiency, administrative burden reduction, and better public services, but the emphasis is shifting towards user-driven public services which enhance transparency, participation and accountability.
All Member States have now committed to ambitious objectives set out in the e- Government Action Plan 2011-2015, namely by 2015, 50 % of EU citizens and 80 %
of EU enterprises will have used e-Government services, while a number of key cross- border services will be available on line, enabling citizens mobility and business to benefit from the Internal Market. Solid commitment by Member States to cross-border services has in turn new implications on the way e-Government ERDF projects will be selected in the future.
II. The projects examined by the Court were selected for funding by the Managing Authorities in the four Member States concerned. The 28 projects visited represent 1,9 % of total ERDF allocated to ICT projects overall and 4,2 % of ICT allocations reported in the four Member States concerned. Furthermore, the Commission would like to point out that e-Government actions receive financial support from other EU programmes, such as Framework Programmes for research and development.
IV. The Commission welcomes the Court's assessment that e-Government projects supported by the ERDF have contributed to the development of electronic public services. The development of e-Government applications followed earlier efforts to use ICT by private enterprises. The private sector's efforts also suffered difficulties in achieving the intended benefits. Such shortcomings are not unusual when major innovations are being introduced.
However, looking at the maximisation of benefits from early e-Government projects, there is today a well advanced level of public eServices available in the Member States.
V.
(a) Certain delays or uncertainties in the setting of priorities are not unusual in an area undergoing rapid development. The Commission recognises initial weaknesses at national level to draft coherent and targeted strategies. This does not mean that all the projects did not address an important need but rather that there were weak mechanisms to prioritise projects and therefore it is difficult to establish that the projects were indeed the most important.
Today, all Member States have developed more sophisticated e-Government strategies, as demonstrated through their participation in the e-Government High Level Group just established by the European Commission as a means of joint governance (European Commission with Member States) of the e-Government Action Plan 2011-2015.
(b) These were indeed weaknesses identified in the years 2000-2005.
Keeping up with technological changes was and continues to be a major challenge in terms of anticipating needs and maintaining stable services.
(c) The Commission welcomes the Court's conclusion that most audited projects were technologically sound and developed IT applications providing electronic services to public bodies, businesses and citizens.
Although measurement of project benefits may not have been fully in place at the period of the audited projects, the Commission notes in a more general perspective that under the e-Government Action Plan 2006 2010 significant work was done on the effectiveness and efficiency gains achieved from e-Government services. For example, public e-Procurement projects were launched in almost all Member States administrations because they had the potential to save billions of Euros in the EU's public sector.
VI.
(a) The Commission agrees on the need for comprehensive e-Government strategies and can confirm that now all Member States have more mature strategies in place. However, such a process takes time and the cost of migrating to e-Government is huge. Priorities are needed and it is reasonable that they were provided by political statements and declarations, which served as early strategies. Priorities were based on the knowledge and availability of mature technology of the time. Priority setting has improved significantly in the interim.
(b) The Commission supports the Court's recommendation that selection should be on the basis of an assessment of likely project costs and benefits, where quantification is feasible or meaningful. It will continue to encourage Member States to assess projects on the basis of likely costs and benefits. Both qualitative and quantitative benefits should be considered (e.g. transparency and accountability is a major achievement of Open Government projects).
(c) The Commission supports this recommendation and will continue to encourage Member States to assess projects not only on the basis of outputs but also on the basis of improvements to processes and organisation.
(d) The Commission supports this recommendation and has worked to capture a large amount of experience and make good practices available, in particular via the e- Practice community (www.epractice.eu). This community and the portal are resources for good practice exchange, which should help to design sound projects, based on learning from the experience of others across the EU. The e-Practice community includes about 150 000 members with more than 1 500 project cases from 32 countries. The quality of individual project management by recipients remains a concern in some cases which is being addressed through capacity building programmes.
(e) To monitor and encourage respect of the EIF principles, the Commission has set up an observatory in 2009 to monitor the development of national interoperability frameworks (NIFO). Many Member States have already developed such frameworks, notably since the availability of the EIF version 1.0 of November 2004. Moreover the EU e-Government Action Plan includes actions to ensure that Member States align their national interoperability frameworks to the EIF and European Interoperability Strategy (EIS) adopted by the Commission in December 2010. Furthermore, actions have been launched since 2007 within the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP PSP) specifically to address interoperability between Member States. The EIF principles were rather well respected in projects developed after 2005.
(f) The Commission agrees that the recommendation to consider all significant cost when assessing investment decisions represents good practice and would support the development of sustainable projects.
In 2002 the Commission produced a guide to cost benefit analysis for Structural Funds Managing Authorities, which has since been revised in 2008 (http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/guides/cost/guide2008_en.pdf). Under Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 a CBA was a specific requirement in relation to major project defined under Article 25.
(g) In the framework of shared management, Member States and the Commission share responsibilities for monitoring and evaluating assistance from the Funds. According to Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006, Member States are responsible for monitoring and carrying out ex ante and ongoing evaluations of programmes, while the Commission is responsible for ex post evaluations. In this context, the Commission encourages and supports Managing Authorities in fulfilling their duties.
I TRODUCTIO
-
1.The definition of e-Government has evolved in recent years. While in the early 2000's, e-Government was mainly about back office automation in transactional services, today, it encompasses a wider spectrum of activities and services. It includes user-driven public services which enhance transparency, participation and accountability, relates also to cross-border services and aims at improving efficiency and effectiveness in public services.
At EU level the e-Government policy development had three milestones: in 2003 the first Communication on the role of e-Government was produced; in 2005 the first EU e-Government Action Plan was adopted for the period 2006-2010; in 2010 a new European e-Government Action Plan has been adopted for the period 2011-2015.
-
2.Implementing the Ministerial Declaration on e-Government (Malmö Declaration) adopted unanimously in November 2009 by the Member States, the EU e-Government Action Plan 2011-2015 includes in one of its priority 'Efficiency and effectiveness of Governments and Administrations' and related actions notably on the reduction of administrative burdens. This, however, is only one of the action lines in one of the four priorities. The other three priorities include: User empowerment, Internal Market and Preconditions for developing e-Government.
-
3.In 2004, when the Commission published the European Interoperability Framework (EIF), Member States could follow the principles included therein, but there was no legal obligation. In addition, in December 2010, the Commission Communication on the EIS (European Interoperability Strategy) was adopted, including the EIF as an annex.
Many Member States continue to develop national frameworks for improving interoperability and are also encouraged to align their national interoperability frameworks by the current EU e-Government Action Plan 2011-2015.
4.-5. The EU developed both the FP6 programme and the e-TEN programme in order to achieve the Lisbon objectives in the field of e-Government, among other fields.
For a complete view of developments as of today, the Commission draws attention to the 2010 Digital Agenda for Europe, which provides for nine actions with respect to e- Government, a Ministerial Declaration on e-Government adopted in Malmö in November 2009, and an Action Plan adopted by the Commission in December 2010 and by the Council on May 2011.
-
7.Since 2000, the Commission and the Member States have indeed made significant progress in coordinating action and exchanging good practice. Benchmarking reports available on the Commission's internet portal show significant progress by all Member States in the adoption of new technologies at government level.
Box 1 The Service Directive
The Commission worked closely with Member States to see effective implementation of the Points of Single Contact. This implied working both at political level and technical level. In parallel, in 2008 the Commission launched the Large Scale Pilot project SPOCS (http://www.eu-spocs.eu ) within the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP PSP) which helps to create the next generation of Points of Single Contact.
-
8.The CIP PSP programme is also an important instrument to engage Member States in working closely together to deploy interoperable services in Europe. E-Practice, the platform for e-Governmental practitioners, is also a vital tool for the exchange of good practice.
-
9.The Court points out that there are no aggregate figures for EU investment in e- Government in the period 2000-06 across the different EU funded programmes.
In the case of the ERDF, 6 728 million euro was reported as allocated through shared management programmes to ICT measures (infrastructure, e-Government and ICT for businesses). Within the agreed information system the ICT heading includes several more specific codes where Managing Authorities are encouraged to provide more precise information on the intended or actual use of funds. However there is no specific code limited to e-Government administrative projects the subject of the Court's audit.
AUDIT SCOPE A D APPROACH
-
13.The Commission considers e-Government in the context of ERDF to cover a wide range of different public applications of ICT, i.e. e-education, e-health, e-inclusion etc. Furthermore, the Commission would like to point out that e-Government actions receive financial support from other EU programmes, such as Framework Programmes for research and development.
-
15.(d) The sample of projects visited by the Court represents 4,2 % of all ICT allocations reported in these four Member States and 1,9 % of all reported ERDF ICT allocations.
OBSERVATIO S
-
20.In many Member States, implementation mostly occurred within the period 2005- 2009. As a result, the majority of projects were executed in the framework of better planned strategies.
Furthermore, it is understandable to a certain extent that early strategies were not fully detailed and determined only broad lines, as the extent of ICT services for e- Government could not be immediately anticipated.
-
21.Political guidelines are needed to attract funding. Nevertheless the declarations were turned into effective actions in 2006. In some other Member States not audited they had their own action plans already at the beginning of the programming period, focusing on transforming administration while at the same time deploying ICT infrastructure.
-
22.By way of complementing the observations of the Court the Commission wishes to draw attention to the Benchmarking reports on e-Government. In particular the reports of 2005 and of 2006 provide information as to the progress all Member States have made
in the implementation of e-Government services. (http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/benchmarking/index_en.htm)
(a) At the beginning of 2000, the priorities in administrations were to transform practices and to be "online". The assessed needs were about providing information. Only afterwards the services to be developed expanded into offering services where the users' needs started to become a more central factor. The Commission recognises the initial weaknesses in national strategies. It also points out that uncertainties in the setting of priorities are not unusual in an area undergoing rapid development.
While keeping up with technological changes was and continues to be a major challenge the Commission notes that significant progress has been made to define European and national strategies. Since 2006, Member States and the Commission have worked together to coordinate actions better and to exchange good practice.
(b) In order to ensure better coordination of the different measures required for effective e-Government some Member States have nominated a national Chief Information Officer, in charge of coordinating all actions. However, not all Member States support this approach.
Box 3 Example of unclear assignment of responsibilities
For the period 2007-2013, e-Government actions at the national level are concentrated in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which is responsible for the Information Society in Poland. Further co-ordination of the different efforts to deliver e-Poland between national and regional governments needs to be made.
Box 4 An example of methodological support
The Commission also draws attention to examples of methodological support, central coordination and coherent e-Government policy developments in other Member States, beyond Italy and CNIPA. For example, in Belgium there is FEDICT, in Estonia there is the e-Government Academy, in Austria there is a Chief Information Officer (CIO) who supervises and coordinates the whole e-Government development, etc.
25.
(a)National and regional Managing Authorities sometimes select "strategic projects" on the basis that a specific project is deemed essential and/or can only be conducted by the responsible public authority (i.e. a land registry). In the absence of competition the challenge is to ensure good preparation and timely delivery.
(b) Effectively, this procedure aims at selecting the better prepared projects and at ensuring transparency and equal treatment.
The selection of projects through this procedure can lead to delays, as it involves multiple steps and potential appeals.
-
26.Delays in implementation have been the main problem in this field in Poland in the period 2007-2013. The Commission understands that the Polish authorities are currently using a PRINCE method (a structured project management method endorsed by the UK government as the project management standard for public projects) to ensure the appropriate project management and timely implementation.
-
30.The Community rules did not specify the type of selection procedures, nor the level of detail of project objectives required in order to give a grant. In the framework of shared management, it was up to the Member States to set the detailed provisions for the selection of projects.
-
31.In the framework of shared management, the national authorities are responsible for defining the rules on documentation.
-
32.Establishing suitable objectives, targets and result indicators is a sound condition for delivering effective and efficient outcomes. However, establishing suitable objectives, targets and indicators at project level does not guarantee delivery unless the projects are accompanied by sound management capacity and quality control system for monitoring.
The Commission also makes reference to the achievements of benchmarking in these years. Even today information on cost savings is not abundant and the Commission will shortly launch a study to analyse the cost/benefit of cross-border e-Government services (among other).
-
33.This was indeed one of the problems identified in the years 2000-2010. Today the approach of public administrations is more focussed on rethinking processes in view of re-engineering procedures to make better use of technology. The EU e-Government Action Plan 2011-15 includes an action focussing on the need to address organisational processes.
-
34.The availability of appropriate skills and in sufficient quantities is another major factor affecting final outcomes of e-Government projects in the period under examination. Another success factor is the qualitative (not only the quantitative) aspect, e.g. improvements in transparency and accountability in the public sector can be as important as completing a project on time.
E-Government solutions often require close cooperation among departments and failure to do so may lead to the issues noted by the Court. In addition, the technology available at the time was not able to offer effective, flexible ways to achieve workflow between departments. Data exchange also was limited due to uncertainty about (or barriers linked to) data privacy issues.
-
36.(b) Even today, multilingualism is not addressed in a satisfactory way and the Commission considers that further efforts are needed in this area.
-
38.While initial project plans proved to have different weaknesses, the majority of delays were of less than one year and did not affect project deliverables or markedly increase overall costs. Therefore while planning in these new areas of public activity had weaknesses, the consequences in delays and costs appear to have been limited in most cases.
46.
The Commission notes that more generally the take-up of e-Government services depends primarily on their availability and progress in digital literacy. In the period 2001 to 2006 the availability of key e-Government services more than doubled in France (from 25 to 65 %) and Italy (from 15 to 58 %) and significantly increased in Spain (from 30 to 55 %). (see: Online Availability of Public Services: How is Europe Progressing? 2006 Report, study done by Capgemini for the European Commission.) Real progress in take-up has been observed after 2006.
(a) eID is one of the pre-conditions for e-Government services recognised in the first e- Government Action Plan (2006 2010). As an example, the Spanish eID (electronic Identity) was launched only in 2006. There has been significant progress in the field of eID since then. eID is today one of the top priorities of the Commission's work with the Member States. A Large Scale Pilot Project (CIP ICT PSP) was launched in 2008 (STORK - https://www.eid-stork.eu/) specifically on cross border recognition of eID.
(b) Apart from eID, commented on above, there are several other key preconditions for fully digital services on which progress is made in parallel, e.g. the update of the Public Procurement Directive in 2011 will address e-Procurement issues.
(c ) Inclusive e-Government has been a priority since 2005. Within the FP6 and the e-TEN programme many actions were launched in this area.
-
49.The Commission draws attention to the extensive work done on the issue of efficiency and effectiveness of e-Government services. This issue has been a core focus of the e-Government Action Plan 2006-2010. A study was launched by DG INFSO in 2005 on a measurement Framework. Also, there is an informative debate on this in the European Journal of e-Practice (http://www.epractice.eu/en/journal/volume/4).
CO CLUSIO S A D RECOMME DATIO S
-
52.The Commission welcomes the Court's positive conclusion that the e-Government projects supported by the ERDF have contributed to the development of electronic public services in the four selected Member States. The development of e-Government applications followed the private sector's application of ICT with a time lag. Early efforts to use ICT by private enterprises also suffered from difficulties in achieving the intended benefits. Such shortcomings are unfortunately not unusual when major innovations are being introduced.
In the years 2000-2005, the priority for most administrations was to modernise the back office and to be "online". Today, while e-administration is still about efficiency, administrative burden reduction, and better public services, the emphasis is shifting towards user-driven public services which enhance transparency, participation and accountability. Many of today's normal practices were not mature enough at the time.
-
53.The main recommendations have already been addressed in Commission policy documents, e.g. the needs assessment is a core pre-requisite for user-driven services, the managerial maturity in the public sector in the field of e-Government has increased significantly (in some countries this is co-ordinated at the Prime Ministers' office), and project sustainability is increasingly an internal project variable (not an ex-post consideration).
-
55.It is regrettable, if understandable to a certain extent, that early strategies were not fully detailed and determined only broad objectives of national e-Government policies. The extent of ICT services for e-Government could not be immediately anticipated and indeed under-went major technological evolution. It must be noted that the more detailed EU guidelines were issued towards the end of the period covered by the audit.
Today, all Member States have developed more sophisticated e-Government strategies, as demonstrated through their participation in the e-Government Group just established by the European Commission as a means of joint governance (European Commission with Member States) of the e-Government Action Plan 2011-2015.
56.
(a) The cost of migrating to e-Government is very high. Priorities are needed and it is reasonable that they are provided by political statements and declarations, which served to raise awareness and as early strategies. Priorities were based on the knowledge and available mature technologies of the time. This does not mean that all the projects did not address an important need but rather that there were weak mechanisms to prioritise projects and therefore it is difficult to establish that the projects were indeed the most important.
Priority setting has improved significantly in the interim and today all Member States have developed more sophisticated e-Government strategies.
(c) Such shortcomings are not unusual when major innovations are being introduced. Technical capacities are now better addressed through initiatives such as the e-practice portal.
Recommendation 1
(a) Since 2006, Member States and the Commission have worked together to coordinate actions better, and to exchange good practice. Today, all Member States have developed more sophisticated e-Government strategies, as demonstrated through their participation in the e-Government Group just established by the European Commission as a means of joint governance (European Commission with Member States) of the e-Government Action Plan 2011-2015. While the dominant paradigm in e-Government strategies today is indeed the design of user-driven services, the level of detail of the national strategies is decided in the Member States.
(b) The Commission is supportive of this recommendation and will continue to encourage Member States to assess projects on the basis of likely costs and benefits. Both qualitative and quantitative benefits should be considered (e.g. transparency and accountability is a major achievement of Open Government projects).
-
57.The Commission welcomes the positive conclusion that projects audited achieved results in the areas of increasing the availability of electronic public services and in the development of technical means within public authorities.
-
58.These were indeed weaknesses recognised by the Commission in the years 2000- 2005.
However, such shortcomings are not unusual when major innovations are being introduced. Keeping up with technological changes was and continues to be a major challenge in terms of anticipating needs and maintaining stable services.
Recommendation 2
(a) The Commission is supportive of this recommendation and will continue to encourage Member States to assess projects not only on the basis of outputs but also on the basis of improvements to processes and organisation.
(b) The Commission draws the attention of Managing Authorities to the fact that a large amount of experience and good practice is available nowadays via e.g. the e- Practice community (www.epractice.eu) which helps to design sound projects and learn from the experience of others across the EU. The e-Practice community has about 150 000 members with more than 1 500 project cases from 32 countries.
(c) In December 2010, the European Interoperability Strategy and EIF were adopted by the Commission in a Communication. Nevertheless, the EIF has been intensively used by Member States and the Commission when launching actions (e.g. large-scale pilots within the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme - CIP PSP). The Commission will continue to encourage its application, also in ERDF-funded projects.
-
59.The Commission welcomes this positive conclusion that most of the projects audited were technologically sound and the IT applications developed provided electronic services to public bodies, citizens and businesses.
60.
(a) Today the approach to e-Government is more explicit in rethinking processes in view of reengineering procedures to make best use of technologies available, and such internal practises can only be adapted progressively.
Recommendation 3
(a) The Commission agrees that this recommendation represents good practice and would clearly support the development of sustainable projects.
The Commission recalls that, in general, ERDF support is used to finance design, construction and establishment of e-Government system and does not support operating costs.
(b) The Commission encourages and supports Managing Authorities in carrying out their responsibilities for monitoring and carrying out ex ante and ongoing evaluations of operational programmes.
- 15 dec '10COM(2010)743 - Europees actieplan e-overheid 2011-2015 Benutten van de ICT om een slimme, duurzame en innovatieve overheid te bevorderen
- 25 apr '06COM(2006)173 - I2010-actieplan voor de elektronische overheid - Versnelde invoering van de elektronische overheid voor het nut van iedereen
- 1 jun '05COM(2005)229 - "i2010 – Een Europese informatiemaatschappij voor groei en werkgelegenheid"
- 14 jul '04COM(2004)492 - Algemene bepalingen inzake het Europees Fonds voor Regionale Ontwikkeling, het Europees Sociaal Fonds en het Cohesiefonds
- 13 jan '04COM(2004)2 - Diensten op de interne markt [SEC(2004) 21]
- 26 sep '03COM(2003)567 - Rol van de elektronische overheid (eGovernment) voor de toekomst van Europa [SEC(2003) 1038]
- 8 jul '03COM(2003)406 - Interoperabele levering van pan-Europese e-overheidsdiensten aan overheidsdiensten, ondernemingen en burgers (IDABC)
- 13 mrt '01COM(2001)140 - EEurope 2002: Effecten en prioriteiten Mededeling aan de Europese Raad van Stockholm, 23-24 maart 2001
- 18 mrt '98COM(1998)131 - Algemene bepalingen inzake de Structuurfondsen
