Institute at the University of Bremen
Reorganisation of
Government Back Offices for
Better Electronic Public Services – European Good Practices
(Back-office reorganisation)
Final Report to the European Commission
January 2004
Main Report
Prepared by
Jeremy Millard and Jonas Svava Iversen
Danish Technological Institute
Herbert Kubicek, Hilmar Westholm and Ralf Cimander,
Institut für Informationsmanagement GmbH, University of Bremen
Danish Technological Institute & Institut für Informationsmanagement Bremen January 2004
CONTENTS
Main report 5
1 Executive summary 5
2 Introduction and background 7
2.1 Context of study 7
2.1.1 eGovernment 7
2.1.2 eGovernment benchmarking 7
2.1.3 eEurope 2005 Action Plan 10
2.1.4 European eGovernment Conference, July 2003 10
2.2 The importance of back-office reorganisation for electronic public services 11
2.3 Organisation of the study 12
3 Objectives 13
4 Methodology and approach 14
4.1 Concepts and definitions 14
4.1.1 Understanding back-office reorganisation 14
4.1.2 Definition of back-office reorganisation 14
4.1.3 Two basic dimensions: stages and services 14
4.1.4 Institutional configuration 15
4.1.5 Four models of back-office reorganisation 16
4.2 Methodological steps 18
4.2.1 Web-search 19
4.2.2 Telephone interviews 19
4.2.3 In-depth face-to-face interviews and research 20
5 Highlight results 22
5.1 Overview of services 22
5.2 Major good practice strategies 24
5.3 Major good practice issues 25
5.4 Good practice by service cluster 25
5.5 Good practice cases 26
6 Major good practice strategies 27
6.1 Digitisation of largely unchanged back-offices 27
6.2 Deep reorganisation of back-offices 29
6.3 Centralisation of back-office and de-centralisation of front-office functions 31
6.4 Back-office clearing house 34
6.5 Generic types of interaction between user and agency 35
6.6 Portals 37
6.7 Pro-active services 40
6.8 Greater user responsibility and control 42
7 Major good practice issues 46
7.1 Meeting user needs and expectations 46
7.1.1 Service design 46
7.1.2 User support 48
7.1.3 Marketing and take-up 49
7.2 Managing change and human resources 51
7.2.1 Management and decision-making 52
7.2.2 The locus of pressure for change 53
7.2.3 Public-private partnerships 54
7.2.4 A phased implementation process 56
7.2.5 Human resources 57
7.3 Costs and efficiencies 58
7.3.1 Cost-benefit analysis and impact measurement 59
7.3.2 Costs and staff savings 59
7.3.3 Assessment, quality control and measuring impact 60
7.4 Institutional and legal structures 61
7.4.1 Legal and regulatory conditions 61
7.4.2 Pressure from legal changes 62
7.4.3 Cultural and institutional dependencies 63
7.5 Technology issues 63
7.5.1 Standards and interoperability 64
7.5.2 Identity management 66
7.5.3 On-line payments 69
7.5.4 Data security 70
8 Good practice by service cluster 71
8.1 Citizen income tax 72
8.1.1 Background goals and drivers 72
8.1.2 Case overview 74
8.1.3 Implementation 75
8.1.4 Results and benefits 78
8.1.5 Lessons and good practice 79
8.2 Citizen car registration 84
8.2.1 Background goals and drivers 84
8.2.2 Case overview 85
8.2.3 Implementation 85
8.2.4 Results and benefits 87
8.2.5 Lessons and good practice 88
8.3 Citizen certificates 91
8.3.1 Background goals and drivers 91
8.3.2 Case overview 92
8.3.3 Implementation 92
8.3.4 Results and benefits 94
8.3.5 Lessons and good practice 95
8.4 Citizen family allowances 97
8.4.1 Background goals and drivers 97
8.4.2 Case overview 99
8.4.3 Implementation 99
8.4.4 Results and benefits 102
8.4.5 Lessons and good practice 104
8.5 Citizen student grants 107
8.5.1 Background goals and drivers 107
8.5.2 Case overview 108
8.5.3 Implementation 108
8.5.4 Results and benefits 111
8.5.5 Lessons and good practice 112
8.6 Citizen social benefits – public libraries and declaration to police 116
8.6.1 Background goals and drivers 116
8.6.2 Case overview 117
8.6.3 Implementation 117
8.6.4 Results and benefits 119
8.6.5 Lessons and good practice 121
8.7 Citizen building permission 122
8.7.1 Background goals and drivers 122
8.7.2 Case overview 123
8.7.3 Implementation 124
8.7.4 Results and benefits 126
8.7.5 Lessons and good practice 127
8.8 Citizen enrolment in higher education 129
8.8.1 Background goals and drivers 129
8.8.2 Case overview 131
8.8.3 Implementation 131
8.8.4 Results and benefits 136
8.8.5 Lessons and good practice 138
8.9 Citizen portals 141
8.9.1 Background goals and drivers 141
8.9.2 Case overview 142
8.9.3 Implementation 142
8.9.4 Results and benefits 143
8.9.5 Lessons and good practice 144
8.10 Business social contributions for employees 145
8.10.1 Background goals and drivers 145
8.10.2 Case overview 146
8.10.3 Implementation 146
8.10.4 Results and benefits 148
8.10.5 Lessons and good practice 149
8.11 Business corporation tax and VAT 150
8.11.1 Background goals and drivers 150
8.11.2 Case overview 152
8.11.3 Implementation 152
8.11.4 Results and benefits 155
8.11.5 Lessons and good practice 157
8.12 Business customs declaration 158
8.12.1 Background goals and drivers 158
8.12.2 Case overview 159
8.12.3 Implementation 159
8.12.4 Results and benefits 161
8.12.5 Lessons and good practice 162
8.13 Business registration 163
8.13.1 Background goals and drivers 163
8.13.2 Case overview 164
8.13.3 Implementation 164
8.13.4 Results and benefits 165
8.13.5 Lessons and good practice 165
8.14 Business public procurement 166
8.14.1 Background goals and drivers 166
8.14.2 Case overview 167
8.14.3 Implementation 167
8.14.4 Results and benefits 168
8.14.5 Lessons and good practice 169
8.15 Business environmental-related permits 171
8.15.1 Background goals and drivers 171
8.15.2 Case overview 172
8.15.3 Implementation 172
8.15.4 Results and benefits 174
8.15.5 Lessons and good practice 175
8.16 Business portals 176
8.16.1 Background goals and drivers 176
8.16.2 Case overview 176
8.16.3 Implementation 176
8.16.4 Results and benefits 178
8.16.5 Lessons and good practice 178
9 Transferability of good practice in eGovernment 180
9.1 Good practice in eGovernment 180
9.2 Good practice transferability framework 180
10 Conclusions and recommendations 182
10.1 Conclusions 182
10.2 Recommendations 183
10.2.1 eGovernment decision-makers: downsize the back-office, upsize the front-office 183
10.2.2 European Commission: establish a good practice exchange framework for eGovernment 184
ANNEXES (available as separate documents)
1. On-line check list and manual
2. Telephone interview questionnaire and instructions
3. Tables for 9 service types with criteria and reasons for selection
4. Case study report template and face-to-face interview guidelines
5. Tables with national responsibilities for service delivery
6. European good practice case studies
Main report
1 Executive summary
This report presents and analyses the detailed results of one of the first studies at European level to systematically research how public agencies are using ICT to reorganise, and the impact this has upon how electronic public services are experienced by citizens and business – in other words, on the changing relationship between the front and back- office.
Overall result
The study demonstrates that there is a clear and strong link between reorganising government back-offices and the electronic public services experienced by users. Back-office reorganisation thus matters a great deal:
· within public sector agency(ies) by reducing costs, increasing productivity, more flexibility, simpler organisational structures, greater interoperability, improving staff working conditions, etc.
· at the front-end for users by reducing the number of offices to visit, leading to faster, cheaper more accessible services, fewer errors, more transparency, new possibilities, greater ease of use and greater user control.
Purpose and background
The study is sponsored by the European Commission as a ‘benchmarking’ exercise to support the eEurope and Lisbon Strategy processes. It attempts to fill the yawning gap represented by much attention being focused on documenting the roll-out of electronic public services, but very little focused upon how government, its various agencies and (back) offices, is, or should be, adapting and reorganising to meet the challenges and opportunities presented by ICT.
This study attempts to fill this gap by drawing upon a large scale survey across the EU Members States (plus Iceland, Norway and the European Commission itself) based upon eEurope’s common list of 20 basic public services (see section 2.1.2), culminating in 29 in-depth case studies. The survey and the case studies reflect the many good practices found, i.e. clear and beneficial links between back-office reorganisation and improvements to front-office services.
Structure of report
The study is divided into eight main sections, apart from this executive summary.
Section 2: Introduction and background – provides an overview of the study context, the importance of back-office reorganisation for electronic public services, and the organisation of the study.
Section 3: Objectives – summarises the study objectives and relates them to the European Commission’s stated eGovernment goals.
Section 4: Methodology and approach – describes the overall methodology adopted, based upon a series of concepts and definitions.
Section 5: Highlight results – summarises the main results of the study and links to the detailed results and analysis elsewhere in the report.
Section 6: presents and exemplifies eight major good practice strategy options currently being pursued within the most advanced European eGovernment initiatives:
1. Digitisation of largely unchanged back-offices
2. Deep reorganisation of back-offices
3. Centralisation of back-office and de-centralisation of front-office functions
4. Back-office clearing house
5. Generic types of interaction between user and agency
6. Portals
7. Pro-active services
8. Greater user responsibility and control
Section 7: Major good practice issues – describes and exemplifies a series of major issues which seem to be critically related to good practice regardless of the type of strategy mix being pursued.
1. Meeting user needs and expectations
2. Managing change and human resources
3. Costs and efficiencies
4. Institutional and legal structures
5. Technology issues
Section 8: Good practice by service cluster – presents good practice reports on 16 clusters of services.
Section 9: Transferability of good practice in eGovernment – discusses the notion of good practice in eGovernment and presents an example of a strategy transfer matrix.
Section 10: Conclusions and recommendations – provides an overall conclusion to the study and presents two recommendations, one each for eGovernment decision makers and the European Commission.
In addition, six annexes are available as separate documents:
Annex 1: On-line check list and manual
Annex 2: Telephone interview questionnaire and instructions
Annex 3: Tables for 9 service types with criteria and reasons for selection
Annex 4: Case study report template and face-to-face interview guidelines
Annex 5: Tables with national responsibilities for service delivery
Annex 6: European good practice case studies.
A note on case study selection
The 29 in-depth case studies presented in this report illustrate a very large number of good practice strategies, indeed that is why they were selected. They each exemplify different aspects of good practice, both as regard back-office re-organisation and front-office service delivery, and can provide an excellent basis for comparing and analysing good practice in eGovernment through a learning process which emphasises dialogue and the exchange of experiences and good ideas, rather than direct replication as each case and its context and circumstances are different and cannot be directly transferred on a one-to-one basis to other places or other times.
It must be stressed that the 29 cases selected and analysed in this study as European good practices have not been ranked against each other or against those not selected. Indeed, non-selection does not imply unsuitability or inferiority in any way. Selection took place in order to obtain a balance of countries, institutional and service types, within the time and resources available for the study. It was also affected by access to case material, relevant personnel and data. Thus, the 29 cases should be seen as representing European rather than national good practice, given that most of them could easily have been replaced by a similar case from another country. The analyses developed from the 29 cases should thus be seen as instructive and illustrative examples of the best in Europe anno 2003, but are far from being the only examples which could have been used.
The study reported in this document has been sponsored by DG INFSO of the European Commission, and was carried out in 2003.The research team responsible for this report consisted of:
· Jeremy Millard, Jonas Svava Iversen and Lars Schmidt of the Danish Technological Institute
· Herbert Kubicek, Hilmar Westholm and Ralf Cimander of the Institut für Informationsmanagement Bremen
All results, conclusions and views expressed are those of the researcher team alone, with the active support of 14 National Experts (see section 2.3), and do not necessarily represent the views of the European Commission. While every effort has been made to avoid errors and misjudgements, the research team takes full responsibility for any that have been made. Notwithstanding this, enthusiastic acknowledgement is given to Giuseppe Zilioli and Paul Timmers of DG INFSO, the European Commission, who have provided invaluable support and advice throughout the work.
2 Introduction and background
2.1 Context of study
2.1.1 eGovernment
The way we are governed in Europe is undergoing dramatic change, to which the introduction of information and communication technologies (ICT) is making its own powerful contribution, hand-in-hand with other societal trends. According to the European Commission[1], these new technologies can help public administrations cope with the many challenges. However, the focus should not be on ICT itself. Instead it should be on the use of ICT combined with organisational change and new skills in order to improve public services, democratic processes and public policies. This is what eGovernment is about.
eGovernment is defined by the European Commission as the use of ICT in public administrations combined with organisational change and new skills in order to improve public services and democratic processes and strengthen support to public policies. eGovernment is an enabler to realise a better and more efficient administration. It improves the development and implementation of public policies and helps the public sector to cope with the conflicting demands of delivering more and better services with fewer resources.
eGovernment enables the public sector to maintain and strengthen good governance in the knowledge society. This means[2]:
1. a public sector that is open and transparent: governments that are understandable and accountable to the citizens, open to democratic involvement and scrutiny.
2. a public sector that is at the service of all -- user-centred public sector will be inclusive, that is, will exclude no one from its services and respect everyone as individuals by providing personalised services.