Public Sector Transformation Through E-Government
Page 28
to extend and improve access, there will remain large numbers of citizens
who continue to use traditional channels only. Up to one-third of the EU
population are unlikely themselves to be using e-government services for
the foreseeable future, and these are often those who are most in need of
social services because they are disadvantaged in some way. They are thus
doubly disadvantaged.1
This chapter examines a relatively unexplored but increasingly impor-
tant area of e-government (i.e., how ICT used by the public sector can
improve the lives of disadvantaged people, for example by supporting their
literacy, employability and social integration. As this chapter will show,
this can happen successfully in two ways. First, by improving ICT access,
skills, and use by these groups and, second, by the use of ICT somewhere in
the service delivery value chain to improve service targeting and quality. In
both cases, disadvantaged people improve their lives, whether or not they
themselves have access to or use ICT.
1.2 European Policy Development 2000–2020
E-Inclusion and e-government have been central ICT policy priorities since
the EU’s 2010 Lisbon objectives agreed in 2000 (European Commission,
2000). Halfway through the decade, their importance was strongly rein-
forced by the i2010 initiative launched in 2005 (European Commission
2005b). First, this led to the 2006 Ministerial “Riga Declaration” on ICT
for an inclusive information society in which EU Member States agreed
a set of six targets and themes: enhancing e-accessibility, addressing the
needs of older workers and elderly people, improving digital literacy and
competences, reducing the geographical digital divide, promoting cul-
tural diversity, and promoting inclusive e-government. Participating in the
information society is seen as an absolute must for getting a job, enjoying
social and healthcare, aging well, accessing education, being creative, and
nurturing entrepreneurship and participation.
Second, building on the Ministerial e-Government Declaration from
November 2005, the i2010 e-Government Action Plan (European Commis-
sion, 2006) recognised that no citizen should be left behind. It stated that
e-government should advance inclusion by fi g
fi hting the digital divide through
inclusive e-government to ensure that “all citizens benefi
fit from trusted,
154 Jeremy
Millard
innovative services” in which “users will continue to want channels other than the Internet to access public services, such as digital TV, mobile and
fi
fixed phone and/or person-to-person.”
In November 2009, a new e-Government Ministerial Declaration laid the
basis for the next 2015 Action Plan covering the period 2011–2015 to build
on both the achievements and shortcomings of the 2010 Action Plan. (Euro-
pean Commission, 2010c). Amongst four political priorities, the empowering
citizens and businesses theme focuses on “services designed around users’
needs and Inclusive services through providing fl
flexible and personalised
ways of interacting and performing transactions with public administrations.
In addition, the usability of and access to e-government services should be
improved by delivering them via multiple channels (including Internet, TV,
telephone, mobile devices, or where appropriate through intermediaries)” .
The 2015 e-Government Action Plan is also fi
firmly embedded in the
fl
flagship initiative a Digital Agenda for Europe (DAE) agreed in August
2010 to speed up the roll-out of high-speed Internet and reap the benefits
of a digital single market for households and fi
firms (European Commis-
sion, 2010b). A main plank of the DAE is the action on Public Digital
Services which will embed innovation and cost eff
ffectiveness into e-govern-
ment through the systematic promotion of open standards and interoper-
able systems. Inclusion also remains a priority in one of the eight Action
Areas of the DAE Enhancing digital literacy, skills and inclusion. The
DAE is itself an important plank of the broader EU2020—A strategy for
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, agreed in March 2010, with a
focus on getting the European economy back on track after the economic
and fi
financial crisis. (European Commission, 2010a).
2 PATTERNS OF EUROPEAN E-GOVERNMENT SERVICE USE
2.1 E-Government Service Take-up
It is only in the past 5 years that comprehensive measurements of e-govern-
ment service use has taken place across all twenty-seven EU Member States.
However, in this timeframe there was an increase from 23 percent take-up
by individual adults in 2005 to only 32 percent in 2010, the latest available
data.2 This is disappointing given the huge investments in e-government service roll-out over the last decade. For example, full online availability
of the basket of twenty e-government services increased from 40 percent in
2005 to 81 percent in 2010 for EU27 (Capgemini 2005; 2010).
2.2 Channels Used to Access Government Services
There have been even fewer data on the usage of government services by
channel, across diff eren
ff
t countries and by diff eren
ff
t types of users.3 The
E-Government for All 155
main comprehensive survey comes from a 2006 study (Millard, 2006)
based on telephone interviews with 10,000 adults across ten EU Mem-
ber States,4 focusing on the use of both government and e-government services. This showed that, although almost 70 percent of adults had
contact with the public administration in the previous 12 months, only
20 percent of adults used ICT in some form, compared to 80 percent by
the more traditional channel of face-to-face, 42 percent by telephone,
and 40 percent by post.5 However, the data also show that there are very large differences between countries, so that in 2006 Denmark was the
leading country in the sample with over 40 percent of government service
users using ICT, compared to 9 percent in the Czech Republic. Further-
more, in the United Kingdom and Ireland the use of the postal services
and the telephone had overtaken face-to-face, probably because of the
large investment by these countries into public service call centers.
2.3 Socio-economic Characteristics of E-Government Users
When diff eren
ff
t socio-economic groups are examined, the 2006 data show
that e-government users compared to individuals not using e-government
services are signifi
ficantly more likely to:
• Be in employment,
• Be well educated,
• Have medium to high income,
• Be aged 25 to 34,
• Be male.
Furthermore, e-government users tend to live in countries with high Inter-
net and e-government roll-out, and have well developed e-skills and e-at-
titudes, which may explain some of the differences between Denmark and
the Czech Republic mentioned above. Thus, users who may be disadvan-
taged in so
me way, due to their own situation or where they live, are much
less likely to use e-government services than more mainstream users. 6
2.4 Usage Patterns of Diff erent
ff
Types
of Government Service User
The 2006 data also show that the usage patterns of three diff
fferent types of
government service user are quite distinct. Figure 12.1 shows these types as e-government users, plus two types of non e-government user, i.e. those
using the Internet and those not.
Figure 12.1 shows that e-government users used government services on average 3.1 times a year (i.e., 311 percent) compared with non-eGovernment users who only tended to use government services 1.5 times. Further,
when examining the range of channels used, e-government users can be
156 Jeremy Millard
Figure 12.1 Usage patterns of three types of government service user (Source:
Millard 2007).
described as “fl
flexi-channellers” and “channel balancers,” in that up to 70
percent of them also use other channels and clearly make channel choices
suited to their preference, to the specifi
fic service and to the specific task in
hand. This is in some contrast to non-e-government users who tend to be
“single channellers,” relying mainly on the traditional face-to-face channel
to access government services.
Overall, these and other data in the survey show that e-government ser-
vice users use government services more often than other service users, but
also use a wider range of government services, as well as many more chan-
nels, not only ICT. Their use is thus more varied as well as intensive. In turn,
this means that disadvantaged users are much less likely to enjoy these more
varied and intensive government service experiences, despite the fact that
they also tend to be those who need government services most. They are thus
doubly disadvantaged.
The following two sections show how new strategies aim to counter this
double disadvantage.
3 STRATEGIES TO CHANGE THE DESIGN AND
FOCUS OF E-GOVERNMENT SERVICES
3.1 Strategies to Move from Access to Training to Impact
A number of studies have examined how the double disadvantage illus-
trated by the data above is being tackled (European Commission, 2007a;
2007b). Figure 12.2 provides an overview of documented leading edge practices in inclusive e-government in 2005 and 2007. In 2005, almost 70
E-Government for All 157
Figure 12.2 The focus of leading edge inclusive e-government practices, 2005–2007
(Source: European Commission, 2007b).
(2005: n = 124 from 72 cases; 2007: n = 178 from 90 cases)
percent of leading edge cases focused primarily on providing ICT access to
disadvantaged users, with only about 25% focused on providing such users
with e-skills. By 2007, however, the balance had completely changed with
access now at 33% of the total, training at 32% and a focus on the use of
services for positive impacts on the lives of disadvantaged users at 35%.
Although access remains essential and is typically a necessary precursor or
fi
first stage, the need for training in e-skills, and then attempting to promote
positive service use, had become more important as stages 2 and 3 in the
progression to fully inclusive e-government.
Evidence from the same survey shows that the large majority (about
75 percent) of inclusive e-government practices in 2007 were designed
and delivered at the local or regional level, and only then (if successful
and cost-eff e
ff ctive) rolled out more widely. This also refl
flects an analysis
made in 2005 that the success of strategies for social and digital inclu-
sion is largely dependent on a context-based approach, whereby targeted
groups were considered within their specifi
fic geographical, social and
cultural environment (European Commission, 2005a).
3.2 Channel and Targetization Strategies
Figure 12.3 shows how strategies for tackling disadvantage have also shifted from a one-size-fi t
fi s-all, single (online) channel approach to ones
158 Jeremy
Millard
which employ multiple channels and target individuals. Personalized
e-government services targeting the individual increased from 27 per-
cent in 2005 to 73 percent in 2007, and multi-channel personalized tar-
geting increased from 19 percent to 62 percent over the same period.
There is a clear move away from assuming that all users are more or
less the same and have the same needs to group segmentation (such as
older or disabled people) and even to fully personalized services. Both
segmentation and personalization are examples of “citizen centricity”
(cc:eGov, 2007).
3.3 Strategies to Tackle Multiple Disadvantage
One of the main challenges to both the policy and practice of e-gov-
ernment for disadvantaged groups is that of achieving combined and
joined-up services. Diff
fferent services traditionally tackle diff eren
ff
t prob-
lems, but most disadvantaged people suff
ffer from multiple deprivation so
their unique individual situations need to be addressed. These include
poverty, poor or no housing, low education and skills, poor health, old
age, disability, diffi
fficulties in obtaining steady work, perhaps also crime
and anti-social behavior, in addition to technical difficulties with infor-
mation and communication technology (ICT). Addressing these disad-
vantages in a systematic and joined-up manner is essential for a fully
Figure 12.3 Channel and targeting strategies of leading edge inclusive e-government
practices, 2005–2007 (Source: European Commission, 2007b).
(2005: n = 124 from 72 cases; 2007: n = 178 from 90 cases)
E-Government for All 159
inclusive society. The diff
fferent service providers need to ensure that their
eff
fforts do not overlap or counteract each other and that signals picked
up by one service can act as early warnings for another. In most cases,
disadvantaged users are confronted with overlapping rules, different
agencies, an enormous amount of paperwork, and complicated forms to
complete, all of which increase still further the diffi
fficulties they have in
trying to arrange their lives.
An interesting strategy to tackle these challenges, followed in some
parts of the UK over the last fi
five years, is to understand an individual’s
holistic needs using Maslow’s needs hierarchy7, as shown in Figure 12.4.
Disadvantaged users tend to have unmet needs at the bottom and in
the middle of the pyramid compared to mainstream users whose ser-
vice needs from government are more likely to be near the top. Thus,
focusing on whether and how the unmet needs of disadvantaged users
can be at least partially met by ICT has been a useful U.K. strategy,
more recently also taken up in Denmark and elsewhere. Government
ICT policy has typically not addressed these needs, but rather focused
on ICT access an
d use to meet the mainstream needs of the main-
stream population. The focus has been on existing services, often irrel-
evant to the disadvantaged groups. To the right of the pyramid, some
examples are given of how each type of need could and is being met
by government.
Figure 12.4 Maslow’s needs hierarchy adapted to individual needs (Source: Inter-
nal papers, Digital Inclusion Team, UK Cabinet Office, 2006)
ffi
.
160 Jeremy Millard
4 STRATEGIES TO CHANGE THE
CONFIGURATION OF THE VALUE CHAIN
4.1 Strategies for Intelligent Use of ICT
by Front- and Back-Office Sta
ffi
ff
Figure 12.5 also shows another important development over the last 5
years in which the public sector uses ICT to better target services to dis-
advantaged people who are not themselves expected to use ICT directly.
Two strategies are being used. First, front-line staff
ff (e.g., home helpers
or care workers visiting persons in need in their own homes or commu-
nities) use ICT to provide a more intelligent and quicker service. They
can link directly to databases in the back-office, fi
fill out and send forms,
and obtain relevant information in real time in the fi
field whilst physically
with the disadvantage person. Second, ICT is being increasingly used
in government back-offi
ffices to join-up and simplify services as well as
reduced duplication of eff or
ff
t by back-office staff . T
ff
his enables such staff
to use ICT and data to more intelligently target disadvantaged commu-
nities, families or individuals, for example unemployment black spots
or families most likely to need social help. Although this trend even in
leading edge initiatives in 2007 was small, the European Commission as
well Blakemore and Wilson (both in 2009) showed that it was becoming
increasingly prominent.
Figure 12.5 Changing where ICT is used in the inclusive e-government service
delivery value chain, 2005–2007 (Source: European Commission, 2007b).
(2005: n = 124 from 72 cases; 2007: n = 178 from 90 cases)
E-Government for All 161
4.2 Strategies to Involve Other Actors in the Value Chain