Millard (2006) documented for the fi
first time the importance of intermediar-
ies in e-government (i.e., actors who mediate between a public service and
the intended end user). Importantly, intermediaries can be both government
staff
ff (as exemplifi ed
fi by the front-office
ffi staff u
ff sing ICT mentioned above) or
non-government actors and can be particularly important for disadvantaged
individuals who tend to have less ability than mainstream users to know what
services are available and how to access and use them. Data from the 2006
study show that 53 percent of users of e-government do so for their own
purpose, 51 percent as part of their job, and 42 percent on behalf of family
or friends,8 the latter thus being termed “social intermediaries.” Moreover, each social intermediary on average assists 2.6 other individuals who are not
themselves direct e-government users, thereby dramatically extending the
actual impact of e-government. Interesting, the profile of social intermediar-
ies also diff e
ff rs from that of e-government users generally, in that they tend
to be older and perhaps retired, often unemployed and living in a country
with undeveloped e-government services and roll-out. The profi
file of individu-
als receiving assistance from social intermediaries also strongly mirrors that
of non-e-government users generally (i.e., having low e-skills and e-attitudes,
unemployed or in unskilled occupations, lower income and educational levels,
in higher age groups including retired, and living in countries with undevel-
oped e-government services). Overall, it is clear that social intermediaries con-
siderably extend the benefi t
fi s of e-government to individuals who otherwise
are not being reached.
One conclusion from these data is that, in contrast to the relatively mod-
est 32 percent direct usage of e-government services in 2010 by individu-
als cited in Section 2, and although comparing data over time needs to be treated with some caution, this fi
figure should probably be multiplied by
between 2 and 3 to get an idea of how many are actually benefi t
fi ting from
e-government services.
4.3 New Business Model Strategies for
Delivering E-Government Services
The intelligent and innovative use of ICT can make partnerships between
government and actors from the third and private sectors more effic
ffi ient and
eff e
ff ctive. It can support multi-channel organizational interactions, includ-
ing human contact, in providing sustainable user-centric services for socially
excluded people, often taking place through an intermediary person or organ-
isation as described above. This is an example of so-called collaborative ser-
vice production and delivery. Figure 12.6 exemplifi e
fi s this type of new business
model in comparison to a more traditional “before” approach. It also shows
that e-government does not always require disadvantaged people to use ICT
themselves, as noted above, but does involve using ICT somewhere in the vale
chain to improve service quality, delivery. and impact.
162 Jeremy
Millard
Figure 12.6 New types of business model for delivering services to disadvantaged
people (Source: Prepared for the European Commission E-Government Ministerial
Conference in Malmö, Sweden, in November 2009 by J. Millard, based on Euro-
pean Commission, 2009, and Blakemore & Wilson, 2009)
The problems of socially excluded people are almost invariably highly
personal and complex. They often require an intermediary person or
organisation (whether governmental or non-governmental) to enable
them to benefi
fit from a combination of information and transactions,
put together to meet their highly specifi
fic and complex needs. Interme-
diation and partnership take place mostly at local level, vital because
many interactions are likely to remain human to human through direct
engagement with end users in service creation and governance.
Typically, this “partnership” approach is not a loose coalition of inter-
ested parties, but a formalized network where the objectives and tasks
are shared through agreements or contracts. All actors need to be trained
and supported, and should be responsible for achieving the outcomes,
rather than on delivering particular services. The combined knowledge
and resources ensure that the partnership works in a sustainable way and
is acceptable to the user. The links in the delivery network are crucially
enabled by ICT, in a mix of systems, technologies and media, including
human interactions.
It is through this multi-channel approach and fl
flexible availability of
services, personalized and confi
figured around users’ needs and prefer-
ences, that sustainable service delivery can be achieved. Multi-channel
thus comes to mean the organisational interactions which make up the
network, rather than only a collection of access routes for delivering
services. Therefore, the operational, sustainable inclusive e-government
model is in reality much more like a fl
flexible and dynamic network that
joins up services from government and other organisations from the
third sector (civil societies, NGOs, etc.) as well as the private sector
E-Government for All 163
in some cases, around the needs of the socially excluded, in a way that
is not possible only at the government end, due to relative government
remoteness and the considerable variety of end-user needs.
Although still rare, these approaches are beginning to have an impact,
for example, the Day Activity initiative in Amsterdam, the Netherlands,
sketched in Figure 12.7. This recognizes that many socially excluded people suff
ffer from multiple problems, covering employment, skills, accommo-
dation and crime, the Local Authority, charitable groups and employers
have formed partnerships to fi n
fi d solutions. They themselves provide the
core funding, but extra resources also come from a local insurance com-
pany and a charitable lottery fund. By sharing their resources, knowl-
edge and databases, they use a fl
flexible mix of channels (Internet, email,
phone and face-to-face) to deliver personalised services. This results in
triple win benefi
fits: greater effi
c
ffi iency, increased tax revenue, fewer social
costs in the longer term for the Local Authority; additional labor and
more fl
flexibility for employers; and work, dignity, societal worth, plus
greater independence for the socially excluded.
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter is a meta-study of selected previous studies, largely under-
taken for the European Commission. It examines a relatively unexplored
but increasingly important area of e-government (i.e., how ICT used by the
Figure 12.7 Day Activity project, the Netherlands (Source: Blakemore & Wil-
son, 2009).
164 Jeremy
Millard
public sector can improve the lives of disadvantaged people whether or not
they themselves are using ICT). It identifies common trends and conclusions
relevant for both practitioners and policy makers, whereas researchers are
also invited to undertake follow-up empirical studies to test them.
Many, but not all, policy-makers and practitioners have realised that see-
ing the ‘digital divide’ as purely about ICT access is far from adequate. The
real success or otherwise of inclusive e-government is instead the impact it
has on the lives of users, particularly those who are disadvantaged in some
way, whether or not they themselves have access. Clear benefits for disad-
vantaged groups have been documented by a number of studies (Millard,
2006; European Commission, 2007a; 2007b; Blakemore & Wilson, 2009),
whether through the direct or indirect use of e-government services:
• Better service access through complementary channels;
• Easing daily life burdens, including engagement with the public
administration;
• Improvements to government-citizen relations;
• Better access to education, training, healthcare, work, and jobs;
• Improvements to personal capacity and skills, life chances, social net-
works, and quality of life.
Previous studies have shown this to be possible, even though impacts
are still on a small scale. (Blakemore & Wilson, 2009; Millard, 2007).
According to an analysis of EU Member State questionnaires (European
Commission, 2009), this shift in thinking has been a difficult and on-
going learning curve. This conclusion has important policy implications
for how e-government services are designed and deployed. There are two
main issues.
First, given that we know that upwards of 30 percent of European citi-
zens will not be online in the foreseeable future, the question becomes “do
we forget about these 30% for the time being, or can ICT somewhere in the
value chain be used to target, reach and deliver better government services
to them, even though they may not themselves be directly using or access-
ing services through such technology?” (European Commission, 2009).
This also means that deploying multiple channels should be considered,
not just ICT, each of which is likely to have specifi
fic suitability for the user,
the type of service used and the usage context.
Second, ICT dramatically increases the ability of public service provid-
ers from public, private, and civil sectors, targeting disadvantaged users,
to develop new business models through collaboration in joint service
production and delivery, as well as to deploy social and other interme-
diaries where this improves service reach and quality. In this context,
the public sector in some countries is establishing collaborative platforms
where this can take place, for example the United Kingdom’s “opening
up government” platform,9 which off
ffers both online and offl
i
ffl ne spaces
E-Government for All 165
for joint working, using shared resources, accessing open government
and other data, debating, accessing good practices, etc. Many of these
resources and activities are increasingly cloud based and also off
ffer mobile
government services highly suitable for disadvantaged users, given that
their use of standard or smart phones is often much greater than their
access to the Internet.
NOTES
1. Presentation by David Broster, Head of Unit eGovernment and CIP Operations, June 19, 2007, at the Inclusive eGovernment Stakeholders Workshop,
Brussels. See also European Commission (2007a).
2. From Eurostat: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=isoc_
si_igov&lang=en (accessed January 2012).
3. Raw Eurobarometer data could, however, be used to undertake the necessary research.
4. The Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Slovenia and the United Kingdom.
5. Note the percentages total more than 100 percent because most individuals used more than one channel.
6. These data are very similar to other sources examining the digital divide in the context of European e-government, for example EPAN (2005), Foley and
Alfonso (2005), European Commission (2008; 2010d).
7. Abraham Maslow (1954) viewed human needs as occurring in a hierarchy, such that the lower needs had to be met before the higher ones become
salient for the individual. His original scheme included, in order, physiologi-
cal needs, safety needs, belongingness and love needs, esteem needs, and the
need for self-actualization. The bottom four examples presented in Figure
12.4 correspond to the fi
first two of Maslow’s needs. The next three have to
do with belongingness. Participation and democracy, as well as inclusion, are
measures of esteem, and empowerment is part of self-actualization. This is,
of course, just one example of one articulation of needs.
8. Note the percentages total more than 100 percent because most e-government users act in more than one capacity.
9. http://www.data.gov.uk
REFERENCES
Blakemore, M., & Wilson, F. (2009) .MC-eGov: Study on multi-channel deliv-
ery strategies and sustainable business models for public services addressing
socially disadvantaged groups, published by the ICT for Government and Public
Services, DG INFSO, European Commission.
Capgemini (2005, March). Online availability of public services: How is Europe
progressing? Web based survey on electronic public services. Brussels: European
Commission, Directorate General for Information Society and Media.
Capgemini, IDC, Rand Europe, Sogeti and DTI (2010, December). Digitizing pub-
lic services in Europe: Putting ambition into action—9th Benchmark Measure-
ment. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate General for Information
Society and Media.
166 Jeremy Millard
cc:eGov. (2007). Organisational change for citizen-centric eGovernment project:
Retrieved from http://www.ccegov.eu/downloads/Handbook_Final_031207.
pdf April 2010.
EPAN (European Public Administrations Network). (2005). eAccessibility of public
sector services in the European Union: executive briefi
fing. Published in coopera-
tion with the U.K. Presidency of the EU. November 2005. Retrieved from http://
www.dgaep.gov.pt/media/0601010000/uk/eAccessibility.pdf. April 2012.
European Commission. (2000). eEurope—an information society for all, 23–24
March 2000, Lisbon, published by in Brussels 14 June 2000.
European Commission. (2005a). e-Inclusion revisited: The local dimension of the
information society, DG Employment, SEC(2005)206. Retrieved from http://
europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/news/2005/feb/einclusion_en.html
European Commission. (2005b). i2010—A European Information Society for
growth and employment. Brussels. 1.6.2005, {SEC(2005) 717}, COM(2005)
229 fi
final.
European Commission (2006) i2010 eGovernment Action Plan: Accelerating
eGovernment in Europe for the Benefit of All,
COM(2006) 173 fi
final, Brussels,
25 April 2006.
European Commission. (2007a). European e-government 2005–2007: Taking stock
of good practice and progress towards implementation of the i2010 e-Govern-
ment action plan, J. Millard (Ed.) on behalf of DG Information Society and
Media, September 2007.
European Commission. (2007b). Inclusive e-government: survey of status and
baseline activities, J. Millard (Ed.) on behalf of DG Information Society and
Media, December 2007.
European Commission. (2008). EQUAL opportunities for all: Delivering the Lis-
bon Strategy through social innovation and transnational cooperation. DG
EMPLOY, October 2008.
European Commission. (2009). i2010 eGovernment Action Plan Progress Study.
DG Information Society and Media, November 2009.
European Commission. (2010a). EUROPE 2020—A strategy for smart, sustain-
able and inclusive growth. Brussels. 3.3.2010, COM(2010) 2020.
European Commission. (2010b). A Digital Agenda for Europe. Brussels. 26.8.2010,
COM(2010) 245.
European Commission. (2010c). ”The European eGovernment Action Plan 2011–
2015—Harnessing ICT to promote smart, sustainable & innovative govern-
ment. Brussels. December 15, 2010, COM(2010) 743.
European Commission. (2010d). Independent panel report Interim Evaluation of
the Ambient Assisted Living Joint Programme: Unlocking innovation in ageing
well. DG INFSO, December 2010.
Foley, P., & Alfonso, X. (2005). An international study of technology initiatives to enhance social inclusion: Extending the reach of what works. A report prepared
by IECRC for the Social Exclusion Unit of the Offi
ffice of the Deputy Prime Min-
ister, U.K. Government, August 2005.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation . Psychological Review, 50, 370–396.
Millard, J. (2006). eGovernment services. In: Deliverable D5.2, Current Demand/
Supply Match. eUSER project: Evidence-Based Support for the Design and
Delivery of User-Centred Online Public Services, European Commission IST
6th Framework IST Program.
Millard, J. (2007.) E-government for an inclusive society: How different citizen
groups use e-government services in Europe. In D. Norris (Ed.), E-government
research: Policy and management. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Public Sector Transformation Through E-Government Page 29
