EU Events: October 2008 Monitoring

The Internet Summit Austria 2008
02 October 2008, Vienna, Austria
"e-Inclusion" is the leading theme of the conference, which will be a meeting of minds of the leading thinkers and major architects of the internet and the digital society today. Their range of experience will cover all aspects of e-Inclusion like e-Accessibility, Ageing, e-Competences, Socio-Cultural e-Inclusion, Spatial e-Inclusion, Inclusive e-government and broadband for all.
This event takes place in preparation for the European e-Inclusion Ministerial Conference 2008 in Vienna and is supported by the Federal Chancellery of Austria. The audience will consist of the top 300 CEOs, academics, administration and politicians of Austria and some European countries.
ISPA (Internet Service Providers Austria) is a non-profit organisation dedicated to advance the usage of the Internet in Austria. [Europa]

Internet of Things - Internet of the Future
6 - 7 October 2008, Nice Acropolis (France)

eGovernment for Regions at Open Days 2008
to be held 7th October 2008, Brussels, Belgium
This workshop, organized during the Open Days 2008 European Week of Regions and Cities, will look at current EU initiatives and activities in the eGovernment area and how they can benefit regions and municipalities. [Europa]

The conference will concentrate on the following 2 areas:
1. aspects related to the development of the mobile Internet
2. the industrial and technological perspectives necessary for the development of the 'Internet of Things'

The aim is to identify and discuss the technological state-of-the-art, future trends, as well as opportunities and challenges, and draw a comprehensive picture of how the Internet of Things will change our interactions with objects. [Internet2008]

Ministerial Conference on the Internet of the Future
8th October 2008 [Europa]

Towards Future Media Internet
13 - 15 October 2008, Saint-Malo, France
This event aims to be a major conference and exhibition devoted to the field of Networked and Electronic Media (NEM) and ICT at large. It will provide an opportunity to network and share information and viewpoints on R&D status and perspectives in this area. It is organised by the NEM platform, one of the European Industrial Initiatives, also known as Technology Platforms. The NEM Platform is established by key European stakeholders, addressing the convergence of media, communications, consumer electronics, and IT as a wide opportunity for future growth, by taking advantage of generalised broadband access, increased mobility, availability of rich media formats and contents, as well as new home networks and communications platforms. [Europa]

An industrial property rights strategy for Europe, Strasbourg, 16-17.10.2008
A strong industrial property rights system is a driving force for innovation, stimulating R&D investment and facilitating the transfer of knowledge from the laboratory to the marketplace. On 16 July 2008, the Commission adopted a Communication on an industrial property rights strategy for Europe which outlines actions to ensure Europe has a high quality industrial property rights system in the years to come. The Communication provides a horizontal strategy across the spectrum of different industrial property rights and includes initiatives on enforcement, innovation support for small and medium-sized enterprises, and the quality of industrial property rights. It complements the 2007 Communication on the patent system, which set out a way forward towards the adoption of a Community patent and an integrated EU-wide jurisdiction for patents. [Europa]

Second European Summit on Interoperability in the iGovernment
20 - 22 October 2008, Rome, Italy
This event will offer a forum to develop new strategies, to network and build synergies between participants. These will include representatives from the European Commission, national and regional governments, researchers, academics and ICT experts. The Summit aims to : analyze the European Interoperability Framework produced by IDABC ; verify the state of the art in Interoperability in Europe ; involve International and national stakeholders on interoperability, in order to define new priorities and to develop more innovative and efficient electronic services. [Europa]

World Standards Day 2008 conference: "Standardisation and SMEs: a challenge for Europe; what are the keys to success?" Paris, 21 October 2008
On the occasion of World Standards Day 2008, the French Presidency of the Council of the European Union, in cooperation with the European Commission, will organise a one-day conference about standardisation.
...

Entrepreneurs, organisations representing SMEs, the national standards bodies, administrations and other interested parties will meet on 21st October 2008 in Paris in order to share their experiences and throw new light on the strategic importance of standardisation for SMEs, the challenges ahead and the solutions which work. [Europa]

2nd Europe INNOVA Conference - Accelerating Innovation
The Europe INNOVA Conference 2008 will focus on accelerating innovation in Europe and how to optimise knowledge transfer, strengthening industry's innovation capacity through strategic partnerships and supporting innovative entrepreneurs. 22nd – 24th October 2008 [Europa]

In the Loop: 30/09/08

Germans gives peeking Google one in the eye: Schleswig-Holstein's answer is NEIN!
30th September 2008
"The town of Molfsee near Kiel in the north-western German state of Schleswig-Holstein doesn't want to be filmed by Google for its Street View program, a service that provides 360-degrees street level images via Google Maps.

The leader of the Christian Democratic Union on the town council told the Lübecker Nachrichten that "we are not going to let this happen". The 5,000 inhabitants find the project "extremely alarming" as criminals can plan break-ins more easily. Germany's Federal Commissioner for Data Protection also has major misgivings about Google's plans, according to Der Spiegel." [TheRegister]

Sky told to hand over footy and film rights: Rivals to get access at fair price
Posted in Government, 30th September 2008
"The UK's media regulator Ofcom has told Sky it should offer to sell rights to football games and Hollywood films to other broadcasters at a fair price.

The investigation into pay TV was begun after complaints were made by BT, Virgin, Setanta and Top Up TV. Ofcom reckons that consumers make their choices of which service to go with based on content not the features of different platforms. Big films and live Premiership games are a big draw for viewers and Sky has "market power" in these areas." [TheRegister]

Tories would decentralise NHS IT: Want patient confidence and reined-in data 30/09/08
"An incoming Conservative government would decentralise health service computing and extend competition between suppliers, according to a plan released at its party conference.

The party's NHS Improvement Plan, released on 29 September 2008 by shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley, says the party will replace "Labour's centrally determined and unresponsive national IT system."" [TheRegister]

Secret Service camera bought on eBay: Nikon camera, good nick, includes secret files 30th September 2008
"Today's government data loss shenanigan is a repeat performance of that old favourite - flogging off old kit containing secret information to a random punter through online tat bazaar eBay.

An unnamed 28-year-old delivery man from Hemel Hempstead bought a Nikon Coolpix camera for £17 on eBay. But when he returned from his holiday and downloaded the contents of the camera he found pictures of rocket launchers, log-in details for the Secret Service's encrypted remote computer network marked Top Secret and a hand-drawn diagram linking different, named al-Qaeda cells including individual names and occupations." [TheRegister]

US Congress rubberstamps IP enforcement bill: DoJ suits out, White House czar in 29/09/08
The US House of Representatives on Sunday passed a bill heavily backed by the recording industry that would create an intellectual property enforcement czar position in the White House as well as significantly increase penalties for IP infringement.

The bill passed unanimously through the Senate on Friday after being stripped of a controversial provision that would allow the US Department of Justice to file civil suits against suspected copyright violators on behalf of copyright holders. [TheRegister]

Click here to read more information on Mr Grimsdale, King Heron and Mobius

Grimsdale's Ire: 09/09/08

UK Govt screws browser choice 09/09/08
A firestorm is brewing over proposals issued by the UK's IT advisory body over which browsers the public sector should support. Taxpayers will be forced to change their browsing habits and computer setup to accommodate the guidelines, say web standards experts. [TheRegister]


Click here to read more information on Mr Grimsdale, King Heron and Mobius

eGovernment: Some Thoughts on Public Health and the EU

Using eGovernment to improve healthcare provision is important in boosting accountability to citizens, modernising organisations and lowering costs.

The Internet’s potential as a giant portal to greater and more useful information creates unprecedented opportunity for patients to improve their input into public policy decisions and make decisions on their choice of care. Citizens can be made aware of the latest healthcare developments, such as the UK’s Darzi Review or be able to do research to search for the cheapest price of private healthcare insurance or even research into the benefits of non-critical treatment in other European countries.

eGovernment practices can be effective at improving quality of service and reducing the cost of provision. Firstly, modern communication tools result in EU agencies and organisations working more effectively together, breaking down the ‘silo culture’ of existing organisational procedures and encouraging joined up and more integrated EU health initiatives. Secondly, the costs involved in non-ICT based communications are significant, as the administrative and logistical costs can be huge. For example, modern electronic patient referrals in Denmark are now currently saving 1m a year.

Knowledge Share: Maximising Information

Confidence has been growing in the third sector as its contribution to public policy has been increasingly recognised. Voluntary organisations are increasingly being recognised for their work in serving their local communities. Decision makers are increasingly being convinced by the third sector’s advocates of the need for ongoing public reform. However, there is still room for improvement. We have been underutilising the levels of knowledge of the sector. To fully develop the potential of the sector we need to ensure that every key fact and third sector success story is shared with relevant organisations and sections of the community. Currently the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is undertaking a consultation on how academia can improve its analysis of the third sector, as it seeks to make its level of understanding match the public and private sectors. We should now take this opportunity to open the gates of understanding, welcome public analysis and adapt to develop models of co-dependent learning and education.

Recognising The Third Sectors Strengths And Weaknesses
The third sector suffers whenever information is underused because of silo mentalities and short-termist expediencies. Failed opportunities to learn about the sector and have up-to-date information on key areas often result in too many third sector organisations whispering their successes when we should be shouting their progress. When knowledge share does occur it allows us to present ourselves as unified. It enables us to strategise more effectively. It reduces wasteful searching for material. Duplication of efforts should also decline.

The third sector is often very successful at researching. Through specialist third sector material being uploaded on organisations’ websites and increasingly blogs and other web 2.0 based communications third sector organisations have been able to make the case for volunteerism, philanthropy and civic engagement. This is very useful, as it gives individual organisations the chance to explain developments in the third sector, areas of best practice and issues that prevent organisations from being able to fulfil their goals.

However, considerable amounts of information get lost. Often the strains placed on people researching and writing pieces combined with other onerous tasks can result in the acquired knowledge being underexposed. For instance, articles may not be uploaded onto the Internet after having been forwarded onto publication editors. Reports may be delayed and only done in infrequent batches. Other organisations with a mutual interest in the results may not be even informed at all.

Refocusing Knowledge
The ESRC is developing a strategy for its engagement with the third sector to ensure that the academic community is able to fully comprehend our goals and create opportunities for knowledge exchange. This is a great opportunity to highlight the strengths of the sector and make sure that the third sector is as well understood as the public and private sectors. Hopefully we will be able to have a clear overview of how society wide changes in governance are providing the third sector with unique roles for civil renewal.

However, given the gaps in knowledge that some areas of academia have previously had of the third sector it is important to strongly guide the direction of research in some areas of academic enquiry. Through explaining the difficulties that we face we will be able to add authority to ongoing issues such as the need for a stronger and more enforceable Compact, the importance of service provision being based on outcome measurement systems and the benefits of continuing state and public sector reform. Hopefully knowledge clusters will develop, as well as around sector specific research. If this happens then shared opinion will be able to fully represent the beneficial utility of the third sector to public services and communities.

Through participating with ESRC’s research and articulating our needs and desires we should be able to examine and then transform how academics and organisations plan and release information. We must also make efforts to highlight and encourage organisations which provide joined up research. For example, Intelligent Giving’s blog usefully signposts reports and events in its commentary, allowing time conscious third sector employees and curious parties links to more information should they require further insight on topics. Looking at the long-term picture the potential of the Internet to coordinate the third sector’s communication makes it necessary to examine ways of improving the sector’s existing knowledge champions and perhaps even coordinating new third party research hubs.

The third sector’s diversity provides an oasis of innovative ideas that can make it difficult to get a comprehensive overview of its strengths and weaknesses without taking the time to search around. However, if we matched the new commitment from the academic community to increasing levels of research of the third sector’s processes and the positive outcomes of our efforts with a new attitude to sharing our knowledge then we should be able to accelerate the development of a more professional, confident and effective sector.

This article was written on behalf of Peter Kyle, Director of Strategy and Enterprise for ACEVO in July 2008

Are Agencies Electric? Mapping The Development of Cross Stakeholder eGovernment Platforms

Background
There has been a significant ICT investment by the UK Government both nationally and locally to reform the provision, promotion, and usage of public services. eGovernment has been the articulation of many of these projects, helping to exploit the power of information and communications “in order to transform the accessibility, quality and cost-effectiveness of public services.” [1] The Government’s previous policy of putting as much public information online as possible has been successful but belies an unwillingness to face organisational reform. The majority of investments have been directed towards projects that are more piecemeal in nature, adding new features to public sector delivery whilst attempting to work within the existing framework. This ‘silo mentality’ is becoming increasingly outdated, as organisations which fail to build responsive structures that facilitate CRM systems and collaborate between public sector organisations and societal stakeholders are starting to look increasingly outdated when compared to more ICT focused and inclusive organisations.

The bulk of this £6 billion eGovernment strategy[2] has been directed towards raising the quantity and standard of government information online, ensuring public access to the Internet and creating inroads towards more collaborative projects between organisations and communities. In many ways government policy has been successful. For instance, government information is freely accessible online and organised by websites which provide seamless access across departments and regions without the user needing to be conscious of the differences. Also, government initiatives are slowly starting to foster greater cooperation, which helps to improve levels and quality of information and decision-making.

M. Jae Moon,[3] the UK National Audit Office,[4] the UN/ASPA,[5] Rita Santos and Richard Heeks,[6] and Darrel West[7] identify four or five stages of e-government, which distinguish where different government organizations are on the road to transformation:

1. The Billboard Stage: Where information is put online but it is only one way
2. The Partial Delivery Stage: Where information is communicated in two directions
3. The Portal Stage: Where online services reach a technical level to reduce administrative burdens
4. The Seamless Stage: Where government services are seamlessly intertwined
5. The Interactive Democracy Stage: Where web-based political participation tools enable citizens to comment and make political improvements

However, the majority of investments have been directed towards the earlier stages, providing considerable amounts of information but lacking sufficient interactivity and input from users, resulting in many public sector websites being tarred as being too passive. To fully benefit from eGovernment the adaptation of new technological advancements “requires a careful investigation into the philosophy, structure and productive processes of the public organisations participating in eGovernment.”[8]Such a holistic view requires consistently considering public administration “as a socio-technical system and, as such, as a unit of: individual citizens, employees of authorities and governments, groups and society, technical and information systems, norms and laws, social and cultural practices, moral and ethics and natural environmental issues.” [9]

Much of the early reforms required for early stage Internet platforms were painless, merely requiring information to systematically be added online and sufficient marketing to encourage uptake by citizens and businesses. This was partly because the public sector is good at refining and improving existing services, such as through longer opening hours and drop in services. In terms of eGovernment adding a website which contained reports, key information and contact details required little organisational change but was able to provide visible results. This level of modernisation also helped to fulfil the Government’s goals of all information being put online creating too much emphasis on piecemeal upgrades rather than upgrading internal structures based around new ICT possibilities.

These lower level reforms were also easier to sell to the public than more problematic, technical and organisational reforms that provided less tangible results. Joint projects between government departments are very difficult, as any work requires the close cooperation of a large number of actors. There has not been enough development towards creating a framework that encourages this cooperation, with the Government having previously failed to put enough pressure and financial incentives for greater joint projects. However, the Government is finally starting to push through various initiatives that help introduce incentives to create new approaches to improving efficiency and improve the quality of government. These usually take the form of either ‘back office’ reforms or ‘One Stop Shops’.

The author believes that organisational cultures are the greatest obstacles preventing a more modern ICT influenced public sector. The UK’s public administration style should be better equipped to developing an attractive, dynamic and high value Internet framework as a result of it being “more concerned with customer needs than in the EU continental styles based on administrative laws and legal procedures.”[10] However, research by L. Torres, V. Pina and B. Acerete on local governments’ eGovernance revealed some interesting analysis of UK public websites. The report found that although numerous UK cities performed well the emphasis on providing ‘billboard’ information, rather than interactive services highlighted that most local governments were merely concerned with the “image of modernisation and responsiveness rather than with the introduction of real changes in the way in which public administrations interact with citizens.” [11]

The proposed research aims to answer the following, with a view of examining why and how different agencies or stakeholders plan and implement public websites:

• What are the organisational factors that influence how eGovernment projects develop?
• Is there an optimum type of eGovernment culture? And if so, what does it look like?
• What are the key influences that push projects forward and what inhibits them? How do they impact on project success/failure?

Methodology

Possible Methodologies:

• Grid-Group Analysis + Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
• Multiple Perspective Analysis + Action Research

The problem of assessing eGovernment projects is that there will be different competing goals between different stakeholders in the planning and implantation process. Policy alternatives and their outcomes may also be unknown, such that estimates of risk and uncertainty are not possible. As a result the author considers that the problems will be ill-structured and that the methodology will require an analysis that actively defines the problem, taking care not to impose any bias. As a consequence policy analysis will be devoted towards problem structuring as well as problem solving.

Grid Group Analysis + Cost Effectiveness Analysis
The author believes that grid-group cultural theory originating from Mary Douglas [12] and later developed into a public policy tool by Christopher Hood [13] would form a major analysis to aid problem structuring. Its ability to capture the diversity of human preferences and relate differing preferences to different possible styles of organisation, each with its own advantages and disadvantages should help to explain the interactive process of many government websites.

For example, examining the cultural differences between different web portals to the public sector should provide insights into the way organisational behaviour affects structure and results (see ‘One Stop Shops’ analysis below):

• DirectGov.com, a hierarchical style website setup by the government and intended as the first point of access
• DirectionlessGov.com, a individualist rebuke to the site by volunteer computer programmers to highlight the failure of over centralised and over expensive government endorses websites
• YourLondon, an egalitarian portal developed following numerous symposiums of London councils to form collective solutions to their common eGovernment requirements
• Pre ‘One Stop Shop’ key links web pages found within government websites based upon the sites context (fatalism)

Cost-effectiveness analysis is considered a better fit than cost-benefit analysis as the author believes that eGovernment has the possibility to go beyond mere efficiency savings, as increased information would also result in better decision-making. Because of the uniqueness of government these social benefits can be included without the distorting analysis of quantitative measurement.

Multiple Perspective Analysis + Action Research Analysis

Multiple perspective analysis allows for greater insights into problems and potential solutions through applying personal, organizational, and technical perspectives to problem situations. Especially suitable for ill-structured policy problems, the utilisation of technical, organisational, and personal perspectives has been useful at dealing with social technical and challenges such as eGovernment.[14]

Action research would form a useful mode of enquiry, as combining a problem-solving rationale and a research-orientated one simultaneously.[15] The former is preoccupied with the resolution of some organisational problem, via a research based intervention; the latter involves using the intervention as a vehicle for the production of new knowledge of interest to public policy.

Back Office Reforms
‘Back office’ reforms are used to improve the machinery of government processes, such as increasing the amount of high quality, localised data transfer between departments and regions. The introduction of technology and its adoption, such as sharing information through pooling ‘back office’ computing systems between government organisations has the potential to greatly improve the value for money and quality of government services. However, the reforms needed to introduce such strategies are complex and require a significant amount of commitment from all stakeholders involved. Otherwise the myriad number of obstacles to success will result in wasted time, overspending or even project collapse. This is most successful when “technology has entwined with management reform, while addressing the demands of consumers.”[16] As a result, emphasising reforms through the window of e-Government and its possibilities will give as many opportunities for efficiency gains as New Public Management and Deregulation in the 1990s but through increased productivity and not at the expense of services.

One interesting example of multi-agency cooperation was in Lancashire, where a multi-agency data exchange (MADE) system was developed to streamline data transfer between 300 wards in 14 districts. This was done so that organisations and councils could send and receive information to and from one centre, using homogenous software and a common set of standards. This helped to avoid the headaches of organisations having to negotiate common standards and then pool resources many times over and for administrators to not have to constantly query whether or not they are permitted to divulge certain pieces of information or not. One of the conclusions of the report was that ICT was not holding project development back and that the ‘‘real’’ problem was the intellectual inability of many partnership members to recognise the utility of data to support collaborative decision-making, compounded by the low level of human resource available for analytic work.[17]

The benefits of MADE data were significant, for example enabling one town to identify that the top two wards for crime were also the top two for fire and ambulance incidents, with a similar pattern being replicated across all districts. This resulted in a multi agency ‘vulnerability index’ being created using a variety of indicators previously unavailable and permitted a greater understanding of local regions and better informed policymaking decisions.

One major example of Government creating a positive environment for cooperation is the Digital Challenge, involving a £6 million grant for one region and nine £200 thousand grants to the runners up. This was to purposefully create a unique incentive for a region, city or smaller sized area to introduce joined-up technology reforms to meet the needs of their local community and individual citizens. This major investment goes further then fostering best practice for ‘eGovernment champions’, as the structure of the grants should help to encourage the Digital Challenge finalists and the winner to work together and with central government to pool practices in order to tackle social exclusion and be exemplars in their field.

One Stop Shops
‘One-Stop-Shop’ government requires that all public authorities are interconnected and that all groups and individuals are able to access public services at a single point even without the need for users to know which department or local authority they need to answer queries. When successful these platforms can be incredibly useful for helping people navigate public services. However, the weaknesses and unpopularity of many schemes have shown limitations of ‘one stop shops’ against search engine sites and rival forms of communication, such as telephones and digital television.

Online portals such as YourLondon act as a ‘one stop shop’ to unify the websites of London into a cohesive whole. The ease of use offers an effective method of encouraging trust in e-Government, as it reduces the time spent searching for information on London services. This facility needs to be better promoted in order to maximise use and expanded upon its successes. For example, in a section on YourLondon’s website residents can report information on areas such as vandalism or abandoned cars through placing a flag on a map, which would inform the correct borough without the user even being aware of which council the street was in.

Table 1: If there was a website where you could find public services all in one place from car tax to council tax to local school information and congestion charging would you use it? [18]

Research from Tickbox.net (above) has shown that there is a keen interest among many in using one-stop-shops, with 74.6% saying that they would consider using such a service. [19] DirectGov is the Government’s main channel for communication, with already having replaced up to 500 of the 3,000 or so government websites.[20] This one-stop shop helps to direct people effectively to the council or government service that they require. However, it intitially difficult to market, with a £5 million campaign to persuade users to contact their local council via a central government web portal having little effect, according to an independent study. [21] The Connect to Your Council campaign targeted people via radio and press and advised people to visit www.direct.gov.uk. However, despite claims by the DCLG that more than 250 thousand people visited the website in May and that more than 40 percent of respondents thought the campaign would encourage use[22] the consultants, SocITM Insight highlighted that one area of the campaign received only a 1.25 percent increase. [23] Despite referrals from Directgov rising threefold after the campaign, fewer than 1 percent of visitors found their local authority through the site and most relied on a commercial search engine (53 percent), while 16 percent guessed the address. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in London felt that the number of referrals from DirectGov had increased sevenfold in a year but that only accounted for 700 out of the 97,000 unique users that its website handled in August. [24]

Public sector ‘one stop shops’ have struggled when competing against highly established search engines such as Google, with users finding it easier to type in some key words to hunt down the required site, rather than using and then navigating through public portals such as DirectGov. This is because the familiarity of Google and its ease of use limits the appeal of users transferring to the other service. In order to justify their existences and attract significant levels of traffic platforms such as DirectGov will not only have to match Google’s utility it will have to exceed it.

The hierarchical nature of sites such as DirectGov has led to critics describing the framework as overbearing in its dictations to other websites and unaccountable to its users. As a consequence grassroots websites such as DirectionlessGov have been launched by collectives such as Democracy.org.uk (also responsible for TheyWorkForYou and UpMyStreet among others), which creates an impartial and voluntarily supported alternative to either the centralised DirectGov approach and the monolithic Google approach.[25]

This was written by Jonathan McHugh in February as part of an unrealised research application

---

[1] E-Government Review Greater London Authority: Audit 2004-2005 (Audit Commission) 2005 p. 4

[2] P. Foley, X. Alfonso, et al Connecting People: Tackling Exclusion? An Examination of the impact of the Internet by Socially Excluded Groups in London (Greater London Authority) 2006 p. 24

[3] Moon, M. Jae. 2002. “The Evolution of E-Government among Municipalities:

Rhetoric or Reality?” Public Administration Review 62: 4–12.

[4] United Kingdom National Audit Of.ce. 2002. Government on the Web 11. House of

Commons 2001–2002 Session, HC 764. London: Stationery Office.

[5] United Nations/American Society for Public Administration (UN/ASPA). 2002.

Benchmarking E-Government: A Global Perspective. New York: UN/ASPA.

[6] Santos, Rita, and Richard Heeks. 2003. ICTs and Intra-Governmental Structures at

Local, Regional and Central Levels: Updating Conventional Ideas. Manchester, UK:

IDPM, University of Manchester.

[7] West, Darrel. 2004. “E-government and the Transformation of Service Delivery

and Citizen Attitudes.” Public Administration Review 64: 15–27.

[8] M. Wimmer A European perspective towards online one-stop government: the eGOV project (Electronic Commerce Research and Applications ) 2002 p. 93

[9] M. Wimmer A European perspective towards online one-stop government: the eGOV project (Electronic Commerce Research and Applications ) 2002 p. 95

[10] L. Torres, V. Pina, and B. Acerete E-Governance Developments in European Union Cities: Reshaping Government’s Relationship with Citizens (Blackwell Publishing) 2006 p. 292

[11] L. Torres, V. Pina, and B. Acerete E-Governance Developments in European Union Cities: Reshaping Government’s Relationship with Citizens (Blackwell Publishing) 2006 p. 296

[12] M. Douglas Cultural Bias, from In The Active Voice(Routledge) 1982 p. 183-254

[13] C. Hood The Art Of The State: Culture, Rhetoric, and Public Management (Oxford University Press) 1998 p. 7-12

[14] W. Dunn Public Policy: An Introduction 3rd Edition (Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentis Hill) 2007

[15] McKay, J., & Marshall, P. The dual imperatives of action research. Information Technology and

People, (2001). 14, 46–59.

[16] SmartGov: Renewing Electronic Government for Improved Service Delivery Jul 2003 p59

[17] D. Wastell a, P.r Kawalek et al Information systems and partnership in multi-agency networks: an action research project in crime reduction (Information and Organization) 2004 p. 197

[18] DirectGov Internet Thinking (Tickbox.net) 2006

[19] DirectGov Internet Thinking (Tickbox.net) 2006

[20] Quoted in: http://www.idealgovernment.com 18/02/08

[21] £5m e-government awareness campaign flops The Guardian October 12, 2006

[22] Councils Blast Euro RSCG Take-up Campaign (Campaign) June 16, 2006

[23] £5m e-government awareness campaign flops The Guardian October 12, 2006

[24] £5m e-government awareness campaign flops The Guardian October 12, 2006

[25] http://www.directionlessgov.com/about.html

The UK and eGovernment: Chapter VI, Conclusion

The UK Government has been successful at preparing the ground for future eGovernment projects through establishing a large telecommunications infrastructure, enabling citizens and business to access high speed broadband However, its emphasis on building on contemporary processes of government rather than using it as an opportunity for reform has resulted in it being less innovative compared to countries such as Canada and Finland. Their greater emphasis on interactive, citizen-centric and transformative government has resulted in a higher level of use of eGovernment compared to the informative but one sided approach adopted by UK government websites. The Government has slowly come to realise this problem, with new initiatives such as The Digital Challenge and more recently Transformational Government, which aims to put customer centric services, shared services and professionalism at the heart of UK policymaking through promoting technology advisors on a par with policy, legal, statistic or economic advisors.[1]

There needs to be a concerted ongoing effort to educate the population about the benefits of the Internet in general use and their interaction with government services such as ‘One Stop Shops’. Without this expensive projects will be underused, reducing the growth of future beneficial projects. Expensive marketing campaigns do not appear to work so well, with people preferring to use more standard but inefficient processes such as Google to find their information, making it important for new approaches.

Government drives to encourage use of computers should foster greater confidence in the Internet. As users start to learn more they must be made aware of the options available to them and the benefits. The use of online centres and courses tailored to local needs appears to be working but the investment put in place appears to be very short-term and is already starting to eat away at other projects budgets as funding is drying up. We are still a long way away from making the UK population confident with using the Internet, let alone creating sufficient demand for government services online. The hope that market forces will make everybody consider the Internet to be treated as a common utility is very strong among policymakers. However, if we don’t sustain investment in ensuring that everybody is part of the knowledge economy then it may take a long time before the ‘Digital Divide’ closes.

The coming trajectory of eGovernment is not so clear cut, with policymakers more content to maintain existing practices than face the difficulties of transformational government starting losing momentum for further reforms. To build on the successes of previous projects will require a higher level of effort and a greater commitment to change organisational structures and processes. The future of eGovernment will become increasingly ideological and challenging to the public sector and the relationship between government organisations, citizens and business and will be as great a challenge to public policy as New Public Management and Deregulation did in the last twenty years. This will occur especially in regards to how much the public sector invests in projects, who provides online service, how it is funded and how society will deal with the ‘Digital Divide’. The benefits from countries using more advanced eGovernment strategies are becoming increasingly apparent. However, it is not too late to catch up in order to fully modernise government.

Written by Jonathan McHugh inJune 2007.

Part of Electronic Horizon: An Examination of the Importance of eGovernment and the UK Governments Approach to ICT, the Internet and its Impact on Modern Government

---

[1] Transformational Government (Cabinet Office) 2007

The UK and eGovernment: Chapter V, The Digital Divide

Around 40 percent of adults in the UK have no experience of using a computer and only 50 percent of homes have some kind of access to the Internet. [1] One report even goes far enough to suggest that over 140,000 families are at risk of being excluded by the fast development of the knowledge economy. This even extends to more successful UK cities, with a third of Londoners lacking skills and living in ‘skills poverty’. [2]

Dugdale, Daly et al suggest that this is “one of the leading challenges to the success of e-government is the lack of participation in the information society by those groups in the population who are the biggest users of government services.” [3]

The factors creating this Digital Divide are the same historic factors of social exclusion, namely income, employment and age.

Although the costs of PCs and the Internet are becoming increasingly competitive, there are still a large number of people for which these are unaffordable. Efforts to improve equality of access through PCs in libraries and centres help but are unable to fully solve this problem. For example, for socially excluded groups only 6 percent had Internet access at work compared to 38 percent for all UK users found by an ONS study. [4] Initiatives to encourage employers to increase access to the Internet and ICT training in the workplace should be encouraged, particularly areas with higher incidences of social exclusion.

The most significant factor is age. Older people have lived the majority of their life without going online and many are indifferent to the benefits, despite the potential benefits to them.

There is much debate as to whether the Internet will exaggerate existing social trends, with the more dynamic in society reaping the benefits of technological development, leaving the least off behind, or whether the advancement of broadband and development of technology into all areas of society will eventually make everybody proficient.

For Bourdieu, theories of social reproduction suggest that technological innovation and change unwittingly reinforce existing social power relations and modes of consciousness that legitimises those relations.[5] In the context of the Internet, the socially deprived have limited opportunities to familiarise themselves with technology they stand a greater chance of being left behind by others who are able to benefit from technological advances. GLA research has voiced concerns following research into the Digital Divide that it does still exist and that there is a risk that it will widen rather than reduce, if appropriate measures are not adopted to avoid it. [6]

On the other hand, many consider the growth of broadband and its application in all areas of life in the future will make the Digital Divide disappear. London Connects takes the optimistic approach, considering that this will happen through market forces and intervention by the year 2012, in time for the Smart City Vision.

In regards to the development of eDemocracy, whereby people on the Internet are able to form part of the decision-making process any Digital Divide could have consequences to the form of Democracy in the future. Jenson voices concerns that without significant equality of use and appropriate regulation online public spheres will end up becoming the coffee houses of the eighteenth century. [7] This concern is backed up by Torres, Pina and Acrete, who feel that despite increased government transparency, efficiency and customer orientated service delivery that “technology is behaving as an enabler within pre-existing social and political structures.”[8] However, Jenson still is aware that the opportunity for new media helps to provide “citizens with enhanced possibilities for gaining information and communicating with politicians, which altogether might potentially lead to a revitalisation of the public sphere.” [9]

As Warscauer points out, there is no overriding factor for determining or closing such a divide, as it is “woven into social systems and processes.” To deal with this he argues that this involves “not only providing computers and Internet links or shifting to online patterns but also developing relevant content in diverse languages, promoting literacy and education and mobilising community and institutional support toward achieving community goals.”[10]

One of the main concerns for people attempting to counteract symptoms of deprivation is that ICT is often not articulated in any meaningful or coherent way. For example, in London there is no evidence or data with which to measure local demand for ICT which makes it difficult for policymakers to support and continue ICT projects, as it is difficult to make business cases from their budget or apply for government grants.

Reaching Out to Disadvantaged Group

There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to encouraging use of the Internet, with experience showing that a careful understanding of target groups and their needs is critical to any project success. This approach is likely to benefit local authorities rather than central government, given their greater contact and understanding of constituents’ issues.

The route to users buying computers at home is usually two stage. Firstly, people experiment with the Internet in public access points. This usually lasted a couple of months, with only 26 percent of participants using the Internet for less than twelve months having access from home. [11] If people purchase a computer later it is because their greater use has made then more aware of its benefits.

Where participants use the Internet [12]

Centres
The UK has been successful at creating an infrastructure for everybody to have the opportunity to access the Internet, such as through a network of over 6000 UK Online centres, providing community-based access and learning points.[13] Also, the Peoples Network Initiative (PNI), a National Lottery initiative has helped to invest £120 million in key frontline services[14] through putting computers in every library in the country.

Research has found that these centres and IT facilities have played a very important role in assisting socially excluded groups to get online. Clayton considers that with 340 million visits a year public libraries are the biggest generator in ‘customer capital’ in the local public sector. [15] The interest from many in learning how to use computers from many people who lacked basic literacy skills was a major encouragement for such centres, as the curiosity factor was enough to initiate self betterment from some. One poll on the effect of informal ICT learning from library users was highly positive, with:

51 percent ending up having the Internet at home

42 percent making online purchases

77 percent becoming more interested and confident in working

36 percent applying for a job or starting up a business

40 percent finding a job

48 percent progressing to accredited training courses[16]

However, there are concerns for the infrastructure. Firstly, many of these centres lack of scale or size has left them unable to develop their activities sufficiently. A more concerning development has been the lack of long-term funding for computing equipment, as the PNI investment was one off. The cost of sustaining computers, including upgrades, servicing and software licensing is getting to the point where libraries are having to make the difficult choice between scaling back the number of computers available or cut funding in books. Clayton and Hepworth consider part of this funding crisis to be as a result of libraries ‘falling between the cracks or silos’, between the DfES, DCMS, and ODPM nationally, and between council departments and partnership agencies locally and regionally. [17]

There have been a number of concerns raised by participants that there is a bewildering array of Internet training and skills development courses offered by ICT centres and learning centres. Some policymakers have suggested that one way to deal with this is to create a Public Resource Centre to provide a unified front to people enquiring for courses and shared access to resources such as staff training, mentoring, equipment and the development of best practices.

Support Structures
There have been a range of support services introduced to different communities beyond just installing centres. These often reflect the communities individual characteristics.

For example, in Westminster councillors noticed a lack of interest from its Bengali community in its libraries. To counteract this they hired an outreach worker who could speak Bengali in order to teach ICT courses. This was a huge success, with over 59 percent of the Bengali community becoming active library users, particularly women, far higher than the 5 percent target envisaged. The library involved has now become the main point of access to community services of the Bengali community in Westminster and has now helped many to get onto the jobs market.

The importance of community-based advocates of Internet technology has slowly been realised. Research has found that many new Internet users are keen to volunteer and to assist others to start using the Internet. They would be useful in buddy schemes or to lead groups to help reduce the stigma of not understanding computers and provide role models to demonstrate the advantages of ICT. Demand for such existing schemes is high and appears to be a cost effective way to reach out to people. However, they need much support and perhaps training in order to reach out and increase awareness of ICT effectively.

Creating forums between businesses and getting them into the same room in order to encourage their use of ICTs and promoting partnerships should greatly increase the strength of UK ICT companies. For example, Brixton Online, a social entrepreneurship works with approximately 150 to 200 businesses a year, providing consultations, ICT packages and workshops to encourage young businesses to embrace ICT.

Encouraging social entrepreneurship is a useful way of building partnerships within the community. For example, the Mayor of London works in partnership with Maxitech to refurbish computers and redistribute them to Age Concern centres in the capital.

Projects
Shoreditch is at the centre of London’s Smart City plan for 2012. Currently it suffers from being one of Europe’s most deprived areas, with 40 percent of people economically inactive despite having over one thousand SMEs located in an area less than the size of two local authority wards.[18] However, due to massive levels of investment coordinated with the Mayor of London’s investment in the East End it should become the largest ICT literate broadband community in Europe, covering over twenty thousand residents and its businesses. [19]

The network offers an ultra high speed broadband connection five times faster than regular lines. It will offer households:

· Entertainment e.g. digital TV, video on demand, network games, music file sharing

· Welfare to work e.g. Online NVQ courses, basic skills, English as a Second Language courses, local jobs website

· Consumer e.g. local ‘e-bay’ and ‘Loot’ services, online group buying for utilities, repair reporting to local authority, approved list of personal service suppliers like childcare, plumbers, carpenters etc.

· Security e.g. online webcam CCTV across the estates that can be monitored by residents in their homes, through the Network

· Community information e.g. GP Surgery opening times, GP bookings, benefits entitlements

· Communications e.g. free local phone calls, e-mail, PC applications like MS Office and internet explorer, community chat rooms, community voting

For businesses, especially SMEs it will include:

· Network services e.g. latest versions of MS Office, Sage, specialist software needed by knowledge economy enterprises, backup of files on network drive

· Security e.g. Online webcam CCTV, monitoring premises and surrounding areas, that can be viewed by SMEs over the network. Panic buttons and security systems, enabled by the high speed connection.

· Business support e.g. award winning online support packages developed by London Met University New Media lab, online premises matching services, online loan finance through ShOW’s SME loan development fund

· Business services e.g. approved lists of service suppliers such as Accountants, Legal, HR etc.; online group buying of common services such as utilities, online sector forums and networking areas

There will very generous introductory offers to encourage initial uptake. Although there will be a subscription to the service in order to guarantee its long-term sustainability the large economies involved are expected to save households £300 a year.

This investment examines the strengths of weaknesses and creates a framework that should be successful both socially and efficiently at transforming the region.

Written by Jonathan McHugh in June 2007.

Part of Electronic Horizon: An Examination of the Importance of eGovernment and the UK Governments Approach to ICT, the Internet and its Impact on Modern Government

---

[1] Acting now to provide for an exciting future (Western Morning News) September 14, 2006

[2] The London Knowledge Economy (Knowledge Economy Network) 2006 p. 6E

[3] A. Dugdale, A. Daly et al Accessing e-government: challenges for citizens and Organizations (International Review of Administrative Sciences) 2005 p116-7

[4] P Foley, X Alfonso, et al Connecting people: tackling exclusion? An examination of the impact on and use of the Internet by socially excluded groups in London (Greater London Authority) 2006 p. 8

[5] R. Morrow C. Torres Social Theory and Education: A Critique of Theories of Social and Cultural Reproduction. (New York Press) 1995

[6] The digital divide in a world city, GLA, June 2002

[7] J. Jensen Public Spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or Government-Sponsored – A Comparison (Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 26 – No. 4) 2003 p350

[8] L. Torres, V. Pina, and B. Acerete E-Governance Developments in European Union Cities: Reshaping Government’s Relationship with Citizens (Blackwell Publishing) 2006 p. 300

[9] J. Jensen Public Spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or Government-Sponsored – A Comparison (Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 26 – No. 4) 2003 p349

[10] M. Warschauer Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide (MIT Press) 2003 p. 39

[11] P Foley, X Alfonso, et al Connecting people: tackling exclusion? An examination of the impact on and use of the Internet by socially excluded groups in London (Greater London Authority) 2006 p. 7

[12] P Foley, X Alfonso, et al Connecting people: tackling exclusion? An examination of the impact on and use of the Internet by socially excluded groups in London (Greater London Authority) 2006 p. 38

[13] G. Kuk The Digital Divide and the Quality of Electronic Service Delivery in Local Government in the United Kingdom (Government Information Quarterly) 2002 p. 355

[14] N. Clayton and M. Hepworth Public Libraries in the Knowledge Economy (Museums, Libraries and Archives Council) 2006 p. 64

[15] N. Clayton and M. Hepworth Public Libraries in the Knowledge Economy (Museums, Libraries and Archives Council) 2006 p. 7

[16] N. Clayton and M. Hepworth Public Libraries in the Knowledge Economy (Museums, Libraries and Archives Council) 2006 p. 64

[17] N. Clayton and M. Hepworth Public Libraries in the Knowledge Economy (Museums, Libraries and Archives Council) 2006 p. 65

[18] Shoreditch: The Digital Bridge

[19] Shoreditch: The Digital Bridge