Upload
theresa-rich
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
work in progress-do not quote
eGovernmentImpact on Service Delivery
Subhash Bhatnagar
Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad
and
Advisor e-government, Information Solutions Group (Informatics Program)
World Bank, Washinton DC
work in progress-do not quote
Presentation Structure
• Methodology for Measuring Impact on Service Delivery
• Results from a Study of 5 projects– Study objectives– Projects covered in the study– Analysis of Results
• Are investments in eGovernment worthwhile?
• Lessons for future projects
work in progress-do not quote
Measurement FrameworkStakeholders Key Dimension of Impact
Client Economic (Direct & Indirect)Governance (Corruption, Accountability, Transparency, Participation)Quality of Service (Decency, Fairness, Convenience, etc.)Over all satisfaction
Agency(Including Partners in Implementation)
Economic (Direct & Indirect)Governance (Corruption, Accountability, Transparency, Participation) Performance on Key Non-economic Objectives Process ImprovementsWork life of employees
SocietyOther DepartmentsGovernment as a WholeCivil Society
Desirability of investments in e-GovernmentImpact on vulnerable groupsImage of Government (Efficiency, Corruption, Accountability, Transparency, Participation, Responsiveness)Impact on development Goals
work in progress-do not quote
Methodology for Assessment• Select mature, wide scope and scale projects of e-delivery of
services.• Collect data through structured survey from clients, employees,
supervisors using counterfactuals ( for old non computerized delivery and new e-delivery system)
• Customize survey instrument to each project, adapt in local language
• Data can be collected through Internet survey, face to face interviews and focus groups
• Use professional market research agencies with trained investigators for face to face interviews
• Determine sample frame and size so that results can be extrapolated to the entire population (often 300 clients may be sufficient). Select respondents randomly from locations stratified by activity levels and remoteness
• Collect data on investments, operating costs, activity levels, revenues, employee strength from agencies.
• Develop a case study-organizational context, process reform, change management.
work in progress-do not quote
Data be Collected to Evaluate Impact
• Project context: basic information on the project and its context• Inputs (technology, human capital, financial resources);• Process outcome (reengineered processes, shortened cycle
time, improved access to data and analysis, flexibility in reports);
• Customer results (service coverage, timeliness and responsiveness, service quality and convenience of access);
• Agency outcomes (transparency and accountability, less corruption, administrative efficiency, revenue growth and cost reduction) and
• Strategic outcomes (economic growth, poverty reduction and achievement of MDGs).
• Organizational processes: institutional arrangements, organizational structure, and other reform initiatives of the Government that might have influenced the outcome for the ICT project.
work in progress-do not quote
Projects of e-delivery of Services• Issue of land titles in Karnataka (Bhoomi): 180 Kiosks,
Launched February 2001• Property registration in Karnataka (Kaveri): 230 offices
Launched March 2003• Property Registration in Andhra Pradesh: AP 400
offices. Launched November 1998• eSeva center in Andhra Pradesh: 250 locations in 190
towns, Used monthly by 3.5 million citizens August 01 • Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC): 16 Civic
Service Centers September 2002• e-Procurement in Chile (Comprasnet)• Income Tax on-line in Chile
work in progress-do not quote
Analysis of ResultsNext 8 slides present average scores/values of the difference between computerized and manual systems as reported by 240 respondents per project
1. Difference between computerized and manual systems reported by users - costs, governance, service quality and overall preference
2. Estimated savings in costs (trips, travel cost, bribes, wait time) estimated for the entire population of users
3. Projects in descending order of improvement in Composite Scores based on a weighted score on 18 common attributes for each project
4. Descending order of post computerization composite score5. Top four attributes desired in each application6. Impact on agency: Investment, operating expenses, transaction
volume, revenue collected7. Economic viability from agency perspective8. Attitude of 1200 respondents on the basis of their experience of
using different eGovernment applications
work in progress-do not quote
BHOOMI KAVERI
CARD E-SEVA
AMC
Total Travel Cost per transactıon (Rs.)
(81.381) 116.68 39.63 9.34 21.85
Number of trips 0.47 1.20 1.38 0.29 0.65
Wage Loss (Rs.) (39.22) 120.55 28.46 15.63 36.84
Waiting Time (Minutes) 41.21 62.91 96.24 18.50 16.16
Governance Quality - 5 point scale
0.764 0.21 0.190 0.608 0.794
Percentage paying bribes 33.09 12.71 4.31 0.40 2.51
Service Quality- 5 point scale
0.95 0.32 0.48 0.95 0.70
Error Rate 0.77 3.80 0.86 1.58 0.42
Preference for Computerization (%)
79.34 98.31 96.98 96.84 97.49
Overall Improvements Reported by Users
work in progress-do not quote
Savings in Cost to CustomersEstimates for entire client population
Projects Million Transactions
Travel Cost
Saving (Rs.
Million)
Wage Loss
(Rs. Million)
Waiting
Time (Hour
s)
Bribes (Rs.
Million)
BHOOMI RTC-11.97
Mutation-1.03
(1,041.24) (470.28) (0.26) 305.18
KAVERI 2.47 220.48 297.92 2.55 (118.79)
CARD 1.03 69.91 29.39 1.67 (96.27)
e-SEVA 37.02 274.10 578.56 11.41 0.00
AMC 0.71 15.03 26.27 0.18 3.45
work in progress-do not quote
Projects: Descending Order Of Improvement in Composite Scores
Project Manual Computer Difference
AverageAverag
eS.E. Average S.E.
BHOOMI 2.86 0.07 4.46 0.04 1.60
e-SEVA 3.39 0.04 4.66 0.03 1.27
AMC 3.37 0.04 4.12 0.06 0.75
KAVERI 3.35 0.06 3.90 0.05 0.55
CARD 3.78 0.03 3.93 0.03 0.15
work in progress-do not quote
Descending Order Of Post Computerization Composite Score
Project Manual Computer Difference AverageAverage S.E. Average S.E.
e-SEVA 3.39 0.04 4.66 0.03 1.27
BHOOMI 2.86 0.07 4.46 0.04 1.60
AMC 3.37 0.04 4.12 0.06 0.75
CARD 3.78 0.03 3.93 0.03 0.15
KAVERI 3.35 0.06 3.90 0.05 0.55
work in progress-do not quote
Top Four Attributes Desired in the Application
BHOOMI Error free transaction
No delay in transaction
Less waiting time
Fewer visits
KAVERI Less corruption
Greater transparency
Error free transaction
Less waiting time
CARD Less time and effort required
Less waiting time
Less corruption
Fair treatment
e-SEVA Less time and effort required
Less waiting time
Convenient time schedule
Fair treatment
AMC Less time and effort required
Less corruption
Greater transparency
Less cost
work in progress-do not quote
Impact on Agency BHOOMI KAVERI CARD e-SEVA AMC CIVIC
CENTER
Total Project Investment (Rs. million)
216.35 400.00 300.00 600.00 250.00
Operating Expenses 159.32 111.13 64.50 168.90 19.20
Annual Transactions (million) 13.00 2.47 1.03 37.02 0.71
Clients Served (million) 7.62 1.33 0.33 15.30 0.29
Tax Revenue in 2005-06 for Computerized (Rs. million)
N.A. 19,245.07 17,282.68 N.A. 1,974.26
Tax Revenue in Last Year of Manual (Rs. million)
N.A. 9,033.16 4,765.27 N.A. 651.36
Growth Rate in Tax Revenue for Computerized
N.A. 28.68 23.95 N.A. 44.72
Transaction Fees in 2005-06 for Computerized (Rs. million)
215.70 2,626.95 1,130.87 203.59 53.32
Transaction Fees in Last Year of Manual (Rs. million)
135.10 1,890.46 300.18 42.01 32.86
Growth Rate in Transaction Fees for Computerized
26.36 11.59 24.74 120.15 17.51
work in progress-do not quote
Economic Viability of ProjectsAgency Perspective
Yearly Operating Expense per Transaction
Investment per Cumulative Transactions for 4 years
AMC Civic Center 12.25 5.61
CARD 44.97 45.18
e-Seva 62.47 95.94
Bhoomi 1.56 1.61
KAVERI 26.92 109.42
work in progress-do not quote
Attitude to e-GovernmentThe Knowledge Society Mean S.E.
E gov makes an impact on the knowledge of society 4.03 0.02
E gov makes an impact on the literacy level of society 3.97 0.02
Improvement in Governance
Enhances citizens convenience in availing government services 4.14 0.02
Reduces corruption in delivery of public services 3.98 0.03
Increases accountability & transparency of government 4.03 0.02
E gov has helped to improve the image of government 4.12 0.02
More investment in e-Governance
Government should make more investment on E gov 4.12 0.02
More govt department/ public agencies should be computerised 4.13 0.02
Computerisation of government departments is a waste of resources 3.85 0.03
Investments in Development Schemes versus e-Government
Money spent in e gov should be used for other government activities 2.96 0.03
Building schools, roads, dispensaries is more useful than e gov projects 3.22 0.03
Digital Inclusion
E gov services put the poor at disadvantage 3.73 0.03
E gov services benefit only the rich and influential 3.74 0.03
E gov services benefit only the urban people 3.50 0.03
Rural citizens benefit greatly from e-Government services 3.30 0.03
Rural and urban poverty level have changed 3.22 0.03
work in progress-do not quote
Conclusions
• Overall Impact– Significant positive impact on cost of accessing service– Variability across different service centers of a project – Strong preference for e-Government over manual systems even though
there is large variation across projects on composite scores.– Assessment of five projects define a useful BENCHMARK
• Reduced corruption-outcome is mixed and can be fragile– Any type of system break down leads to corruption– Private operators also exhibit rent seeking behavior given an opportunity
• For most projects economic viability can be ensured through acceptable service fees (costs are low and transaction volumes are high in India)
• Small improvements in efficiency can trigger major positive change in perception about quality of governance.
• Strong endorsement of e-Government but indirect preference for private participation