Transcript eGovernment Impact on Service Delivery

eGovernment
Impact on Service Delivery
Subhash Bhatnagar
Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad
([email protected])
and
Advisor e-government, Information Solutions Group (Informatics Program)
World Bank, Washinton DC
[email protected]
work in progress-do not quote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work in progress-do not quote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 Framework
Stakeholders
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 Improvements
Work life of employees
Society
Other Departments
Government as a
Whole
Civil Society
Desirability of investments in e-Government
Impact on vulnerable groups
Image of Government (Efficiency, Corruption, Accountability,
Transparency, Participation, Responsiveness)
Impact on development Goals
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.
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
work in progress-do not quote
project.
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
Analysis of Results
Next 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 score
5. Top four attributes desired in each application
6. Impact on agency: Investment, operating expenses, transaction
volume, revenue collected
7. Economic viability from agency perspective
8. Attitude of 1200 respondents on the basis of their experience of
using different eGovernment applications
work in progress-do not quote
Overall Improvements Reported by Users
BHOOMI KAVER
I
Total Travel Cost per
transactıon (Rs.)
CARD
ESEVA
AMC
(81.381)
116.68
39.63
9.34
21.85
0.47
1.20
1.38
0.29
0.65
(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
79.34
98.31
96.98
96.84
97.49
Number of trips
Wage Loss (Rs.)
Preference for
Computerization (%)
work in progress-do not quote
Savings in Cost to Customers
Estimates for entire client population
Projects
Travel
Wage
Cost
Loss
Saving
(Rs.
(Rs.
Million)
Million)
BHOOMI
RTC-11.97 (1,041.24) (470.28)
Mutation-1.03
KAVERI
2.47
220.48 297.92
CARD
1.03
69.91
29.39
e-SEVA
AMC
Million
Transactions
37.02
274.10
0.71
15.03
Waiti
ng
Time
(Hour
s)
(0.26)
Bribes
(Rs.
Million)
305.18
2.55
1.67
(118.79)
(96.27)
578.56 11.41
0.00
work in progress-do not quote
26.27
0.18
3.45
Projects: Descending Order Of
Improvement in Composite Scores
Project
Manual
Averag
e
BHOOMI
e-SEVA
AMC
KAVERI
CARD
2.86
3.39
3.37
3.35
3.78
Computer
S.E.
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.03
Average
4.46
4.66
4.12
3.90
3.93
work in progress-do not quote
S.E.
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.05
0.03
Differenc
e
Average
1.60
1.27
0.75
0.55
0.15
Descending Order Of Post
Computerization Composite Score
Project
e-SEVA
BHOOMI
AMC
CARD
KAVERI
Manual
Computer
Difference
Average
Average
S.E.
Average S.E.
3.39
0.04
4.66
0.03
1.27
2.86
0.07
4.46
0.04
1.60
3.37
0.04
4.12
0.06
0.75
3.78
0.03
3.93
0.03
0.15
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
Fair treatment
time schedule
AMC
Less time
and effort
required
Less
corruption
Greater
transparency
work in progress-do not quote
Less cost
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
13.00
2.47
1.03
37.02
0.71
7.62
1.33
0.33
15.30
0.29
Annual Transactions (million)
Clients Served (million)
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
Transaction Fees in Last Year
of Manual (Rs. million)
135.10
1,890.46
26.36
11.59
Growth Rate in Transaction
Fees for Computerized
1,130.87 203.59
work in progress-do not quote
300.18
53.32
42.01
32.86
24.74 120.15
17.51
Economic Viability of Projects
Agency Perspective
Yearly Operating Expense Investment per Cumulative
per Transaction
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-Government
The 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
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
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
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
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 not quote
work in progress-do
3.30
0.03
Rural and urban poverty level have changed
3.22
0.03
Improvement in Governance
More investment in e-Governance
Investments in Development Schemes versus e-Government
Digital Inclusion
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