Back-Office Integration Manual

Transcription

COMPETITIVENESS AND INNOVATION
FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME
ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP)
THEME 3: ICT FOR GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNANCE
Grant Agreement No. 256244
Contract Duration: 26 months (1st September 2010 – 31st October 2012)
Electronic Participation Tools for Spatial Planning
and Territorial Development (PARTERRE)
Deliverable D4.6
Circulation:
PU (Public)
Nature:
R (Report)
Version #:
2.0
Issue Date:
31st August 2012
Responsible Partner(s):
TUTECH
Author(s):
John Heaven (TUTECH), Francesco Molinari (RT)
Status:
Final
Reviewed on:
31st August 2012
Reviewed by:
Angelo Marcotulli (RT)
Contractual Date of Delivery:
30th June 2012
D4.6
Version 2.0
PARTERRE Project
Abstract:
This document deals with the Back Office functions of PARTERRE supported eParticipation. These are
defined as the internal operations of a public sector entity that engages in the use of DEMOS-Plan
and/or the organisation of an Electronic Town Meeting, and that are not accessible or visible to the
general public. The purpose of this Deliverable is to highlight how those functions are affected by the
proposed utilisation of PARTERRE tools and methods, and to provide guidance on integrating the two
components, DEMOS-Plan and/or the Electronic Town Meeting, into a single customer’s back-office
infrastructure.
Copyright
© 2012 The PARTERRE Consortium, consisting of:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RT – Regione Toscana, Settore Tecnologie Innovative e Servizi di Fonia (Italy)
TUTECH – TuTech Innovation GmbH (Germany)
AU – Avventura Urbana s.r.l. (Italy)
HAMBURG – Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (Germany)
UNIPA – Università di Palermo, Dipartimento di Architettura (Italy)
TUAS – Turun Ammattikorkeakoulu (Finland)
TRAIL – University of Ulster (UK)
VCC – Community Council of Voroklini (Cyprus)
All rights reserved.
The PARTERRE project is partially funded under the ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP) as
part of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme by the European Community
http://ec.europa.eu/ict_psp. This document reflects only the author's views and the European
Community is not liable for any use that might be made of the information contained herein. This
document may not be copied, reproduced, or modified in whole or in part for any purpose without
written permission from the PARTERRE Consortium. In presence of such written permission, or
when the circulation of the document is termed as “public”, an acknowledgement of the authors and
of all applicable portions of the copyright notice must be clearly referenced. This document may
change without prior notice.
Document History
Version
Issue Date
Stage
Content and changes
#0.1
1st
Draft
Document structure defined by the Coordinator
#0.2
23rd
Draft
Structure revised by all Partners during kick-off meeting
#1.0
2nd August 2012
Draft
First edition by TUTECH, open to partners comments
#2.0
31st August 2012
Draft
Second edition by RT
Final
Internal revision done by the Coordinator
July 2010
July 2010
page ii of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
PARTERRE Project
Executive Summary
Workpackage:
WP 4 – Pilots Establishment and Implementation
Workpackage leader:
TRAIL
Task:
T 4.5 – Feedback Collection from Field Trials
Task leader:
TUTECH
This document deals with the Back-Office functions of PARTERRE supported
eParticipation. These are defined as the internal operations of a public sector entity
that engages in the use of DEMOS-Plan and/or the organisation of an Electronic
Town Meeting, and that are not accessible or visible to the general public.
The purpose of this Deliverable is to highlight how those functions are affected by the
proposed utilisation of PARTERRE tools and methods, and to provide guidance on
integrating the two components, DEMOS-Plan and the Electronic Town Meeting, into
a single customer’s back-office infrastructure. For a discussion of ‘higher-level’
organisational issues surrounding successfully implemented eParticipation within
PARTERRE, the reader is referred to Deliverable D4.5 “Best Practice Manual”.
The structure of this document is as follows:
-
A brief Introduction frames the issue within the broader context of Front- and
Back-Office integration for the co-delivery of complex services with the users;
Section 2 delves into the notion of Back-Office Integration and its relevance for
the topic of discussion;
Section 3 summarizes the technical as well as the functional requirements of
the (combined or independent) implementation of the two PARTERRE tools,
namely DEMOS-Plan and the Electronic Town Meeting;
Section 4 deals with other, no less relevant issues such as cultural change and
the role of legislation in promoting innovation;
Section 5 contains some concluding remarks.
This Deliverable is public. Its expected readership includes CIOs and management
professionals from inside and outside European public administration, as well as all
the interested persons in successful eParticipation.
page iii of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
PARTERRE Project
Statement of originality:
This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly
indicated otherwise. Acknowledgement of previously published material and of
the work of others has been made through appropriate citation, quotation or
both.
page iv of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
PARTERRE Project
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 DEFINITIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 6 1.2 ACTIVE FRONT-OFFICE FUNCTIONS IN THE PARTERRE PILOTS ............................................................. 9 1.3 ACHIEVING BACK-OFFICE INTEGRATION ................................................................................................ 10 2 INTEGRATION: MEANING, ADVANTAGES, DISADVANTAGES......................................... 14 2.1 MEANING ................................................................................................................................................. 14 2.2 ADVANTAGES OF PROCESS INNOVATION ................................................................................................ 14 2.3 DISADVANTAGES OF PROCESS INNOVATION ........................................................................................... 16 2.4 ADVANTAGES OF TECHNICAL INTEGRATION ........................................................................................... 18 2.5 DISADVANTAGES OF TECHNICAL INTEGRATION ...................................................................................... 18 2.6 ALTERNATIVES TO TECHNICAL INTEGRATION: CLOUD COMPUTING AND EXAMPLES FROM THE
PARTERRE PROJECT ....................................................................................................................................... 19 3 TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................................... 21 3.1 FOREWORD .............................................................................................................................................. 21 3.2 DEMOS-PLAN ........................................................................................................................................ 21 3.2.1 Server .............................................................................................................................................. 21 3.2.2 Other................................................................................................................................................ 21 3.3 ELECTRONIC TOWN MEETING ................................................................................................................ 22 4 CULTURE CHANGE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT ............................................................... 24 4.1 CULTURE CHANGE ................................................................................................................................... 24 4.2 CHANGE MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................................... 24 4.2.1 Example: Hamburg introducing DEMOS-Plan....................................................................... 25 4.2.2 Example: Regione Toscana introducing the eTM ................................................................... 25 5 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 27 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 28 LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................................... 29 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................. 30 page v of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
1
PARTERRE Project
Introduction
1.1
Definitions
A standard distinction made within public sector and – more generally – service
organisations is between Back Office and Front Office functions and their related
processes.
The former are defined (see OECD 2005, pp. 72-73) as the internal operations that
support core processes and that are not accessible, or visible, to the general public.
The latter are usually labelled “services”, although it should be more properly said
that any service is composed of both front- and back-office operations.
In PARTERRE, we have focused on the particular “electronic service” constituted by
the provision of eParticipation facilities to the general public, in a number of thematic
domains, all classified within the common family of Territorial Development policies,
such as:
-
Spatial and Urban Planning
-
Strategic Environmental Assessment
-
Socio-economic Planning and Programming
Graphically speaking, the three constitutive elements of the above service can be
visualised as per the following diagram:
Figure 1: The PARTERRE Service Domain
page 6 of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
PARTERRE Project
As the picture shows, PARTERRE acts at the intersection between three domains of
greatest relevance for public policy: Territorial Development, Electronic Services, and
Community Development.
Territorial Development encompasses a wide range of “place-based” policies and
initiatives that share the twin aim of strengthening the economic performance and
the social fabric of a city or region by adopting a transversal approach that cuts across
the individual sectors of a given economy and society. For instance, the 7th Progress
Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion (European Commission 2011)
connects the degree of implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy with the regional
and urban dimension provided by the distinction between ‘convergence, transition,
and regional competitiveness and employment’ regions, supported by data at NUTS 2
level. Article 84 of the draft Common Provisions Regulation 2014-2020 (European
Commission 2012) earmarks 5% of national allocations for the ERDF (the European
Regional Development Fund) to ‘integrated territorial investments’ (ITI), and, in
addition, 0.2% of the ERDF to go towards supporting ‘innovative actions’ at the
initiative of the Commission in the area of sustainable urban development and the
establishment of an ‘urban development platform’. In PARTERRE, we focus on three
main Front Office functions of the European public sector pertaining to urban or
regional development policy, namely:
-
The formation, amendment and approval of spatial plans by legally competent
bodies according to national legislation of the Member States;
-
The execution of Strategic Environmental Assessment sessions according to
the EU and Member State regulations;
-
The formulation, amendment and approval of socio-economic (non spatial)
plans and programmes by legally competent bodies.
Community Development is a broad term applied to the research and practice of
academic thinkers, professional facilitators, political leaders, civic activists, engaged
citizens and philanthropists, all acting in various ways to empower individuals and
groups and to make social, political and cultural change ultimately sustainable. Its
driving principle is that “within any community there is a wealth of knowledge and
experience which, if used in creative ways, can be channelled into collective action to
achieve the communities' desired goals”1. This implies changing the relation between
ordinary people and people in position of power, so that everyone can take part in the
political decisions that mostly affect their lives. For instance, the Common Provisions
Regulation lists a number of new instruments for supporting ‘integrated territorial
development’, which include ‘community led local development’.
In PARTERRE, we mostly focus on two key Front Office functions of the European
public sector pertaining to Community Development, namely:
1
http://www.cdx.org.uk/community-development/what-community-development
page 7 of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
-
PARTERRE Project
Public consultation, seeking the community’s input on special matters that
are most directly affecting them. In particular, we make the further distinction
between:
o Formal consultation, which is required and sometimes regulated by the
law (such is the case of spatial planning, when a new draft is adopted by
the competent authority, the latter is mandated to make the plan public
and ask for written statements by all the entities that are potentially
affected, being they citizens or other public bodies);
o Informal consultation, which is driven by the initiative of government
and even non government bodies (such as stakeholder associations), in
a way that is not binding in terms of means, processes, and outcomes.
-
Citizen participation, where the main difference from consultation lies in
the fact that the community’s input received is not optionally, but mandatorily
used by the competent authority to become an integral part of the decisions
being taken. This is more the case of the Strategic Environmental Assessment
process, which has to be formally activated whenever a new project (of
infrastructure, urban design, or similar) requires so under the provisions of
the European directive 2001/42/EC and its Member State level specifications.
Without the integration of citizens’ and other stakeholders’ comments into the
“SEA certification”, the underlying project, be it of private or public initiative,
cannot receive a green light.
Thirdly, Electronic Services include a wide variety of government services that are
provided through the Internet or other electronic means. This umbrella term usually
refers to eGovernment as the transformation process of public administration that is
enabled by a more widespread adoption of the ICT (Information and Communication
Technologies), both in the Front and in the Back Office. However, as in eGovernment
theory and practice there is normally more than simply using ICT or turning existing
“offline” services into electronic equivalents, we preferred not to use the latter term to
designate the third policy domain of relevance for PARTERRE. Also, the distinction
between DEMOS-Plan and the Electronic Town Meeting – the two components of the
PARTERRE solution – is such that the Internet is only indispensable to deliver public
consultations with DEMOS-Plan, while the Electronic Town Meeting in its narrowest
version (with all participants gathered in the same room) does not strictly require an
Internet connection, if not e.g. to broadcast its live proceedings on the web.
As Figure 1 again shows, other combinations of these three domains are possible: for
instance, we consider the GIS (Geographical Information Systems) and SDI
(Spatial Data Infrastructures) as Electronic Services to the benefit of Territorial
Development policy. Or we can position Electronic Participation (eParticipation) at
the confluence between Community Development and Electronic Services. Or we can
envisage good participation in e.g. spatial planning or socio-economic programming
without the integration of ICT. In this case, we call Participatory Planning what
lies at the intersection between Territorial and Community Development, namely all
page 8 of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
PARTERRE Project
those city level or regional policies that emphasize involving the entire community in
strategic decision-making and territorial management2.
1.2 Active front-office functions in the PARTERRE Pilots
However, as the following icons exhibit, the PARTERRE service instantiation (the
way it was achieved across the various pilot implementations of the project) actually
has common elements with at least two or more of the policy domains described
above, although with more or less emphasis, in relation to the specific contents of the
pilots.
Table 1: Overview of the PARTERRE Pilots
Regione Toscana, IT
City of Hamburg, DE
University of Ulster, UK
ANETEL (Larnaca District Development Agency) and the Voroklini Community Council, CY
University of Palermo, IT
Turku University of Applied Sciences, FI
For a more detailed analysis of state of the art in Participatory Spatial Planning, the reader is referred
to D2.1 “The EU framework of Spatial Planning and Environmental Assessment”. A good example of
Non Spatial Participatory Planning is the CPPE process by Lefevre et al. (2000), followed by many
others. See also http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/x2103e/X2103E07.htm
2
page 9 of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
PARTERRE Project
Key (eTM=Electronic Town Meeting)
Symbol
Meaning
Rationale
Emphasis given to community development
Regione Toscana: according to a Regional
and participation in non spatially related plans law it is mandatory to effect participation
and socio-economic programmes.
before specific policy acts are undertaken.
The eTM was used to support this, with long
lasting impacts on the stakeholder
communities of reference (Living Lab).
University of Ulster: use of eTM a primer
in the whole region. Gradual increase in the
number of attendees and level of consensus
in the decision-making bodies. Intermediary
role played by the local Living Lab.
ANETEL/VCC: the Larnaca District Plan
had no immediate spatial relation, however
the use of DEMOS-Plan has started to create
the community for the following eTM.
Turku University: same as in Ulster in
terms of innovation in regional eParticipation
practice and intermediary role played by the
local Living Lab(s).
Emphasis given to (formal and/or informal)
participation in a spatially related plan.
City of Hamburg: only case of successful
experimentation of DEMOS -Plan in a “real”
spatial planning process, although in parallel
to normal consultations - with exchange of
paper documents etc. Ongoing path toward
permanent back-office integration.
and stakeholder consultation in a spatially
related plan.
ANETEL/VCC: the Voroklini Community
did ask specific questions with spatial
relevance to the community representatives
gathered in the eTM. Received answers will
be taken into account during the next plan
drafting phase, which has the central
Government as key interlocutor.
and participation in a spatially related plan.
University of Palermo: bottom-up
initiative using Living Lab resources (a blog
instead of DEMOS-Plan to establish the
community) and the eTM to formulate clear
guidelines to spatial planners in the area.
Technical role of support played by the
Faculty of Architecture.
Turku University: systematic use of ICT for
community building in remote and sparse
rural areas (islands). Joint experimentation
of DEMOS-Plan and eTM as well as the eTMPlan (eTM run in parallel between distant
locations) with mixed results.
1.3 Achieving Back-Office Integration
Adopting either of the above Front-Office functions requires a considerable degree of
integration of the Back-Office functions with the Front-Office themselves.
page 10 of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
PARTERRE Project
The rationale is simple, and fairly well explained by the Hamburg City and Tuscany
Region cases – the only ones at the moment, having initiated a pathway towards the
permanent inclusion of participation (and eParticipation) in the respective decisionmaking processes3: if a legally competent body decides to undertake this innovation,
it has to add at least one step (or a feedback loop – see Colombo et al. 2011) to the
“standard” workflow in use.
As an example, take the familiar process of revision of an existing spatial plan. In the
first place, the competent body (e.g. a City Council) approves the new plan draft,
which is then published in such a way to give it the maximum possible visibility, and
enable the collection of comments, observations and amendment requests from other
stakeholders, public bodies and the general public, within a predefined time frame
(normally for two months). Received inputs are then revised one by one, first by an
internal committee of experts, then by the decision-making organ of the competent
body.
Figure 2: Scope of the PARTERRE Service - example
As the picture above shows, innovating the standard process can be done in two main
ways:
1) By adding a new sub-process (the request for and collection of inputs) and
feedback loop (#1) during the stage of plan elaboration – i.e. before its formal
approval, albeit in draft version;
3 For a more detailed presentation of the two cases, the reader is referred to D7.1 “Initial Business
Deployment Plan”
page 11 of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
PARTERRE Project
2) By introducing a feedback loop (#2) across existing Front-Office and BackOffice functions, in such a way that only ICT support can ultimately ensure.
In both cases, the issue we are talking about can also be considered as an example of
integration, not only of Back- and Front-Office functions within a single organisation,
but also between the purposeful and sometimes compulsory actions of many external
entities (other public sector organisations, ordinary citizens, NGOs, businesses and
business associations, etc.) who all contribute to the co-delivery of the same complex
“service” – in this case, the revision of an existing spatial plan.
Figure 3: Co-delivery of a spatial plan (example)
According to the real-life experiences of the Tuscany Region and the City of Hamburg
quoted before, Feedback Loop #1 can be established within the public sector entity
through a modification of the current guidelines that frame and supervise the main
process. Feedback Loop #2 on the other hand, being already foreseen by existing laws
or regulations – albeit in weaker form – should be accompanied by a tighter and in
some way more permanent integration of ICT into the main process.
In light of the above considerations, this document provides preliminary guidance on
integrating the two components of the PARTERRE service, DEMOS-Plan and the
Electronic Town Meeting (eTM), into a customer’s back-office infrastructure. We deal
with the two tools separately, but with the intention of them being used in tandem
wherever it is required or feasible according to the purposes of the trial. Due to the
nature of the proposed integration, this Deliverable deals with technical requirements
and procedural recommendations for successfully using either or both of the tools but
page 12 of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
PARTERRE Project
without encroaching on D4.5 “Best Practice Manual”, which tackles with ‘higher-level’
organisational issues surrounding successfully implemented eParticipation.
This deliverable is about integrating the tools into a customer’s infrastructure, not
about integrating the two tools with one another, and this distinction is motivated in
D3.7 “Final Integrated Platform” as well as in Section 2 below. There we also consider
what integration means in the context of this document, what the pros and cons are,
and the alternatives to full integration. In Section 3 a brief technical specification
advises on the type of infrastructure that the PARTERRE service is suited to, and
what equipment is required, with the proviso that the solution deployed is intended
to be adapted to local circumstances.
“Soft” factors, such as culture change and change management, are considered in
Section 4. By doing so, we take a holistic view of what integration means in order to
give a pragmatic account of what is necessary for a working installation. Some final
remarks are reported in Section 5 that concludes the document.
page 13 of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
PARTERRE Project
2 Integration: Meaning, Advantages, Disadvantages
2.1 Meaning
Literature models of Back-Office integration, irrespective of the delivery mode of a
service, fall into three broad categories: single function integration across multiple
departments or agencies, cross-functional integration, and Back-Office to FrontOffice integration.
Integration, for the purposes of this document, is viewed from two perspectives. On
the one hand, it means hosting the necessary software (eTM and DEMOS-Plan) in the
infrastructure provided by the customer of PARTERRE; and on the other, it relates to
process innovation (as described in the Introduction) and the management of change
within public sector organisations to enable them to adapt to new ways of working
and avoid unnecessary barriers to success.
This second element, change management, should not be neglected, because it is
crucial to ensure that new technology is used to its full potential. “Whilst the
technology is increasingly resilient and 'fit for purpose', the evidence indicates that
success or failure is less a technological issue and more a people issue - in
particular, the ability to change public service cultures and motivate public sector
workers to new ways of working, address trade union concerns, and provide
adequately skilled and competent management and leadership” (United Nations
2008, p. xvii).
2.2 Advantages of Process Innovation
Typical drivers for Back-Office to Front-Office integration within the public sector
include:
-
A quest for more efficiency
-
Improvement of service quality
-
Increased control (either centralised or decentralised)
-
Modernisation and Reputation
-
Radical innovation
Making reference to the introduction of eParticipation and particularly the adoption
of the PARTERRE tools, the following table summarizes the resulting advantages as
emerged during the Project’s pilot experimentation.
Key
eTM = Electronic Town Meeting
eTM-Plan = Electronic Town Meeting on spatial planning issues done in parallel between distant
locations
page 14 of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
PARTERRE Project
Table 2: Immediate benefits of the PARTERRE Tools
Driver
DEMOS-Plan advantages
eTM advantages
eTM-Plan advantages
A quest for more Documented savings on raw
Efficiency
costs of printing and changing
maps during the consultation
phase.
Other savings on postal service
and photocopying costs.
Increased control on the timing
of planning procedures.
Economies of scale in running a
face-to-face consultation with
several stakeholders at the same
time.
Compared to other methods and
tools, lower unit cost of the single
contribution received.
Additional economies of
scale in running the same
consultation with more
venues at the same time.
Future developments:
more citizens individually
asked to form “virtual
tables”.
Improvement of
Service Quality
More structured way of
collecting mandatory (by law)
observations on spatial plans
during their publication phase.
Prompter feedback to the
proposers (no input left behind).
Possibility to create internal
evaluation teams between
different public sector agencies.
Possibility to add informal (i.e.
not compulsory) participation.
Possibility to link-up with a SEA
process.
More structured way of collecting
binding/non binding inputs on
spatial and non spatial plans
during their drafting phase.
Immediate feedback to the
proposers (by the instant report).
Possibility to prioritize relevance
of contributions by the polling
sessions.
Possibility to add evaluation
rounds of existing plans and to
effect SEA process.
Same as eTM, with the
broader scope enabled by
territorial distribution of
participants.
Increased
Control
Centralised: all activities on the
platform can be monitored at
once, including delayed inputs
or failure in delivering.
Decentralised: empowerment of
citizens, stakeholders and other
government agencies.
Centralised: the manager keeps
Ditto
thematic control of the issue and
(partly) of the discussion items.
Decentralised: the participants
can effectively drive the debate to
unforeseen outcomes.
(Distinction between top-down
eTM like in Tuscany, and bottomup like in Palermo)
Modernisation
and Reputation
Introduction of additional ways
or channels of communication
between government and
citizens.
Transparency and possibility to
track the planning process in all
its stages.
eGovernment solution that is
also complying with process
reform (like in Hamburg)
Strong political impact of the
event within the constituency
(also due to its novelty and the
careful preparation process).
Greater agenda sharing between
government and stakeholders.
Possibility of making participant
inputs more binding than
simple/generic advice (also in
relation to the top-down vs.
bottom-up distinction).
Radical
Innovation
Permanent migration from “off”
to “online” participation, in
dependence of:
- many successful trials
- legislative amendments where
required
(compare the SotA overview in
D2.1 “The EU framework of
Spatial Planning and
Environmental Assessment”).
Transformation of the Nimby
Ditto
barrier (“Not in my backyard”)
into a source of improvement in
the quality of proposed projects.
Additional scope and potential in
self-organising communities and
international cooperation for
development.
Method largely independent on
the issues dealt with.
page 15 of 30
Ditto
D4.6
Version 2.0
PARTERRE Project
2.3 Disadvantages of Process Innovation
Compared with the above advantages, we should focus more on factors of resilience
that in many cases, impede or delay the migration towards more advanced inclusion
of civic participation in the planning processes – and more generally, to Back-Office
integration in the way it was discussed in the Introduction.
Cultural resistance to change will be specifically dealt with in Section 4. Another key
factor is the level of complexity of reform processes, with a tendency amongst the
more ambitious projects to fail to deliver the anticipated benefits. Another is the role
of legislation, in promoting or dispensing from the migration towards the provision of
government services in electronic form.
In the case of PARTERRE, we have summarised in the following table, borrowed
from D7.1 “Initial Business Deployment Plan”, the main alternative options available
to a public sector organisation wanting to adopt DEMOS-Plan and/or the Electronic
Town Meeting.
In more detail, DEMOS-Plan outperforms the other solutions in terms of
-
Viability at City level, given the size of population and the closeness of the
planning issues to the interests of local stakeholders, and
-
Absolute number of stakeholders that can be reached by the invitation to take
part in the eParticipation trial.
In turn, the Electronic Town Meeting (and its extended version, the eTM-Plan) can be
said to outperform the other solutions in terms of
-
Viability at Regional level, given the size of population and the kind of (also
non spatially related) planning issues dealt with;
-
Absolute number of stakeholders that can be reached by the invitation to take
part in the eParticipation trial;
-
Absolute number of citizens that can be effectively involved in shared decisionmaking;
-
Possibility to select participants;
-
Political gains and visibility from a successful experiment;
-
Lowest cost of managing eParticipation (per served user) – while the cost of
activation remains average;
-
Lowest lag time before the structured feedback received from the participants
becomes usable for policy-making purposes.
Of course, other tools exist (like generic Internet forums and social networks, or even
non-electronic ways of ensuring civic participation), the utility and cost of which can
be compared, successfully in some cases, with the PARTERRE service components. It
is obviously our opinion, however, that the net advantages of the latter can more than
compensate for these differences.
page 16 of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
PARTERRE Project
Table 3: Alternative solutions to PARTERRE
Instruments
Non-electronic
participation tools
Generic forums and
social networks
DEMOS-Plan
eTM/
eTM-Plan
Viability at
“1st tier” PA
(City level)
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Viability at
“2nd tier” PA
(Region)
Low
Low
Medium
High
Number of
reached
stakeholders
Medium (Low)
Medium (Low)
High
High
Low
Medium
Low
High
Lag time to
start-up of
participation
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Possibility to
select target
users
Medium
Low
Low
High
Political
gains and
visibility
Medium
Low
Medium
High
Cost of
activation
(per user)
High
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low (Very Low)
Medium
Low (Very Low)
High
High
Medium
Low
Envisaged
goals
Number of
reached
citizens
Cost of
management
(per user)
Lag time
before
structured
feedback
page 17 of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
PARTERRE Project
2.4 Advantages of technical integration
In Hamburg, where DEMOS-Plan was fully integrated into the regional government’s
infrastructure, the integration has allowed a seamless experience for those within the
authority and contributed to the efficiency of the system because it is fully aligned
with internal processes. For example, the system avoids duplication of effort because
the roles that are already allocated to employees within the internal systems are taken
account of by DEMOS-Plan in order to ascertain who has what privileges and to
execute workflows in which participants’ submissions are sent from one worker with
a particular role that that person’s superior. Having to re-enter all of this information
into a dedicated system would create extra costs and invite inconsistency and
confusion.
For administrations as large as Hamburg, where many of these procedures take place
over the course of a year (the number is typically in the hundreds), running DEMOSPlan in a server farm and allowing the users to start a new procedure through the web
interface, all running from the same code base, ensures significant efficiency savings.
A further advantage of integration is the added security that this provides. Assuming,
of course, that the customer has effective security infrastructure in place, the various
firewalls and other security measures that are provided for other shared services can
be taken advantage of by the product.
Finally, there are the issues of convenience. For local authority workers, it is easier to
access systems through a unified, internal interface instead of having to remember
login details for a myriad of websites. For external users (the citizens and
representatives of external organisations such as planning offices), integration also
contributes to the corporate identity because all eGovernment offerings are accessible
through a single website.
2.5 Disadvantages of technical integration
The disadvantages of technical integration, taken together, form almost a mirror
image of the advantages. The full alignment with internal processes requires an
intensive co-operation with internal actors. In large public-sector organisations it can
be difficult to contact the necessary person or even to know who the responsible
person is without conducting protracted enquiries. This makes for an added burden
on top of the research and development work that is required.
In general, these external dependencies (external, that is, from the point of view of
the service provider) add costs because they make further project management
capacity necessary and can also hold up development work where there is a delay in
receiving necessary information from people within the organisation.
Integration can also hold up development work because of the necessity to interface
between two complicated systems; whereas developing and installing the systems
within a familiar, internal environment allows developers to conduct bug-fixing
themselves, bugs that arise due to the interplay between the product and the
customer’s systems can take a long time to iron out because neither party is able to
page 18 of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
PARTERRE Project
intervene directly in the technology of the other because they neither have the access
nor the knowhow to do so. Large organisations are understandably wary of making
changes to accommodate new products because of the unpredictable knock-on effects
this can have on other crucial systems.
Finally, for smaller organisations it may be uneconomical to take on the cost of
integrating such a system into their infrastructure when taking into account the
return on investment that can be expected.
2.6 Alternatives to technical integration:
examples from the PARTERRE project
cloud
computing
and
By definition, the only alternative to internal technical integration is hosting the
software elsewhere, i.e. on an external server. This is especially efficient for one-off or
test procedures, where the costs of integration would be prohibitive.
For the Electronic Town Meeting it is questionable whether any kind of integration is
necessary or desirable: because it is either used as a standalone system without the
necessity for Internet access, or simply connects additional tables via the Internet, the
benefits of integration are small and present an added layer of complication where a
location is used that doesn’t have access to the customer’s internal network.
Hamburg was the only pilot to take the full integration approach (only for DEMOSPlan). The rest of the pilots made no attempt to integrate PARTERRE into their backoffice infrastructure, with the semi-exception of TUAS. TUAS set up a server
according to the specification provided by TuTech at the start of the project and
granted developers access to the server via Secure Shell (SSH). The software was then
installed over a secure connection, and this went smoothly.
The other DEMOS-Plan pilot, in Cyprus, was hosted on a server provided by TuTech
and the software for the planned Italian pilot was also set up on a TuTech server. The
project lent itself to this approach because this avoided all of the complications set
out in the previous subsection.
Indeed, this move towards “cloud computing” and the related concept of “software as
a service” is part of a growing trend in commercial IT and is an issue that public
bodies also face.
The convenience of having maintenance, security, updates etc. taken care of without
having to do it internally is set against concerns around data being held by third
parties, even in third countries, and uncertainty around the legal situation. An article
in Kommune21, a German magazine for eGovernment experts, sets out the challenges
of meeting legal requirements. These range from pre-internet encryption of data in
order to allow it to be hosted by third parties to challenges in correctly tendering
services above €200,000 – this is complicated because standard tender documents
do not exist for this new area.4
Whereas in Hamburg the software has been integrated into the internal back-office
infrastructure, Schleswig Holstein will go one step further and offer DEMOS-Plan via
4 Kommune21, “Cloud Computing: Recht Problematisch”. Accessed March 1st, 2012 from
http://www.kommune21.de/meldung_13368_Recht+problematisch.html
page 19 of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
PARTERRE Project
a common platform to be hosted by the shared IT service provider for the local
authorities. This means that there is a form of integration into existing infrastructure,
but the local authorities (and other organisations, such as planning offices) will have
to become accustomed to using a generalised platform that is to some degree
external. This approach can serve as an example for other authorities, because it
takes advantage of the efficiency savings outlined above, whilst remaining within the
limits dictated by the state of experience in, and attitudes towards, cloud computing.
page 20 of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
3
PARTERRE Project
Technical Requirements
3.1 Foreword
This section addresses the technical requirements for integrating the two components
of PARTERRE (DEMOS-Plan and the Electronic Town Meeting) separately, because
they have not been unified into a single software product containing the features of
both products, but have been merged on a process-only level, as was explained
before.
Integrating software into the internal infrastructure of a customer is a complicated
matter, requiring specialist expertise and close co-operation with the customer,
especially those responsible for providing IT services within the organisation. This
can be either a department within the organisation, or an external service provider.
Due to the different nature of DEMOS-Plan and the eTM (one is an online application
that is only accessed over the internet, the other is self-contained, portable solution
that is designed for conducting in-person events and only under certain
circumstances requires an internet connection), the considerations around
integration are different. This does not, however, stand in the way of a procedural
integration of the two tools.
3.2 DEMOS-Plan
The technical requirements for the version of DEMOS-Plan deployed during the
PARTERRE project are the same as those specified at the start of the project. Please
note that these are only the basic requirements for hosting DEMOS-Plan.
Adaptations can be made to adapt to the specific infrastructure within customers’
organisations, and a full technical integration will require this in any case.
Later versions of DEMOS-Plan developed outside the project have different
specifications, for example later versions have been changed so that they use PHP
version 5.3.x instead of the version named below.
3.2.1
•
•
•
•
•
3.2.2
•
Server
OS: Linux or Windows
o Linux preferred
Webserver: Apache or IIS
o Apache preferred
Database: MySQL or PostgreSQL
o MySQL favoured. Other SQL based databases should only be used if
strictly necessary
Runtime: PHP5.2.x
o Ioncube component has to be installed
o PHP 5.3.x required for later versions of DEMOS-Plan
Direct access to server by TuTech staff (e.g. via SSH)
o root access is not necessary
Other
Web Map Service (WMS)
page 21 of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
PARTERRE Project
o Map of the affected area
o Illustration of the plan
3.3 Electronic Town Meeting
The Electronic Town Meeting does not lend itself to integration into an organisation’s
infrastructure, as this is neither necessary nor practical. Thus, this is a description of
the technical requirements required to carry out an eTM as a one-off event. Needless
to say, there is an argument to be made for larger organisations to acquire such
equipment and create a list of suitable facilities such that they are able to conduct
these events with minimal organisation.
During the Parterre project, the eTM has developed in technical terms. This means
that more features are available, but more technical considerations need to be taken
into account. For the standard eTM, i.e. the version that was presented at the start of
the project, a location with the following equipment is required:
1. Room capable of accommodating the intended number of participants, with
one table for up to 10 participants
2. One laptop/netbook per table with the eTM software installed, used for taking
minutes to be submitted to the Theme Team
3. Keyboard with local layout (possibly external)
4. One number keypad per participant
5. One USB hub per table, which connects each keypad to the computer – these
must be specialised units that allow the computer to track which keypad sent
which vote
6. A number of additional laptops with eTM software installed for the “theme
team”
7. One computer with a projector and eTM software installed, in order to project
the voting questions and results onto the screen
8. Several fast laser printers, enough to print out copies of the final report for
visitors at the end of the day
9. Networking equipment to connect each of the table computers to the theme
team and the theme team to the central
10. Internet access, where tables at external locations are incorporated
An alternative configuration would incorporate the elements added during the
PARTERRE project as a result of the findings that came to light during the pilots:
1. Tablet PC for voting (replaces items 4 and 5, number keypads and USB hub in
original requirements)
2. External wireless keyboard – connects to the tablet PC to enable minutes to be
written and submitted to the Theme Team (this replaces item 2, the laptop
computer for writing minutes)
3. Internet connection capable of supporting a VoIP call for communication with
external expert (where several locations are included)
4. Ability to create PDFs and email them to participants (replaces item 8, laser
printers)
page 22 of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
PARTERRE Project
This alternative configuration has been successfully tested during the pilots in Ulster.
page 23 of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
4
PARTERRE Project
Culture Change and Change Management
4.1 Culture Change
Quite apart from the technical aspects of integration, it is important not to
underestimate the challenge in dealing with the cultural change required to ensure
that public consultations – whether online or offline – are integrated into the
procedures of the public authority. This requires a rethink by many members of staff
and key decision-makers right up to a political level, who need to accept that
engagement with such processes can create something of use to them, and is not at
odds with a system of democratically elected representatives. Buy-in from politicians
and high-level public decision makers is helpful in ensuring that operational staff
have the freedom to adapt.
In Germany, for DEMOS-Plan this is not such a problem because the tool was
developed strictly in accordance with an existing statutorily defined procedure that
was in operation, and mandatory, before DEMOS-Plan was designed. Thus, the
mandate for public officials to take into account the results already existed.
Where the Electronic Town Meeting is concerned, this may not be so simple.
Depending on the culture of openness and co-operation that already exists in a public
administration, it may be more difficult to ensure that a public consultation is taken
seriously and that enough consideration is given to the results to ensure that
participants are motivated to take part repeatedly because they feel they are being
listened to.
In Italy, the lack of a “culture of participation” has often been blamed as one of the
motivations for the limited expansion of electronic services in this domain – except in
those Regions, like Tuscany and a few others, where a tradition of communication
and constructive interactions between government and citizens has always existed.
We are convinced, however, that this is only part of the explanation. Another could be
the insufficient level of awareness of the potential and limitations of this tool, which
is an instrument like many others at disposal of the democratically elected officials,
and may not be considered as a value (or danger) by itself – but only in dependence
of the way it is configured, managed, and adapted to the local conditions.
In fact, the experience of implementation of the Electronic Town Meeting during the
PARTERRE project has clearly shown that it enables the creation of a positive climate
even among the most fanatic supporters of direct deliberation as an antidote to unjust
and unfair democratic power. When people are facing each other round a table and
there is clear room for everybody to express themselves, the convergence of interests
(and dreams) prevails over any other impeding or compromising factor.
4.2 Change Management
Although this document deals primarily with technical integration, it should never be
forgotten that the people who are expected to use the technical solution – planners,
secretaries, employees of affected organisations, citizens -- have a fundamental role
in determining whether or not it is to be a success. This is especially so where the
older solution is still in place and users are able to “vote with their feet”.
page 24 of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
PARTERRE Project
In large organisations, which are the target audience for the PARTERRE solution,
resistance to change needs to be planned into project delivery. Whether the product is
to be integrated technically or not, this can present a major barrier to go-live.
Resistance to change can result from ignorance (e.g. about security concerns), fear
(about job losses), unrealistic expectations, peer pressure and many other sources. Of
course it can also result from well-founded objections. Confronting these factors by
communicating with, explaining to and responding to feedback from all stakeholders
will smoothen the journey and help to ensure buy-in from critical stakeholders.
4.2.1
Example: Hamburg introducing DEMOS-Plan
When Hamburg (which provides a good example of a large, public-sector
organisation introducing a significant technological change) introduced DEMOSPlan, it did all of these by:
i) Adopting a Living Lab approach. In particular, like the PARTERRE project,
Hamburg started off by conducting pilots to see whether the solution was
suitable and to ensure that feedback from stakeholders could be taken into
account to inform the further development of the project. Feedback
questionnaires were used for both of these purposes.
ii) Communication using flyers, a dedicated webpage on the Hamburg website,
and telephone calls with key stakeholders was aimed at ensuring that none
of the factors above was an obstacle to buy-in, and that any concerns could
be identified and addressed immediately
iii) Offering training for all participants, including information material and
training events
iv) Opening channels of communication for support purposes during the pilots,
including telephone support and an email enquiry service.
4.2.2
Example: Regione Toscana introducing the eTM
Besides piloting the Electronic Town Meeting on a wide scale in Europe, the Regional
Government of Tuscany set another landmark with its Law No. 69 of 2007 on the
topic of participation.
To explore the political reasons why a Regional administration – first known example
in Europe – decided to approve a law on that topic goes beyond the scope of this
document. It should be mentioned however that prior to the new law drafting and
approval, the Regional administration started a collective discussion, which lasted
almost two years and made use of “offline” and ICT tools, to identify the core issues
and the possible guidelines of this legislative effort.
It should also be mentioned that the Tuscan model of governance holds several
degrees of analogy with the EU “Multilevel Decision Making System”, a metaphor
used by academics to highlight that different levels of authority - from the “central” to
the “peripheral(s)” - are being involved in public decisions on “key” policy issues, as
are the various actors (including non-governmental ones) that may in different ways
be affected by the decisions to be taken.
page 25 of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
PARTERRE Project
In short, the Tuscan law on participation is founded on 3 main building blocks:
a) firstly, the introduction of a “Regional Public Debate”, that is, the opportunity
(and in some cases the obligation) for Tuscan public administrations to
carry out large civic discussions regarding those infrastructure project
plans having a significant environmental or social impact on the local
communities. These civic debates must have a duration not exceeding 6
months and are organised and managed under the responsibility of a
neutral “third party”, an independent Regional Authority for the Promotion
of Participation, which was constituted under the same law. Clearly, this
provision was inspired by the will to create an utmost transparency
towards citizens and stakeholders, during the phase of identification and
“justification” of the more controversial infrastructure projects (such as a
new power plant), also in comparison with the possible alternative
solutions;
b) secondly, the provision of measures supporting “Local Participatory
Processes”, on issues and topics that are still lying at the earlier stages of
the decision making process, thus leaving still quite a big room to different
options appreciation and selection. These processes have to be supported
by apt methodologies, whether they be promoted by public
administrations, citizens or other collective bodies, such as citizen groups,
associations, schools or private businesses. These processes must concern
well-defined and localized topics and must have a maximum duration of 6
months. According to the law, the support by the Region can be of
financial, methodological (assistance, consultancy etc.) or logistical (e.g. IT
tools) nature;
c) thirdly, a reinforcement and extension of the numerous participation
opportunities already catered for by the Regional Governance System or by
the planning norms and procedural regulations of Tuscany. This has taken
place by means of a series of amendments to the legislation previously in
force.
In practice, during the PARTERRE projects, the pilot implementations of the eTM
were embedded into real (“official”) participatory processes, which were selected
upon contingency and in compliance with the provisions of law No. 69 of 2007. This
has paradoxically created a (temporary) lack of resources to effectively deal with this
innovation at the level of public administration officials. Therefore, among the many
outcomes of the Project, this has also to be added as far as the situation in Tuscany is
concerned.
page 26 of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
5
PARTERRE Project
Conclusions
PARTERRE acts at the intersection between three domains of greatest relevance for
modern public policy: Territorial Development, Electronic Services, and Community
Development. The experience of completed pilots shows various instantiations and
combinations of these domains, although with more or less emphasis, in relation to
the specific contents of the pilots themselves.
Adopting either of its tools (DEMOS-Plan and the Electronic Town Meeting) requires
a considerable degree of integration of the Back- with the Front-Office functions. On
the one hand, this means hosting the necessary software in the client’s infrastructure;
on the other, it relates to process innovation and the management of change within
public sector organisations.
Integrating software into the infrastructure of a local authority is a considerable
resource-intensive undertaking. Writing a manual in general terms that would enable
the PARTERRE solution to be integrated by the user without assistance from the
solution providers is unrealistic. It is also unlikely that a software tool could be
integrated into any local authority’s infrastructure without further amendments.
Experience from Hamburg has shown us this clearly.
However, the experience from the pilots has shown that it is possible to install the
components on a fairly standard server installation, providing the basic
functionalities of both tools, albeit in close co-operation with both of the technical
partners. So while the task of setting up the PARTERRE solution for use by any local
authority is not insurmountable, the size of the deployment and the regularity of use
should be taken into account. Will PARTERRE be used one a one-off occasion by a
small local authority? Or will it be used regularly by a large local authority? In the
former case, it may be possible to aggregate demand by installing the software on a
shared server; in the later, a full integration could be warranted.
Almost as important as the considerations around technical integration are those
more “soft” factors. Experience here has shown that this is a factor to be taken into
account seriously and that activities to counter change resistance and to ensure buyin by key stakeholders hold a significant cost that needs to be factored in.
page 27 of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
PARTERRE Project
References
Colombo, C.; Kunstelj, M.; Molinari, F.; Todorovski, L. (2011). “Workflow Modeling
for Participatory Policy Design: Lessons Learned from Three European Regions”.
Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 13:1, pp. 117-139
Committee of Regions (2012). Regions and Cities for integrated territorial
development. A Common Strategic Framework for cohesion policy, rural
development and fisheries funds for the period 2014-2020. Proceedings of the
Forum held at the Committee of the Regions on 10th May 2012. Retrieved online at:
http://cor.europa.eu/en/documentation/brochures/Pages/proceedings-of-the-corforum-10-May-2012.aspx
European Commission (2012). Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL laying down common provisions on the
European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion
Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European
Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the Common Strategic Framework and
laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the
European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Council Regulation
(EC) No 1083/2006. Brussels, 14 March. COM(2011) 615 final/2
European Commission (2011). The urban and regional dimension of Europe 2020.
Seventh progress report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union, November.
Lefevre, P.; Kolsteren, P.; De Wael, M.-P.; Byekwaso, F.; and Beghin, I. (2000).
Comprehensive Participatory Planning and Evaluation. Antwerp: Nutrition Unit
Tropical Medicine. Retrieved online at: http://www.ifad.org/pub/bsf/cppe/cppe.pdf
OECD (2005). eGovernment for Better Government. Paris: OECD Press. Retrieved
online at: http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/governance/egovernment-for-better-government_9789264018341-en
OECD (2001). Towards a New Role for Spatial Planning. Paris: OECD Press.
Retrieved
online
at:
http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-AssetManagement/oecd/urban-rural-and-regional-development/towards-a-new-role-forspatial-planning_9789264189928-en
United Nations (2008). UN e-Government Survey 2008. From e-Government to
Connected Governance. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for
Public Administration and Development Management.
page 28 of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
PARTERRE Project
List of Figures
Figure 1: The PARTERRE Service Domain...............................................................................6 Figure 2: Scope of the PARTERRE Service - example ............................................................11 Figure 3: Co-delivery of a spatial plan (example) ...................................................................12 page 29 of 30
D4.6
Version 2.0
PARTERRE Project
List of Tables
Table 1: Overview of the PARTERRE Pilots..............................................................................9 Table 2: Immediate benefits of the PARTERRE Tools ...........................................................15 Table 3: Alternative solutions to PARTERRE.........................................................................17 page 30 of 30

Back-Office Integration Manual

Transcription

Similar documents

activities in detail biking and other sport activities

AcroSoft ScanPlus - Parallax Technologies

Retail Stress Test - Bank of America Merchant Services

Back Office Optimisation – The Market Awakens

Infopreneurs

presentation

a must-see property before deciding to build!!!

Darshanen Vasanthan

Tampines Town Council`s Audited Financial Statements, Auditors