work in progress-do not quote egovernment impact on service delivery subhash bhatnagar indian...

work in progress-do not quote

eGovernmentImpact 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]


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


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


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 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 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

work in progress-do not quote egovernment impact on service delivery subhash bhatnagar indian...

Documents