-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
1/64
Brassersplein 2
P.O. Box 5050
2600 GB DelftThe Netherlands
www.tno.nl
T +31 15 285 70 00
F +31 15 285 70 57
TNOreport
Theeffectsofinterpersonaltrustonjoint
eIDMinnovations
Date 8June2010
Author(s) TijsvandenBroekNoorHuijboomProf.VictorBekkers(Review)
Version FinalreportAssignor AlliantieVitaalBestuur
Reportnumber 35291
Numberofpages 64(incl.appendices)Numberofappendices
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthisreportmaybereproducedand/orpublishedinanyformbyprint,photoprint,microfilmoranyothermeanswithoutthepreviouswrittenpermissionfromTNO.
AllinformationwhichisclassifiedaccordingtoDutchregulationsshallbetreatedbytherecipientinthesamewayasclassifiedinformationofcorrespondingvalueinhisowncountry.Nopartofthis
informationwillbedisclosedtoanythirdparty.
Incasethisreportwasdraftedoninstructions,therightsandobligationsofcontractingpartiesare
subjecttoeithertheStandardConditionsforResearchInstructionsgiventoTNO,ortherelevantagreementconcludedbetweenthecontractingparties.Submittingthereportforinspectiontoparties
whohaveadirectinterestispermitted.
2010TNO
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
2/64
TNO report | 2 / 64
Contents
1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 41.1 Motivation........................................................................................................................ 4
1.2 Research question ............................................................................................................ 51.3 Methodology.................................................................................................................... 6
2 Theory: trust in joint innovations .............................................................................. 102.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 102.2 Definition of trust........................................................................................................... 102.3 Concepts of trust ............................................................................................................ 112.4 Grounds for trust............................................................................................................ 122.5 Stages of trust ................................................................................................................ 13
2.6 Evaluation of trust in joint innovations.......................................................................... 142.7 Hypotheses..................................................................................................................... 16
3 Belgium: Belpic ............................................................................................................ 193.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 193.2 Technical solution: Belpic ............................................................................................. 213.3 The role of trust in the Belpic innovation ...................................................................... 22
4 Austria: Brgerkarte................................................................................................... 264.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 264.2 Technical solution: Brgerkarte..................................................................................... 284.3 The role of trust in the Brgerkarte innovation.............................................................. 30
5 Finland: VETUMA...................................................................................................... 345.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 345.2 Technical solution: VETUMA....................................................................................... 375.3 The role of trust in the VETUMA innovation................................................................ 38
6 Netherlands: DIGID .................................................................................................... 436.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 436.2 Technical solution: DigiD.............................................................................................. 446.3 The role of trust in the DigiD innovation....................................................................... 46
7 Cross-case analysis....................................................................................................... 51
8 Conclusions................................................................................................................... 548.1 Factors on which trust is grounded ................................................................................ 548.2 Factors that change the level of trust over time ............................................................. 568.3 The influence of trust on joint innovation process......................................................... 57
9 Policy implications ....................................................................................................... 609.1 General implications...................................................................................................... 609.2 Implications for policy instruments ............................................................................... 609.3 Future research............................................................................................................... 62
Literature overview ...................................................................................................................... 63
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
3/64
TNO report | 3 / 64
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
4/64
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
5/64
TNO report | 5 / 64
and implement such a single system jointly. Yet, like joint ICT innovations in general,
European research shows that the joint development of eIDM systems is often difficult3.
This research does not aim to give a broad overview of innovation studies and
sociology literature on trust. In contrast, it focuses specifically on the cross-road ofinnovation and interpersonal trust. Recent literature shows that interpersonal trust
between individual actors in the process of a joint ICT innovation (e.g. Considine et al
2009, Edelenbos & Klijn, 2007, Nooteboom, Nooteboom, 20064) has an important
influence on the success of such projects5. In addition, many researchers studied system
failures of innovation, in which trust plays a role as well. For example, Klein Woolthuis
et al. (2005) describe interaction failures, such as strong and weak network failures.
However, according to Edelenbos & Klijn (2007) it remains currently unclear how
interpersonal trust precisely plays a role in the joint innovation process remains unclear.
How does trust manifests itself on interpersonal level in the innovation processes
(unlike the macro level in the systemic failure literature)? We focus our research on
interpersonal trust in the innovation process of eIDM projects, as these projects arespecifically interesting. First, developing and implementing an eIDM system is
typically a cross-agency and complex endeavour. Therefore, it needs multiple
stakeholders from different government agencies to build trust and cooperate. Second,
several European nations develop similar eIDM systems, which isolates the system
itself as an independent variable. This allows cross-country (and cross-culture)
comparison. The consequence of this choice is that the conclusions and implications
mostly hold for eIDM projects and to a lesser degree for other ICT projects.
TNO and the Alliantie Vitaal Bestuur have addressed this research question and jointly
invested in a research project to gain more insight into the influence of social factors
in particular trust on joint-up innovation projects in the public sector. This report is
the result of this research project and gives a detailed overview of the findings.
1.2 Research question
The main research question of this study is:
What is the role of trust in the realisation of public eIDM systems in particular
realised by governmental networks and chains?
This research question has been operationalised in the following sub questions:
1 What can be understood by the notion of trust?2 How does trust become manifest in tangible innovation projects?
3 How does trust influence the joint innovation process?
4 What can be learned from the manifestation of trust in joint innovation projects?
The aim of this study is scientific in nature. This research aims to shed light on how
trust is affected and how it effects the innovation process, e.g. the mechanisms,
3Millard, Huijboom N. and Leitner C., (2007) European eGovernment 2005-2007:Taking stock of
good practice and progress towards implementation of the i2010 eGovernment Action Plan, Brussels.4
Bart Nooteboom, Essay for the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, as background document for the
Innovation Lecture 2006, September 20065Huijboom, N.M., (2006) The Domestication of ICTs in Government, DEXA eGovernmentConference proceedings, Philadelphia.
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
6/64
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
7/64
TNO report | 7 / 64
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Greece
Luxembourg
Germany
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
PolandPortugal
Slovakia
UK
France
Ireland
Malta
Slovenia
Netherlands
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Estonia
FinlandItaly
Spain
Sweden
Type of application domain
eIDM systems are used for a wide range of applications, such as social security, tax,
migration, transportation and health. The contractor prefers this research to focus on the
social security domain6. Seven of the countries with mature enough eIDM systems
apply their systems in the social security domain (see Table 2).
Table 2 Countries that implemented of diffused an eIDM system in the social security sector (marked grey) (Source: eID nteroperability for
PEGS, 2007)
Country Most significant
system
Application type Country Most significant
system
Application type
Austria Citizen Card Social security
Tax
Healthcare
Municipalities
Italy Carta didentit
elettronica
Tax
Municipalities
Police
Belgium SIS and Belpic Social security
Tax
Municipalities
Malta eID Malta Social security
Tax
Transport
Municipalities
Denmark OCES Health
Education
Tax
Labour
Netherlands DigiD Social security
Tax
Municipalities
Estonia ID-card Social security
Tax
Education
Slovenia CSP Healthcare
Tax
Finland FINEID and TUPAS Social Security
Employment
Patent registration
Spain DNI-e Company registration
Tax
Municipalities
France Vitale/healthcare
professional cards
Healthcare Sweden BankID Tax
Healthcare
Registration of
companies
Ireland Reach (Public service
broker)
Social security
In sum, the countries that qualify for the maturity and application type are: Austria,
Belgium, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Malta and the Netherlands.
6See minutes Alliantie vitaal Bestuur meeting on 16 juli 2009.
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
8/64
TNO report | 8 / 64
Level of trust
As we study the role of trust, the level of trust is an important criterion for sampling the
cases. Many researchers (e.g. Fukuyama, 1996, Nooteboom, 2002, Koppejan and Klijn,
2004) argue that the role of trust in inter-organizational networks depends on the
countrys specific social-cultural context. For example, spontaneous cooperationbetween individual actors happens more often in countries with a high level of trust
than in countries with a low level of trust (Fukuyama, 1996). Therefore, the variable
high trust versus low trust countries is chosen to study how the role of trust vary in
different social-cultural contexts.
The World Values survey measures the level of trust in countries7. More specifically,
this survey asks: would you say that most people can be trusted or that you need to be
very careful in dealing with people? So, it measures to what degree citizens trust each
other. Table 3 shows a ranking of the average trust level in the countries that have a
mature eIDM system in the social security domain. The data have been collected
between 1981 and 2007. It clearly shows that Malta and Estonia have the lowest levels
of trust and the Netherlands and Finland have the highest level of trust.
Table 3 Average trust of citizens between 1981 and 2007 (source: The World Values Survey 2009)
Type of democratic model
The type of democratic model is an important factor for the role of trust as well.
Research (Lijphart, 1999) demonstrates that trust is more important in the decision-
making of consensual democracies (i.e. poldermodel) than in the decision-making of
Westminister democracy (i.e. two party system). For example, in a consensual
democracy trust is necessary to get a democratic majority, as coalitions have to be built.
The number of political parties that effectively participate in a countrys political
system is a good measure to distinguish the type of democratic model. Lijphart (1999)
measured the number of effective parties8. Table 4 ranks 6 candidate countries on the
effective number of parties and the number of elections between 1945 and 1996. It
seems that a slightly different picture than the level of trust emerges.
Table 4 Effective number of parties and the number of elections between 1945-1996 (source: Lijphart, 1999)
Country Mean Lowest Highest Number of elections
Finland 5.03 4.54 5.58 15
Netherlands 4.65 3.49 6.42 15
Belgium 4.32 3.45 6.51 17
Ireland 2.84 2.38 3.63 15
Austria 2.48 2.09 3.73 16
Malta 1.99 1.97 2.00 6
7www.worldvaluessurvey.org8
Estonia was not studied by Lijphart (1999).
Malta Estonia Belgium Austria Ireland Netherlands Finland
Most people can
be trusted 18.8 % 24.0 % 31.5 % 32.8 % 41.6 % 52.0 % 55.5 %
Most people
cannot be trusted 81.2 % 76.0 % 68.5 % 67.2 % 58.4 % 48.0 % 44.5 %
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
9/64
TNO report | 9 / 64
Picture 1 shows the relative position of the 6 candidate countries, when plotting the
level of trust against the type of democratic model. Two types of sampling are used:
extreme cases and similar cases. Extreme cases (e.g. Belgium, Austria, The Netherlands
/ Finland and Ireland) provide insight in how trust holds in different social-cultural andpolitical context. Similar cases (Finland The Netherlands and Malta-Austria) show
how the role of trust can differ in similar social-cultural and political context.
Malta
Finland
The NetherlandsBelgium
AustriaIreland
Westminster
Consensual
Low trust High trust
Malta
Finland
The NetherlandsBelgium
AustriaIreland
Westminster
Consensual
Low trust High trust
Figure 1 Confrontation of type of democratic model and level of trust
The contractor prefers to compare the Dutch case to enable this research to yield
recommendations for Dutch policy makers. Therefore, it has been decided to take the
Netherlands and Finland as similar cases and the Netherlands, Belgium and Austria as
extreme cases. Initially the research team chose Belgium, Austria and Ireland as
extreme cases (with this choice all quadrants of the figure would be covered). However,
during the planning of the interviews of the Irish case it appeared that almost none of
the Irish government practitioners was willing to give an interview and thus it became
unfeasible to carry out the Irish case. One of the practitioners explained: Success has
many parents and failure is an orphan Yet, current selection (Austria, Belgium,
Netherlands, Finland) still covers both low trust and high trust countries as well as
consensual and West Minister democracies. Consequently we expect that different
manifestations of trust can be found in the selected cases.
In conclusion, the following cases were selected:
The Netherlands (high level of trust, consensual democracy)
Finland (high level of trust, consensual democracy)
Belgium (low level of trust, consensual democracy)
Austria (low level of trust, Westminster democracy)
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
10/64
TNO report | 10 / 64
2 Theory: trust in joint innovations
2.1 Introduction
Many academics have examined the concept of trust, in particular in the scientific areas
of sociology and management (e.g. Nooteboom, 2002, Lane & Bachman, 1998,
Rousseau et al, 1998). The concept has been approached from various perspectives; e.g.
interpersonal trust, trust in institution and trust in objects. In addition, several
mechanisms related to trust have been examined; e.g. on the one hand the effect of
human behaviour, object characteristics and institutional arrangements on the presence
of trust and on the other hand the influence of trust on behaviour, the attributes of
objects and institutional features. The broadness and versatile character of the term trust
however has resulted in theoretical contradictions on the concept, with partly
overlapping and partly conflicting definitions, levels, types, sources, roles andlimitations of trust (Nooteboom, 2002). Hence, for contemporary research on trust it is
important to have a clear focus on specific types and manifestations of trust. The aim of
this literature review is to study the role and effect ofinterpersonal trust on the
occurrence of joint, technological innovations in the public sector in particular the
development of eIDM systems. First, it will describe the definition of interpersonal trust
and the different concepts of trust in literature. Next, the foundations and stages of
interpersonal trust are discussed: how is trust between persons developed over time and
how does the presence of trust change? Last, literature about the role of interpersonal
trust in innovation processes is briefly discussed. This chapter ends up with the
theoretical hypotheses, which form the analytical framework for the case studies.
2.2 Definition of trust
There are many descriptions of trust. For some, trust is an expectation (see Lane &
Bachmann, 1998; Rousseau et al, 1998); for others it is the cement of society
(Fukuyama, 1995) or a container concept that can hardly be separated from the shared
norm or rules (see for instance Putnam 1995). To be useful in empirical research
however, the concept must be clearly and rather narrowly defined. When considering
Edelenbos & Klijn (2007) on trust, two important factors predict the need for
interpersonal trust:
Vulnerability (Based on Deaking & Michie, 1997). When an actor trusts another
actor, he or she is willing or assume an open and vulnerable position. He or sheexpects the other to refrain from opportunistic behaviour even if there is the
possibility to show this behaviour. In this sense, the actor trusts that his or her
partner will take his or her interests into account (Nooteboom, 2002, Rousseau et al,
1998).
Risks (based on Chiles & McMackin, 1996; Gambetta, 1988a, 1988b; Lane &
Bachmann, 1998). Trust plays an important role in ambiguous, unpredictable and
risky situations. In risky situations, trust is a precondition for undertaking any
action. A conscious choice is made to take a risk because of the belief that the other
party can be trusted.
In this risky and vulnerable situation trust is based on mutual expectations(based on
Lane & Bachmann, 1998; Zucker, 1986). Trust is reciprocal in nature: one expects the
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
11/64
TNO report | 11 / 64
other not to behave in an opportunistic way. So, the concept of trust presumes a stable
positive expectation (or prediction) of the intentions and motives of other actors. Trust
reduces unpredictability, complexity, and ambiguity in interactions because one can
anticipate (some of) the behaviour of the other actor.
2.3 Concepts of trust
This paragraph gives an overview of the different concepts of trust, which are all taken
into account in the grounds, stages and evaluation of interpersonal trust in the
innovation process. Although most concepts of interpersonal trust share the three
common elements as set out in the previous section, theorists have conflicting views on
the social grounds on which trust may be based. These theoretic divergences are
predominantly caused by a different approach of the human nature (e.g. the extent to
which mankind is seen as being rational). Some theorists (mainly economists) perceive
trust as a rational assessment by an individual of the chance that the other will act in an
opportunistic way (e.g. Williamson, 1993, Preisendrfer 1995). In this perspective,
human action (and also trust in certain behaviour of the other) is based upon a rational
calculation of the costs and benefits and chance of opportunistic behaviour. According
to these theorists, a person is only willing to trust the other in situations in which he or
she expects that based upon a cost-benefit calculation the other will not act in an
opportunistic way. This instrumental approach of trust however has received much
critique.
Most critics contend that rational actor theories neglect the unpredictability of future
behaviour and incompleteness of information, which hamper a clear-cut assessment of
costs and benefits. Whereas Axelrod (1984) and Coleman (1990) for instance assume
that actors share expectations about the future, more sociological accounts would stress
that the unfolding of the future is in itself uncertain. Their uncertainty perspective oftrust is built incrementally and the relationship may change in an unpredictable
direction neither gain nor loss can ever be calculated with certainty. In other words, in
every relationship there are uncertainties which require a basis of trust for certain
human interaction and action. As Bradach and Eccles put it (1989: 108): the future is
rarely preordained; magnitude and timing of the trustees response is influenced by
social norms which complicate calculation: and, most importantly, the first step in a
game without history, taken in the face of incomplete information about the trustee,
requires a one-sided precommitment from the trustor based on mere
beliefs/expectations about the trustee.
There however is a third theoretical stream of scientists who contend that the groundsfor trust will vary with the social context of trust and/or that the nature of trust will vary
with the stage of a relationship reached. These theorists use a multidimensional concept
of trust which is based upon a combination of theoretical viewpoints. Common
combinations are cognitive trust with value- or emotion-based trust (e.g. Barber 1983,
Lewis and Weigert, 1985) and a combination of calculative with either cognitive or
morally based trust (Dasgupta, 1988, Chiles and McMackin, 1996). In both these two
theoretical approaches of trust, common cognitions are considered to have a
determining influence on the presence or non-presence of trust. Cognitions, defined as
the rules that constitute the nature of reality and the frames through which meaning is
made (Scott, 1995:40), are embodied in the expectations people have on the social
order in general and on specific interaction with others. Cognitions form a basis for
interpersonal trust or distrust in the sense that individuals base their expectations of the
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
12/64
TNO report | 12 / 64
others behaviour on shared social norms. Zucker (1986) for instance argues that
expectations are based upon social rules which provide a general framework for
behaviour. In addition, Zucker (1986) contends that the stronger the common social
framework of rules and routines (e.g. due to social homogeneity), the more likely it is
that trust will develop spontaneously.
This study will not specifically focus on one perspective on the concept of trust.
However, these perspectives are important in relation to the grounds of trust. For
example, the process of routinisation, which will be further explained in the next
paragraph, is a prime example of Williamsons (among others) rational perspective of
trust. The third dynamic perspective on trust is for example important to study how
presence of trust change over time, in other words the stages of trust.
2.4 Grounds for trust
Now the definition, need and concepts of trust are clear, how can one know that the
other will meet his or her expectation? Where does somebody ground his or her positive
expectations upon? This paragraph describes these foundations.
Personal characteristics
Personal characteristics, such as integrity, benevolence and capabilities, have an
important influence on interpersonal trust (e.g. Schoorman et al., 2007; Mayer et al.,
1995). The function of a person (including the organisation power) within the hierarchy
of an organisation can increase the predictability of a person. For example, one will
know that he or she is able (in terms of power) to live up his or her promises. Within
personal characteristics, this research will specifically focus on personal capabilities,
such as expertise.
Norms and values
Trust can be based upon the sharing of norms and values between individuals. The
belief of reliability is not necessarily related to a long, intensive, emotional contact and
the well-knowing of each other, but to generally shared norms and values (e.g. Sabel,
1993, Fox, 1974, Zucker, 1986). For instance, scientist X can decide to share his draft
studies with scientist Y who X does not know too well -, because X beliefs that Y will
not publish his text thus that Y will act in an honest way - as they both belong to the
same academic community in which plagiarism is highly condemned (and thus the
reputation of Y is at stake).
IdentificationA more psychological basis for trust is the sharing of experiences. Nooteboom
(2002:81) explains this as follows: One will more easily help someone when one can
identify with his need. One can more easily forgive someones breach of trust or
reliance when one can identify with the lack of competence or the motive that caused
it. Research (Frissen and Huijboom, 2009) for instance shows that the level of trust
between patients who suffer from the same disease is higher than the level of trust
between random chosen individuals. The fact that people share the same experiences,
concerns and struggles appears to have a bounding effect and increases interpersonal
trust.
Routinisation
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
13/64
TNO report | 13 / 64
Several scientists argue that the higher the routinisation in actions of a person the more
predictable the actions of that person and the more trust people have in the reliability of
that person. An example may be the reputation of an individual; if the person always
acts in a specific way, people will trust that he/she will act in the same way in the
future. Routinisation is a rational process, in which positive experiences build uptowards a positive reputation (Nooteboom, 1999). In contrast to transferability of trust,
routinisation takes place without a third person interfering in the interpersonal
relationship.
Strong ties
Several scientists argue that there are types of relationships in which there is in the vast
majority of cases a strong belief of mutual trust between persons (e.g. Lane and
Bachmann, 1998). Examples are ties within families, inner-circle of friends, but also
within sectarian groups. These relationships mostly consist of a long, intensive,
emotional and empathic contact and well-knowing of the other. Yet, also in these
relationships there are cases of distrust deriving from a feeling of the other being
unfaithful or dishonest. Trust is not a given element of a strong tie, but can often been
found in strong relationships (e.g. Lane and Bachmann, 1998).
Opinions of trusted persons transferability of trust
Theorists have also pointed to the transferability of trust (see e.g. Ferrin et al, 2006):
person X knows and highly trusts person Z, who knows and trusts person Y; then
person X may trust person Y because person Z trusts person Y. A persons reputation is
an example of transferability of trust (Shapiro, 1987; Mayer et al., 1995).
2.5 Stages of trust
Trust built up over time. Sometimes it can take ages between two persons two gain trust
in each other. Therefore the large majority of theorists argue that levels of interpersonal
trust and trustworthiness are not static but dynamic; e.g. trust and trustworthiness can
emerge and disappear (Zucker, 1986, Lindenberg, 2000, Nooteboom, 2002). In
literature, in particular attention is paid to the construction of trust. Schapiro
(1987:625) argues that Typically () social exchange relations evolve in a slow
process, starting with minor transactions in which little trust is required because little
risk is involved and in which partners can prove their trustworthiness, enabling them to
expand their relation and engage in major transactions. This argument has been
endorsed by others (e.g. van de Ven, 1992). McAllister (1995) proposes two stages of
trust development: cognition-based trust followed by affect-based trust. These stagescan easily be linked with the grounds for trust. Cognition-based trust is for example
grounded in personal capabilities (such as expertise) and Routinisation. On the other
hand, affect-based trust is based on identification and empathy. Lewicki and Bunker
(1996) proposed three stages of calculus-based, knowledge based and identification-
based trust. Nooteboom (2002:90) distinguishes between the following three stages of
the evolution of trust:
1 Stage of controlin the absence of trust. In this stage trust is absent which forces
individuals to assess the competences and opportunism of the other. One way in
which people try to limit the risks is by taking small steps.
2 Stage of assessingtrustworthiness and developing tolerance levels of trust. In this
stage, the involved persons mutually obtain more knowledge and experience which
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
14/64
TNO report | 14 / 64
forms the basis for setting tolerance levels of trust. The rational grounds for trust,
mentioned in the previous paragraph, are most dominant.
3 Stage of wideningtolerance levels, In this stage the tolerance levels of trust are
widened upon the basis of identification and empathy.
Interpersonal trust can not only increase over time but also decrease. A decline of trust
between to individuals can emerge in case one of the involved parties does not live up
to the expectations of the other. However, Zucker (1986:59) argues that those
disappointments in the other do not necessarily break down trust. He states that: A
violation of expectations produces a sense of disruption of trust, or profound confusion,
but not of distrust. Distrust only emerges when the suspicion arises that the disruption
of expectations in one exchange is likely to generalize to other transactions. To distrust,
then, implies an attribution of intentionality that continuous throughout all interactions
or exchanges, at least of a particular type. The joint solution of conflict can enhance
and deepen trust, in several ways. On the one hand it may result in a learning process,
which confirms the value of the relation and thereby increases mutual commitment.
Moreover, the fact that the relation survived the test may increase interpersonal trust.
On the other hand, in particular between people who have a weak tie a violation of
expectations can result in mutual recrimination and suspicion.
2.6 Evaluation of trust in joint innovations
Although the research area of trust and networked innovation is relatively immature,
several theorists have argued that the presence or non-presence of trust can have a
determining influence on the occurrence of networked innovation (e.g. Fountain, 2000,
Lane and Bachmann, 1998, Van de Ven 1999, Nooteboom, 2006). This importance of
trust can be explained by the risky nature of inter-agency cooperation. Nooteboom
(2006) and other authors argue that trust is relevant in relation to the following threemain risks underlying inter-agency cooperation:
Because of its explorative nature and strong interdependencies, collaborative
innovation can imply substantial risks and uncertainties for involved actors (both
individuals and organisations). As various partners are involved in the innovation,
there can be a lack of mutual understanding, or absorptive capacity. This might be
in particular the case in process innovation, where knowledge and competencies are
being developed. Business models are new and a common language still has to be
developed. On the one had cognitive distance and heterogeneity is needed in order
to innovate (to combine knowledge) and on the other hand cognitive distance can
hamper effective collaboration. Nooteboom (2006) speaks in this regard of the
optimal cognitive distance; large enough to yield novelty and at the same timesmall enough to develop a mutual understanding. In the innovation literature Klein
Woolthuis et al. (2005) describe similar dilemma for interaction failures, such as the
presence of too strong ties (tunnel vision) and presence of too weak ties (high
transaction costs or inadequate knowledge transfer. Whether the relationship
between trust and creativity / innovativeness is direct or mediated by other variables
is not clear. For example, Sztompka (1999) argues that trust is needed for
cooperation and cooperation in its turn is needed for creative process. On the other
hand, Mamynika et al. (2002) shows that an atmosphere of trust directly affects the
creative collaboration in teams.
A second problem of inter-agency cooperation is the risk of spillover: competitive
advantage from commercially valuable new knowledge or competence may leak
to competitors. Although this problem seems not to exist in the public sector, there
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
15/64
TNO report | 15 / 64
may be other forms of competition between public sector agencies. In cases of
conflicting interests public sector agencies may use knowledge in a strategic way,
e.g. to strengthen their position in their relation to other public sector agencies.
Dependence on partners is mentioned by Nooteboom as the third risk in networked
innovation. When separate organisations jointly innovate, they depend on theefforts and investments of the other during the innovation process, but may also be
dependend on them when the innovation is implemented (e.g. if they jointly use the
new product or share processes). The dependence on partners limits organisations to
develop their own strategies, take their own decisions and act in their own interest.
In network collaboration there are several ways to manage relational risks. Nooteboom
describes three strategies to control risks:
Control. The first type is opportunity control. In this situation the undertaking of or
refraining from actions is heavily influenced by legal frameworks (e.g. contracts) or
hierarchy (e.g. within or between organisations). Escalation of a problem up the
hierarchy of two organisations is a prime example of hierarchical control. The
second type is motivation control, in which case actions are based upon incentives
(e.g. rewards).
Trust. Trustworthiness may be a result of an established ethic or practice of
behaviour, based on widely shared social norms and values. Within the relationship
trust may be based upon values developed during the relationship or empathy.
Empathy may lead to identification, e.g. the sense of shared experiences among
people who are in a comparable situation (e.g. patients). Trust and trustworthiness
may also arise from routinisation, where trust and trustworthiness is based upon
earlier positive experiences.
Third parties. For the control of conflict third parties may also play a role. A third
party and thus transferability of trust may serve as an independent intermediarywhich manages conflicting interests, builds consensus and has a brokerage role in
case of conflicts between parties.
Nooteboom (2002) argues that trust may be needed to cooperatively innovate in a
network of organisations. He states: to deal with risks we can try to impose control,
but control is never perfect, especially in innovation. In innovation there is too much
uncertainty to manage risks completely by contract, monitoring and control. Innovation
requires creativity, which requires freedom of action. And where control ends we need
trust. However, he also contends that trust should not be unconditional as a solid
ground for trust may be missing (e.g. due to intense competition).
Trust plays different roles during the different phases of the joint innovation process:
initiation, development, implementation and diffusion.
In the initiation phase of a joint innovation, the sharing of (multi-disciplinary, inter-
sectoral and/or inter-level) expertise is an important driver for the creation of new
ideas. If the personal or company interests - such as intellectual property - are not
contractually arranged; the risks high and the power balances unequal, then a high
level of trust is needed to share expertise within the network.
Also in the implementation phase of joint innovations trust may be a prerequisite.
Often the interests of involved parties are divergent or even conflicting and the risks
for involved parties (poor return on investments or reputation damage) may be high.
Trust then is a precondition for the ability of bridging deviating interests and the
willingness of jointly taking risks.
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
16/64
TNO report | 16 / 64
In the diffusion phase trust as a determinant may be less important as the risks may
be lower because the impact and the outcome of the innovation may be less
uncertain.
2.7 Hypotheses
2.7.1 Overall trust modelAs described in the introduction of this report, the present research project is part of a
broader research programme on eIDM systems. In order to create as much synergy
between the separate research projects as possible, we have tried align the conceptual
frameworks of the research projects. Hence, we have used the trust model used by the
other projects as a basis and tried to fit the variables as found in literature into this
model. During this exercise we however found that the model used by the other project
did not fully cover the variables and trust mechanisms as described in innovation
literature.
The theoretical sections 2.1-2.6 show three perspecitves of interpersonal trust in joint
innovation:
Factors on which trust is grounded
Factors which change the level of trust over time
The influence of trust in the joint innovation process.
Table 5 Overview of hypotheses
Grounds Stages Evaluation
Factors on which trust is
grounded
Factors changing the level
of trust over time
Influence of trust on
innovation process
H1 Personal characteristics H6 Control in absence of
trust
H9 Hierarchy
H2 Norms and values H7 Unmet expectations H10 Legal mechanisms
H3 Identification and
empathy
H8 Joint solution of
conflict
H11 Trusted third party
H4 Routinisation H12 Creativity
H5 Transferibility of trust H13 Motivational control
H14 Bridging deviating
interests
H15 Risks
The following hypotheses (see table 5) can be made for these three perspectives. The
intra and inter case analysis in chapters 3-7 will substantiate or nuance the hypotheses.
2.7.2 On what factors is trust grounded?H1 (PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS):
Trust can be based upon personal characteristics, such as integrity, benevolence and
capabilities.
H2 (NORMS AND VALUES):
Trust can be based upon the sharing of norms and values between individuals.
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
17/64
TNO report | 17 / 64
H3 (IDENTIFICATION AND EMPATHY):
The fact that people share the same experiences, concerns and struggles appears to
have a bound.
H4 (ROUTINISATION):The higher the routinisation (more knowledge and experience) in actions of a person
the more predictable the actions of that person and the more trust people have in the
reliability of that person.
H5 (TRANSFERABILITY OF TRUST):
Trust is transferable between individuals.
2.7.3 What factors change the level of trust over time?H6 (CONTROL IN ABSENCE OF TRUST):
When trust is absent, individuals are forced to assess the competences and opportunism
of the other.
H7 (UNMET EXPECTATIONS):
A decline of trust between individuals can emerge in case one of the involved parties
does not live up to the expectations of the other, as it decreases the reciprocity of the
trust relation.
H8 (JOINT SOLUTION OF CONFLICT):
The joint solution of conflict can enhance and deepen trust.
2.7.4 How does trust influence the joint innovation process?H9 (HIERARCHY):
In the case of a low level of trust during joint innovation, trust is compensated by
mechanisms of hierarchy.
H10 (LEGAL MECHANISMS):
In the case of a low level of trust during joint innovation, trust is compensated by legal
mechanisms, e.g. contracts.
H11 (TRUSTED THIRD PARTY):In the case of a low level of trust during joint innovation, trust is compensated by
putting a third party / opinion in place.
H12 (CREATIVITY):
Trust is a necessary requisite for creativity in a team .
H13 (MOTIVATIONAL CONTROL):
In the case of a low level of trust during joint innovation, trust is compensated by
motivational control, such as (financial) incentives.
H14 (BRIDGING DEVIATING INTERESTS):
Trust is a precondition for the ability of bridging deviating interests.
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
18/64
TNO report | 18 / 64
H15 (RISKS):
Trust is a precondition for the willingness of jointly taking risks.
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
19/64
TNO report | 19 / 64
3 Belgium: Belpic
3.1 Introduction
This introduction paragraph gives a chronological overview of the eIDM innovation
process in Belgium9.
Initiation
1999 The e-Signature directive10
of the European Commission inspired Belgian
government
The National Register Department11
of the Ministry of the Interior
commissioned researchers to develop the legal framework and technical
specifications of the Belgian electronic identity card (Belpic)
2000
November
The Cabinet of Ministers formally decided to develop an electronic
identity card.
2001
March
The Ministry of the Interior commissioned the consultancy company CSC
to conduct a concept study
July A plan to develop the Belgian electronic identification card passed the
Cabinet of Ministers
A public tender for the development of the exploitation structure of the
Belpic, development of certificates and production of the card was
published. The Steria (formerly Bull N.V.) consortium won the tender.
Development
2002
January
The development of the exploitation structure by the Steria consortium
started. The infrastructure of the National Register and involved parties
had to be modified within six months.
2002
September
Zetes and Belgacom carried out the project to develop the card and
certificates which had a timeline of five months.
2003
February
& March
The central government worked on the legal implementation of the
Belpic:
The sectoral committee of the National Register12 was established to
assess in concrete requests for access to personal information whether
the requirements of the legislation concerning population registration
and privacy law are met13
.
Amendments to the National Register laws of 1983 and 1991 were
9Mostly based on interviews and desk research (see also Huijboom, N.M. The influence of social capital on
joint innovation processes, forthcoming).
10 http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/information_society/l24118_en.htm
11 http://www.ibz.rrn.fgov.be/index.php?id=141&L=112 http://www.privacycommission.be/nl/decisions/national_register/13
http://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/pdf/50/2226/50K2226007.pdf
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
20/64
TNO report | 20 / 64
made in order to be able to use the National Register as an authentic
source for electronic identity data .
2003
31 March
The first electronic identity card was presented by two ministers during
the eID Contactdag. This day was also the start of the Belpic pilot
implementation in eleven municipalities.
2003
End
Belpics pilot phase was finished. At that time around 55.000 electronic
identity cards had been distributed by the pilot municipalities14
.
Implementation
2004
March
The decision to introduce the Belpic nation wide was made by the
Cabinet of Ministers and enacted by Royal Decree15
.
2004
July
Establishment of a governmental agency responsible for the management
of the electronic identity cards. In addition, Fedict became responsible forthe management of the electronic identity card.
2004 The federal government organised trainings for the employees of
municipalities and provided municipalities with extra human resources
for the duration of three years16
. Technical support was provided by the
Belpic helpdesk, a unit of the National Register.
Diffusion
2004
October
The electronic identity card was implemented in the first group of
municipalities (out of 578 municipalities)
2004
December
The electronic identity card was implemented in the second group of
municipalities (out of 578 municipalities)
2005
February
The electronic identity card was implemented in the third group of
municipalities (out of 578 municipalities)
2005 Some installation difficulties at municipalities were mentioned in the
Belgium parliament. Minister Dewael argued that the complaints were
based on one incident.
2006 and
2007
Increasingly critique raised on the Belpic, as a report from FEDICT
showed a very low usage17
. Merely 28% of the Internet users who hadand eID had used it at least one time
18
2008 The disappointing usage of Belpic was confirmed by a report of the
Federal Government Agency19
.
14http://www.zdnet.be/news/38028/elektronische-identiteitskaart-vier-keer-duurder/
15http://www.poureva.be/IMG/pdf/DOC_51_1371_021.pdf
16Verantwoording van de algemene uitgavenbegroting, 9 November 2005,
http://www.dekamer.be/doc/flwb/pdf/51/2044/51k2044003.pdf17
http://www.fedict.belgium.be/nl/binaries/diversiteit_tcm167-16726.pdf18
FEDICT, Fed-e View Citizen, Longitudinaal onderzoek naar internet en eGovernment in Belgi. De
burger aan het woord, page 21-22. The most important applications for which the eID was used in 2006
concerned entrance to public spaces such as libraries and waist and recycling centres and the retrieving of
official documents at the local governments.
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
21/64
TNO report | 21 / 64
2009 An overview of the online services accessible through eID on the federal
eID website reveals that the number of services was in November 2009
still relatively low20
. Until now only a few applications are accessible
with the Belpic solution.
2010-? Future goals are putting new services (e.g. on health) in place, integrating
the card with the social security card and herewith the stimulation of the
usage of the Belgian eID21
.
3.2 Technical solution: Belpic
The Belpic card is a mandatory electronic identity (eID) card that is intended to
facilitate access to e-Government services for all Belgian citizens from the age of 12
and up (IDABC, 2009). The Belpic solution is a PKI-based smartcard solution. The
identity card itself is an Axalto Cryptoflex JavaCard with 32K memory, equipped with
a 16 bit microcontroller and an additional crypto processor (IDABC, 2009). The card
has ROM, EEPROM and RAM. A Java Applet handles all communications with the
outside world, through the interfaces described below. The eID card can be read various
kinds of smart card readers22
.
Figure 3 shows the appearance of the Belgium Belpic card. Apart from personal
information, the card has a chip that contains two PKI key pairs and certificates: one for
authentication and one qualified signatures. The Belpic card is a key to the databases of
the National Register. The database of the Belgian National Register consists of a set of
authentic attributes for all Belgian citizens registered in it. Many of the attributes stored
in the authentication certificate of the Belpic card are obtained directly from the
National Register. The National Register uses a Register number, which functions as aunique identifier for Belgian citizens in e-Government services. Apart from being the
main access key to the National Register, this number is also included as a serial
number on the certificates of the eID card. The price of the eID card ranges between 10
and 15 .
19Federale Overheidsdienst Economie, K.M.O., Middenstand en Energie, (2008) Toekomstgerichte studie
over de potentile economische mogelijkheden van het gebruik van de elektronische identiteitskaart en de
elektronische handtekening, Brussel.20
http://welcome-to-e-belgium.be/nl/home.php?nav=621
http://www.ibz.fgov.be/download/activiteitenverslag_2007/Instellingen%20en%20bevolking/55298%20Inst
ell_Bevolk_NL.pdf22
http://www.cardreaders.be/en/default.htm
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
22/64
TNO report | 22 / 64
Figure 2 A typical Belgium eIDM card (Source: ZETES)
Alternatives for the Belpic card are (IDABC, 2009):
The paper federal token which can be issued to certain residents of Belgium, the
social security card (SIS-card), private sector issued certificates (e.g. Verizon),
The kids-ID, an eID card intended for children under 12.
The Belgium Cross road bank stores information about legal persons and natural
persons (entrepreneurs) in as co-called Crossroads Bank for Enterprises.
3.3 The role of trust in the Belpic innovation
3.3.1 On what factors is trust grounded?H1 (PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS): Trust can be based upon personal
characteristics, such as integrity, benevolence and capabilities.
Expertise and independency were important drivers of trust in the Belpic case. The
academic persons involved in the Belpic innovation was trusted by many parties for
their independency. They did not have a direct buyer-customer relation. In addition,
their thorough academic expertise on the legal and technical aspects of eIDM was
highly valued and often mentioned as an important driver for trust. Independency and
expertise seem to be rational drivers of trust: they increase the predictability of the
trustees behaviour and therefore decrease chance of being confronted with unexpectedopportunistic behaviour.
H2 (NORMS AND VALUES): Trust can be based upon the sharing of norms and values
between individuals
In the Belpic case, shared norms and values seemed to be important to build trust. High
trusted relationships (e.g. between two former colleagues) were characterized by shared
norms and values, whereas in distrusted relationships only a few norms and values were
shared. Trust was mostly build in bilateral discussions and meetings. One of the
respondents said that trust had to be checked on a personal basis. Some norms and
values seem to be a must to share and some just as optional. Examples of necessary
values are integrity, honesty and loyalty. Values like professionalism or customer value
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
23/64
TNO report | 23 / 64
of eIDM systems were not always shared between the parties, but did not seem to block
cooperation.
H3 (IDENTIFICATION AND EMPATHY): The fact that people share the same
experiences, concerns and struggles appears to have a boundNo examples of identification and empathy in relation to trust were found in the Belpic
case.
H4 (ROUTINISATION): The higher the routinisation (more knowledge and experience)
in actions of a person the more predictable the actions of that person and the more trust
people have in the reliability of that person
Routinisation seemed to be an important mechanism to build interpersonal trust. For
example, the consortium partners of the Steria consortium knew each for a long time. It
helped to reduce the complexity of working together with so many parties.
H5 (TRANSFERABILITY OF TRUST): Trust is transferable between individuals
There were no particular cases of transferability of trust found in the Belpic case.
3.3.2 What factors change trust over time?H6 (CONTROL IN ABSENCE OF TRUST): When trust is absent, individuals are forced
to assess the competences and opportunism of the other
The Belpic cases had some serious incidents of distrust originating from conflicts. It
seems that in these situations control was taken in several ways. First, the integrity of
actions is assessed extensively and opportunistic behaviour is directly opposed with
consequential behaviour of the other. For example, when manager X intentionally asks
too much money for a service, manager Y will show the superiors X that this money isnot substantiated. Second, escalation was an important mechanism in case of distrust.
Although bilateral meetings are important to solve conflicts, several cases were solved
using the organisational hierarchy within the Belgian administration, even up to the
highest level when necessary.
H7 (UNMET EXPECTATIONS): A decline of trust between individuals can emerge in
case one of the involved parties does not live up to the expectations of the other
No particular cases of unmet expectations decreasing trust were found.
H8 (JOINT SOLUTION OF CONFLICT): the joint solution of conflict can enhance and
deepen trustSolving conflicts helped to build trust, after it was lost. There were many technical
difficulties in the Belpic innovation, e.g. with the installation of the card readers.
Consequently, the National Register often came with change requests for the Steria
consortium. Interviews revealed that adequately solving those problems helped the
Steria consortium to gain trust at the National Register.
3.3.3 How does trust influence the joint innovation process?
H9 (HIERARCHY): In the case of a low level of trust during joint innovation, trust is
compensated by mechanisms of hierarchy
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
24/64
TNO report | 24 / 64
As described earlier, escalation up the organisational hierarchy was an important
instrument in case there was not enough trust to solve issues person-to-person.
Although it solved the problem, it did not enhance the trust between the two persons. In
this case, the solution implied a winner and a loser, whereas in solving joined conflicts
(Hypothesis 8) no one explicitly loses.
H10 (LEGAL MECHANISMS): In the case of a low level of trust during joint
innovation, trust is compensated by legal mechanisms, e.g. contracts
Respondents explicitly mentioned contracts or in a weaker form joint statements as
both a compensation of trust and a driver of trust. At beginning of Belpic, two CIOs had
to work in the same organisation. As there was no tie between them, they made their
own contract (or co-existence agreement), in which they agreed on their task division. It
helped to make their collaboration more predictable and therefore increased
interpersonal trust. The contract had also an external function: they showed their own
organisation and external parties that they were cooperating and not easily to be
separated. As one of the CIOs said: the contract made a strong coalition of us. We
have a very strong tie now.
H11 (TRUSTED THIRD PARTY): In the case of a low level of trust during joint
innovation, trust is compensated by putting a third party / opinion in place
There was one case of a trusted third party. To ensure that the Steria consortium will
meet its obligations, the National Register hired a consultant to monitor and assess the
contract. Presumably, the trust in this consultant was not high enough as the National
Register fired the consultant shortly.
H12 (CREATIVITY): Trust is a necessary requisite for creativity in a team
Interviews revealed that creative or innovative solutions can be blocked by others for
irrational reasons. Looking closer, it seems that there was not enough interpersonal trustbetween the cooperating parties. In the Belpic case, such a situation occurred when the
idea for an additional barcode on the eID card was blocked.
H13 (MOTIVATIONAL CONTROL): In the case of a low level of trust during joint
innovation, trust is compensated by motivational control, such as (financial) incentives
Motivational control was very apparent in the Belpic case. Especially, the buyer-
supplier relation was used for motivational control. For example, the Belpic tenders
were important for consultants to gain access to the European eIDM systems markets.
The buyer was aware of this dependency and could optimally control the buyer-supplier
relationship. This was opposed by the more independent position of the academics. As
one of the respondents stated: Consultants would do a lot to please the customer, butresearchers are not directly paid and are therefore not that dependent. It must be
noted that academic parties can be dependent in other ways, e.g. in reputation, data
availability or visibility.
H14 (BRIDGING DEVIATING INTERESTS): Trust is a precondition for the ability of
bridging deviating interests.
In one case, respondents said trust was needed to bring in an opposing opinion. For
example, a consultancy firm needs a strong trust relation with their customer to
persuade them to agree on a critical report. However, in the Belpic case there was not
enough trust and the consultancy firm was fired.
H15 (RISKS): Trust is a precondition for the willingness of jointly taking risks.
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
25/64
TNO report | 25 / 64
Organisational complexity was an important risk for suppliers in the Belpic case, as
they had to work with many different parties in their consortium. They needed to have a
high level of trust among them to efficiently work together.
H OTHER (EFFICIENCY)Apart from the hypotheses, respondents stated that trust had a very positive effect on the
speed of the innovation process and on accessing knowledge within the social network.
For example, it was easier to agree and get things done in the inter-organisational teams
that highly trusted each other.
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
26/64
TNO report | 26 / 64
4 Austria: Brgerkarte
4.1 Introduction
This introduction paragraph gives a chronological overview of the eIDM innovation
process in Austria23
.
Initiation
1999 The e-Europe initiative of the European Commission put the Information
Society high on the Austrian political agenda
1999 The Austrian Secure Information Technology Centre (A-SIT) was
founded as a National Confirmation Body, which was required by the e-Signature Act.
24
1999
November
The Austrian government officially decided to use smart card technology
in order to simplify their citizens official business25
.
2000 The e-Europe initiative led to the initiative e-Austria in e-Europe26.
2000 The Federal Ministry for Public Service and Sports set up the Task Force
e-Austria, existing of leading experts, to implement the e-Austria in e-
Europe project27
. The development of a Brgerkarte or citizen card28
was one of the significant e-government projects of the taskforce.
2001
June
An ICT board to coordinate e-government services was established29
. The
members were the Chief Information Officers (CIOs) of the Ministries,
who were nominated by their respective ministers. Working groups were
formed to provide advice and assistance to ministries, provinces, cities
and local authorities. One of those working groups concerned the
development of an eIDM system for government services to citizens.
Development
2001 The federal chancellery established the ICT Strategy Unit30
, which
existed of a technical unit which developed applications, a public
relations unit which was responsible for the marketing of the applications
and an administrative unit which dealt with internal procedures. This unitdeveloped the PKI infrastructure for the Brgerkarte.
2002 The providing of certificates was mandated to the company A-Trust,
which is a shared service provider of several Austrian banks and
23Mostly based on interviews and desk research (see also Huijboom, N.M. The influence of social capital on
joint innovation processes, forthcoming).24
http://www.a-sit.at/pdfs/About_ASIT_2009_en_MH.pdf;
25http://www.acsac.org/2002/papers/22.pdf
26http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/ISG/documents/Austria_000.pdf
27http://www.eipa.eu/files/repository/eipascope/scop2001_Special_ENGLISH.pdf
28http://www.sibis-eu.org/files/D4-2_Annex.pdf
29 http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=130530
ftp://ftp.freenet.at/beh/buergerkartegrundlagen.pdf
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
27/64
TNO report | 27 / 64
companies and thus far the only accredited and certified trust centre in
Austria according to EU law.
2002 The inspection and approval of Brgerkarte certificates, signature creation
devices and underlying infrastructure was mandated to A-SIT31
.
2002 The Austrian government established the Central Residents Register, in
which all Austrian residents are registered and assigned a unique personal
identification number (PIN). This PIN is one of the key identifiers used
by the application of the Brgerkarte concept.32
Implementation
2002
2003
The first pilot project with the Brgerkarte concept was launched in 2002
by the Austrian Computer Society (ACS)33. The electronic ID cards were
issued by the ACS from 24 February 2003 on, in cooperation with A-
Trust and the ICT Strategy Unit of the Federal Chancellery34.2004 The Master card of several Austrian Banks and the student chip card of
the Vienna University of Economics and Business became Brgerkarte
prepared35.
2004 The Austrian Parliament passed e-Government legislation building a legal
framework for the Brgerkarte.
2005 A mobile application (A1) for citizen authentication became available as
well as the social security card, which included the possibility to activate
the Brgerkarte function.
End of
2005
The contracts of the employees of the ICT Strategy Unit terminated. It
was decided to continue some of the work in a unit called ChiefInformation Office under the Federal Chancellery and to mandate the
technical work to EGIZ, a new established unit of the Technical
University of Graz.
2005
Autumn
The ICT Board was replaced by the platform Digital Austria in which
the counties and municipalities were also represented36.
Diffusion
2007 The take-up by citizens was behind expectations: 20.000 Brgerkarten
had been activated, whereas the government had planned 50.000 by2006
37.
2008 The federal Chancellery undertook several actions to stimulate take-up:
A large campaign started to encourage students to use their students
ID card as Brgerkarte by giving them free card-readers. Acceptance
rate was limited due to privacy concerns.
31http://www.asit.at/pdfs/About_ASIT_2009_en_MH.pdf
32http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/4486/5584
33http://www.rechtsprobleme.at/doks/burgerkarte-gerstbach.pdf
34http://www.epractice.eu/en/news/284155
35http://www.rechtsprobleme.at/doks/burgerkarte-gerstbach.pdf
36http://www.epractice.eu/en/document/28817137
http://www2.argedaten.at/php/cms_monitor.php?q=PUB-TEXT-ARGEDATEN&s=18047gle
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
28/64
TNO report | 28 / 64
The federal chancellery participated in eGovernment conferences to
explain and promote the Brgerkarte among service providers.
A-SIT published many flyers and instruction videos38 on the
Brgerkarte.
A Brgerkarte website39
was launched.
2008
January
The eCard of the social security institutions fully replaces the traditional
signatures40
and new legislation simplified the issuance of the Brgerkarte
2008
November
The first version of the new online citizen card middleware architecture
MOCCA was released41
. This middleware aimed to lower usage
thresholds by making the software more user-friendly.
2009
November
120.000 Brgerkarte certificates are issued and only few services were
available through the Burkerkarte concept
2010 - ? The future diffusion, maintenance and development of the Brgerkarteconcept is coordinated by the Chief Information Office of the Federal
Chancellery42
. Diffusion will focus on offering more services and
stimulating citizens to activate the Brgerkarte functionality. Also the
participation of the Austrian government in European projects such as
STORK will have a strong priority.
4.2 Technical solution: Brgerkarte
The Brgerkarte is a technology-neutral concept that allows for different technical
solutions. It is a concept rather than a specific token, which defines minimal
requirements that an eID token needs to fulfill. The most important requirements are:
(1) qualified electronic signatures and (2) storage of the identity link or electronic
mandates. Generally, most of the tokens are prepared technically, but the activation of a
token as a citizen card is voluntary (except the professions card). Several tokens of the
Brgerkarte eID are available (IDABC, 2009): (1) each bank card issued since March
2005, (2) the health-insurance card (e-card) (3) professions cards (e.g. notaries or
pharmacists), (4) public officials service cards, or (5) student service cards of
universities. From 2004 to 2008 mobile phones could be used as a token.
The Brgerkarte combines PKI-based electronic signatures as a means of authentication
and identification. The Central Register of Residents provides a unique source of
identification for registered residents and is linked to the Brgerkarte. A supplementary
register allows for integration of foreign natural persons that are not covered otherwise.Registration of organisations is covered by the Commercial Register, the Central
Register of Associations and a Supplementary Register of Other Data Subjects. The
Brgerkarte uses an unique sourcePIN solution (see figure 4): The Brgerkarte uses a
sector-specific identification model that enforces data protection aspects for natural
38http://www.asit.at/de/dokumente_publikationen/videos/index.php
39http://www.buergerkarte.at/en/index.html
40http://www.epractice.eu/en/document/288173
41http://www.epractice.eu/en/document/288168
42http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VB34T0FF98
2&_user=603085&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=10
90110470&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000031079&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=603085&md5=b345d0ab93053ea6e50118980b670861
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
29/64
TNO report | 29 / 64
persons is used. The core element is a so-called identity link The identity link is an
attestation signed by the authority that links a citizens qualified electronic signature to
the unique identifier sourcePIN derived from the base registers. The sourcePIN may
only be stored in the identity link in the citizen card, thus is under sole control of the
citizen (IDABC, 2009).
Central Register ofResidents
Sector specific personalidentifier (ssPIN) Registerof residence: 7011Prohazka, Frantiek
SourcePIN-Register
Every Person has a sourcePIN
sourcePIN of Prohazka, Frantiek: 2411
service sector numberCentral Register of
Residents: 109
Source
PIN2411
irreversiblecryptographic hash
derivation+ =
Ministry ofFinance
Service sector numberTax authority 911
irreversiblecryptographic hash
derivation+ =
Sector specific personalidentifier (ssPIN) ministryof finance: 8924
Prohazka, Frantiek
University
Matriculation number: 356
irreversiblecryptographic hash
derivation+ =
Sector specific personalidentifier (ssPIN): 1818
Prohazka, Frantiek
2411
2411
Matchingimpossible
Matchingimpossible
1. price 14.12.2005 in Madrid forbest practice of data protection ofall European Administrations
The sourcePIN of natural persons mayat no time be stored by the authorities as
an identification feature
Each administrationalunit has its own
service sector number
Figure 3 Overview of the sourcePIN system (Source: Siemens, 2009)
The sourcePIN Register Authority (which is the data protection and privacy
commission) provides services in connection with the sector-specific eIDM model. The
sourcePIN model allows data exchange between sectors without involvement of the
citizen where such data exchanges are admissible. The unique identifiers sourcePIN and
also the sector-specific PINs are legally protected by the eGovernment Act (IDABC,
2009).
The token itself is a secure signature-creation device that contains (IDABC, 2009): a qualified electronic signature (i.e. the signature-creation data and a qualified
certificate)
an identity link is issued by the sourcePIN Register Authority.
the sourcePIN which is the citizens unique identifier from the CRR
the citizens name and date of birth
data that links the identity link to the qualified certificate stored on the token
the signature of the sourcePIN Register Authority
The token has two PKI-based key pairs a qualified signature for authentication and
the second key pair for electronic signatures or encryption. Just the qualified certificate
is needed for the citizen card function. The certificates are provided by the private
sector certification service provider A-Trust.
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
30/64
TNO report | 30 / 64
4.3 The role of trust in the Brgerkarte innovation
4.3.1 On what factors is trust grounded?H1 (PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS): Trust can be based upon personal
characteristics, such as integrity, benevolence and capabilities.
Expertise (a personal trait) was very important in the Austrian case. If a stakeholder inthe innovation process did not have the right capabilities, trust was low (happened in 2cases). One of the respondents argued that trust in expertise is important in lower
hierarchical levels: In lower levels: it is more trust in expertise, expertise at higher
level does not matter so much, assume people dont really understand. In higher level it
is trust in decision power and broad network.
H2 (NORMS AND VALUES): Trust can be based upon the sharing of norms and valuesbetween individuals
Several respondents stated that shared norms, values and interests were highly
important for trusted relationships. For example, members of one of the teams in the
Brgerkarte project described themselves as young, enthusiastic and tolerant, which
increased trust within the team. Respecting cultural values seemed to be important as
well. One respondent visited each county involved in the Brgerkarte project to show
them their interest and respect in their cultural values, which was according to her an
important driver for trust.
H3 (IDENTIFICATION AND EMPATHY):
The fact that people share the same experiences, concerns and struggles appears tohave a bound
Affective factors (such as identification and empathy) were not often mentioned to
influence trust. However, a respondent said that you can just have the feeling that you
can trust somebody. This is more intuition perspective on trust.
H4 (ROUTINISATION):
The higher the routinisation (more knowledge and experience) in actions of a person
the more predictable the actions of that person and the more trust people have in the
reliability of that person
Like the Belgian Belpic case, routinisation seems to be a very important mechanism for
building trust. The basis for the intense and good collaboration within the technical
team of the Federal Chancellery was rooted in the previous cooperation at the TechnicalUniversity of Graz. One of the respondents stated: During my master thesis we had a
good opportunity to trust each other, after 6 or 8 months, we had good trust
relationship. The intense collaboration on defining and developing the eIDM system
increased the trust in the team. As one of the respondents stated: Everybody knows
each other and for about 10 months you make a project and meet more often as a
reason for high trust in the team. Difficult situations (e.g. technical barriers) helped to
test the predictability of behaviour. One of the stakeholders entered the Brgerkarte
project in a later stage. Several respondents did not trust this person, because his
presence was abrupt and they found it hard to explain his behaviour. One of the
respondents at the Federal Chancellery stated that he trusted a specific stakeholder at
the Ministry of Finance, because he worked with him (routinisation).
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
31/64
TNO report | 31 / 64
H5 (TRANSFERABILITY OF TRUST):
Trust is transferable between individuals
Transferability of trust occurred within high trust teams. One of the respondents stated:
If you have a core team with trust relation, it is easier to trust external bodies, with the
knowledge that your personal trust partners trust some body else. The trusted teammembers formed a first basis to decide if somebody could be trusted: it was for me the
first thing to decide whether I could trust the person or not. It helped a lot in first
contact phase.
4.3.2 What factors change trust over time?H6 (CONTROL IN ABSENCE OF TRUST):
When trust is absent, individuals are forced to assess the competences and opportunism
of the other
Respondents stated that in case of a trust relationship there was no need to assess
opportunistic behaviour (e.g. playing games as they described it). In case of distrust,they assessed the integrity of the others statements and actions and clearly planned
their own statements and actions. One of the respondents explained: There were a lot
of political issues and we have to be careful in meetings: what can I tell them? What
not? We had to consider before meetings: what should we say? What not? Is this the
right timing? This behaviour can slow down the innovation process, e.g. by slowing
down decision making and consuming too much relational transaction costs: (in case
of low trust) there is a little decision how you can develop towards decision. You can
explore this before you go there.
H7 (UNMET EXPECTATIONS):A decline of trust between individuals can emerge in case one of the involved parties
does not live up to the expectations of the other
How often someone changes his or her opinion is an important hampering factor for
interpersonal trust. A few respondents stated that one of the key stakeholders in the
Brgerkarte case changes his opinion on the Brgerkarte very often. It is hard to predict
his or her actions (routinisation) and often he does not meet the expectations of all
stakeholders. For example, this happened when new software modules of the
Brgerkarte were developed. As one of the respondents put it: He has good ideas, but
when he has the idea he wants to realize it and next day he has a new idea or (no
trust because) he jumps around with new technologies.
H8 (JOINT SOLUTION OF CONFLICT):The joint solution of conflict can enhance and deepen trust
As described in Hypothesis 4 (routinisation), keeping your word even in hard
circumstances is an important test for trust. For example: (I trust them because) they
kept their word and also in very hard circumstances. Solving a severe conflict can be
fairly effective. One respondent made an agreement after a fight: for three years he
did not do it. I trust him, he can count on me: I will never say something in public on
certificates.
4.3.3 How does trust influence the joint innovation process?H9 (HIERARCHY):
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
32/64
TNO report | 32 / 64
In the case of a low level of trust during joint innovation, trust is compensated by
mechanisms of hierarchy
Hierarchy was clearly recognized as a compensation for trust: you have personal trust
and trust you have to obey or in other words you have to trust or without it you have to
follow the hierarchical norms. We found institutionalization in the Brgerkarte casewhen government agencies from different organizations needed to cooperate and there
was not a basis of trust that the ICT board would recognize all interests. For example,
there were 15 to 20 working groups in which central and local government dealt with
specific issues around e-government. Another example is the integration of the ICT
Strategy Unit into the Federal chancellery. As one respondent puts it: A reason that
some people dont want to have the taskforce on same level is that they want to control
it, under their power. A necessary prerequisite for trust is the backing of a superior for
decision making. As one of the respondents puts it: trust in the influence of people:
decision power is necessary. So, top managements support seems to be an important
basis for trust. On the other hand, when trust is present, hierarchical measures were not
necessary in the Austrian case. One of the managers said that trust made him feel like
one of the team members instead of a superior: I trusted everyone and from hierarchy
point of view I was not superior, but one of them.
H10 (LEGAL MECHANISMS):
In the case of a low level of trust during joint innovation, trust is compensated by legal
mechanisms, e.g. contracts
Respondents see contracts, agreements and official minutes as signs of distrust. Some
did not want to work at all with contracts, because it diminishes the role of trust: it
wont work out. I dont want contracts, I want trust, I build network with people I trust.
Its my character; I can not play a role.
H11 (TRUSTED THIRD PARTY):In the case of a low level of trust during joint innovation, trust is compensated by
putting a third party / opinion in place
We found no specific instances of trusted third partiers in the Brgerkarte case.
H12 (CREATIVITY):
Trust is a necessary requisite for creativity in a team
The technical developers of the Brgerkarte case, working at the Federal chancellery,
stated that the high level of trust allowed them to work efficiently and in a creative way.As one of the respondents stated: it made us definitely more efficient, it is place of
work no need act politically at least in our unit,
H13 (MOTIVATIONAL CONTROL):
In the case of a low level of trust during joint innovation, trust is compensated by
motivational control, such as (financial) incentives
Market mechanisms make the interests of parties clearer and therefore less susceptible
for opportunistic behaviour. A-trust saw itself out of scope of political interests: for
them I am private party, not playing in there game. Commercial goals are often clear
and can be used as a control mechanism. Again the motivations of private parties and
academia are different (e.g. selling certain products vs. experimenting and innovation),
but in both cases present.
H14 (BRIDGING DEVIATING INTERESTS):
Trust is a precondition for the ability of bridging deviating interests
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
33/64
TNO report | 33 / 64
Within the team of developers in the Federal chancellery, everybody was able to
express his own ideas. Status (hierarchical mechanism) did not play such an important
role due to the presence of trust. However: only the best ideas prevailed, not part of
who had the idea. If you had the right idea and right arguments you had it. Trust was
also needed to bridge the technical and legal aspects of the Brgerkarte: if we wouldnot have a good relationship, it would not function: it was a problem of putting the
technical and legal part together
H15 (RISKS):
Trust is a precondition for the willingness of jointly taking risks
The Austrian eIDM system is technically, legally and organisationally complex.
Therefore, the risks of spilling resources was very high and trust was needed. One of therespondents stated If you can not trust, you wont spend money or time with him in the
project.
H OTHER: CLOSURE
In the absence of trust, people will try to keep the distrusted person out of decisions in
the innovation process. This group closure occurred in the Brgerkarte. For example,
one of the members of the ICT Strategy Unit said: he (one of the CIOs) tried to not to
involve him (a rival CIO) in each and every decision he made, he tried to do so by
making decisions not only in the official board, but also in internal meetings where
officials met regularly, he makes decisions in the network.
-
8/9/2019 Final TNO Report_the Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Joint eIDM Innovations 08062010
34/64
TNO report | 34 / 64
5 Finland: VETUMA
5.1 Introduction
This i