eCitizen Component 5 meeting

31st March 2006

TARTU

Agenda

1. Summary from Lead Partner on original intentions and conditions for comp. 5 actions !

2. Existing comp.5 action plan (31st aug. 2005 + necessary adjustments !

3. Sheffield related issues checked out ?4. eGov. Study ?5. Local awareness raising strategies ?6. Survey of eGov. Awareness initiatives by project

partners ?7. Conclusions on further adjustments to Comp.5 action

plan ?

1. Original intentions by lead partner

Joint Component 5 activities

• eGovernment study

• Survey of awareness raising activities by project partners

• Guidelines for development of local awarenes raising strategies and tools

2. Revised 31st Aug.2005 plan

Necessary adjustments acc. to orginal component description:

• Act. 1– Survey > Study– Workshop >Virtual Meeting

• Act. 2– Reports on lessons learned from act 2 > ”3 *

Sheffield”

Not to be discussed !!!

3. Sheffield

• What– Introduction of best practices and methods used

by Sheffield to encourage citizens participation in local eDemocracy and eVoting actions

– Publishing best practices from Sheffield on projects website

• Can we check this out from the ”to do list”?

4. eGov Study - 1

• Original intentions– Hiring expert to conduct study on European

eGov. Actions and awareness raising strategies (05/1)

– Publishing study results on project web site (05/2)

– Organizing virtual meeting between local coordinators regarding the results of the study (06/1)

4. eGov Study - 2

• May 2005: ToR for Study of eGov. Actions in Europe:– Taxonomy for eGov. Actions– Overview of eGov. Actions at local European

level based upon one / two qualified resently published reports

– Best practice examples– Survey on awareness raising strategies and

actions at local gov. Level in Europe

4. eGov Study - 3

• Problems– Not only 1 expert (Ossandon, Elanet) –

background and language problems – 15.000 Euro not enough for prof. West

European consultant– Uncertainty of model for project financing

4. eGov Study - 4

• Actual situation– Budget reduction to 12.000

• Way forward ???– Narrowing the scope of the study to only focus

on awareness raising activities– Not much published on this topic at European

level (and in English): Sheffield, UK, Denmark + Netherlands ??

5. Local awareness raising strategies – hiring expert

• Original intention: contracting expert for preparing guidelines for development of local awareness raising strategies and tools

• Situation– No interest (Tampere, Kick off meeting)– Not much money left

• What instead ????

6. Survey of awarenss activities by project partners

• Need for common understanding• Structuring of received summaries of

awareness raising activities• Problems, challenges and needs• Next steps

– Input from remaining partners !– Virtual discussion of draft observations– Observations and conclusions

6.2. Survey of awarenss activities by project partners

• Need for Common understanding on – “what is awareness raising” compared to – “what is service provision”

• Raising awareness – by whom

• citizens / enterprises• employees in local authorities• politiciens• public opinion

– About what• eServices• eDemocracy• eParticipation / eInclusion• e”Else”

• Portal ???

>AIDA

6.3. Survey of awarenss activities by project partners

AIDA

A ….. Awareness (eye opener)

I……. Interest (relevance)

D…….Desire (needs /benefits)

A…….Action (buying/using)

Awarenesscampaign

Service development /delivery

7. Conclusions and decisions

• Conclusions on adjustments to joint component 5 action plan

• Decisions to be implemented

New comp. 5 joint activities action plan

• 06/1– eGov. Study

• expert contracted

• 1. delivery (euro 3000)

– Partner awar. survey• ongoing and planned

activities

• 06/2– eGov. Study

• seminar and 2. delivery (euro 9000)

– Partner awar.surv.• Observ/concl.

– Awareness raising seminar / campaign

• contract. Expert

• 07/1– Awareness raising

seminar implemented

• 07/2– reports on local awar.

Campaigns