final tno report_the effects of interpersonal trust on joint eidm innovations 08062010

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

[email protected]

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


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


3/64

TNO report | 3 / 64


4/64


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.


6/64


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.


8/64

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 %


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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):


motivational control, such as (financial) incentives.

H14 (BRIDGING DEVIATING INTERESTS):

Trust is a precondition for the ability of bridging deviating interests.


18/64


H15 (RISKS):

Trust is a precondition for the willingness of jointly taking risks.


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


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


2005

February

The electronic identity card was implemented in the third group of


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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



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


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


derivation+ =

Sector specific personalidentifier (ssPIN) ministryof finance: 8924

Prohazka, Frantiek

University

Matriculation number: 356


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.


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).


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):


32/64



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):


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


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.


34/64


5 Finland: VETUMA

5.1 Introduction

This i

final tno report_the effects of interpersonal trust on joint eidm innovations 08062010

Documents