EN   EN 
   EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 9.4.2010 
SEC(2010) 395 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Ex ante evaluation – assessment of the need to establish a multi-annual programme in 
order to organise training and exchanges of officials  
in charge of the implementation of mutual assistance 
 under the Services Directive (2006/123/EC) 
 
Accompanying document to the 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
 
On training and exchanges of officials in charge of the implementation of mutual 
assistance under the Services Directive (2006/123/EC) 
COM(2010)134 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................2 
1.1. Background........................................................................................................2 
1.2. The aim of this assessment................................................................................3 
2. THE CURRENT SITUATION ...................................................................................4 
2.1. IMI for the Services Directive – a rapidly growing network ............................4 
2.2. Training for competent authorities and IMI coordinators.................................5 2.3. Exchanges of officials .......................................................................................6 
3. NEEDS ASSESSMENT..............................................................................................6 
3.1. Gathering information about the needs of users and coordinators....................6 
3.2. Analysis of the results .......................................................................................7 
4. OBJECTIVES ...........................................................................................................12 
4.1. Training ...........................................................................................................12 
4.2. Support material ..............................................................................................13 4.3. Exchanges of officials .....................................................................................13 4.4. General considerations ....................................................................................13 
5. AVAILABLE POLI CY OPTIONS...........................................................................13 
5.1. Maintain the status quo....................................................................................13 
5.2. Adapt and extend current approach.................................................................13 5.3. Set up a multi-a nnual programme ...................................................................14 
5.4. Comparison of options ....................................................................................15 
6. CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................16 
7. FOLLOW-UP: ARRANGEMENTS FOR MONITORING AND 
EVALUATION .........................................................................................................16 
ANNEX I: RESULTS OF SURVEY AMONGST ALL AUTHORITIES 
REGISTERED IN IMI FOR THE SERVICES MODULE.......................................18 
ANNEX I: RESULTS OF SURVEY AMONGST ALL AUTHORITIES 
REGISTERED IN IMI FOR THE SERVICES MODULE.......................................18 
ANNEX II: SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF TRAINING WORKSHOP HELD 
ON 17 JUNE 2009 ....................................................................................................23 
ANNEX III: RESULTS OF SURVEY AMONGST IMI COORDINATORS .................25 
 
 21. INTRODUCTION  
1.1. Background 
The Services Directive1 seeks to make it easier for both businesses and consumers to take 
full advantage of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed in Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)
2 – the freedom of 
establishment and the freedom to provide se rvices across borders. Its provisions aim to 
simplify administrative procedures, to remove obstacles for services activities and to enhance trust between Member States
3 in each others' rules and controls.  
Articles 28 to 36 of the Services Directive ob lige Member States to assist each other and 
to exchange information on service provi ders. The objective of this day to day 
cooperation is to avoid a multiplication of contro ls and to ensure effective supervision of 
service providers. In practice, this means th at competent authorities operating at national, 
regional and local level need to provide inform ation directly to their counterparts in other 
countries and, if necessary, carry out factual checks, inspections and investigations.  
In order to function properly, administra tive cooperation needs to be supported by 
technical means which enable direct and fast communication between the competent 
authorities of different Member States. Therefor e, Article 34(1) of the Services Directive 
obliges the Commission to " establish an electronic system for the exchange of 
information between Member States, taking into account existing information systems ".  
The Internal Market Information System (IMI) fulfils this function. This IT-based 
information network was developed by the European Commission in close cooperation 
with Member States. IMI contains, most notably, (1) a multilingual search function that helps competent authorities identify their counterpart in another country, (2) pre-translated questions and answers for all cas es in which they are likely to require 
information from abroad, and (3) a tracking mechanism that allows them to follow the 
progress of their information request and that also allows IMI coordinators at national or 
regional level to intervene in the event of problems.  
IMI has been tested successfully for inform ation exchanges in the framework of the 
Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications
4 and is now operational in that 
area.5  
                                                 
1  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Par liament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on 
services in the internal market (OJ L376 of 27.12.2006, p. 36). 
2  Ex Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty. 
3  The term ‘Member States’, in this document, is us ed to refer to the 27 EU Member States and the three 
EFTA countries participating in the European Economic Area (EEA), i.e. Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. 
4  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the 
recognition of professional qualifications (OJ L255 of 30.9.2005, p. 22). 
5  See "Delivering the benefits of the single market through enhanced administrative cooperation – 
Progress Report on the Internal Market Information System", Commission Communication of 6 November 2008 (COM(2008) 703 final), p. 10.  
 3Setting up IMI for the Services Directive is a challenging task. By 28 December 2009, 
the deadline for the implementation of th e Directive, an operational network for 
administrative cooperation that caters for all authorities with responsibilities in any of the 
many areas of application of the Directive had to be in place. To help prepare competent 
authorities for the use of IMI, the Commission and Member States agreed to start using 
the system on a pilot basis throughout 2009. The pilot ran until 28 December 2009.  On 
that date, the IMI services module became operational. 
On 2 October 2009, the Commission formally decided that IMI  shall be used as the 
electronic system mentioned in Article 34(1) of the Services Directive.6  
1.2. The aim of this assessment 
The wide scope of application of the Services  Directive is likely to lead to a large and 
diverse pool of IMI end-users. They all need to understand how IMI works and how it can support them in their tasks. Awareness -raising and training activities are therefore 
crucial for the correct implementation of the provisions on administrative cooperation. 
However, organising these activities in a way that reaches every user and addresses his 
or her individual needs is highly complex.  
Article 34(2) of the Services Directive ca lls on Member States to take, with the 
assistance of the Commission, " accompanying measures to facilitate the exchange of 
officials in charge of the implementation of mutual assistance and training of such 
officials, including language und computer training ".  
Article 34(3) asks the Commission to " assess the need to establish a multi-annual 
programme in order to organise relevant exchanges
7 of officials and training ". 
In a progress report on IMI of 6 November  2008, the Commission reached the conclusion 
that, with regard to administrative c ooperation under the Services Directive, " the current 
level of investment in training and awareness needs to be intensified in order to bring 
about the desired outcomes ". Therefore, it announced that in 2009 it would " carry out an 
ex-ante evaluation to look at different options and to assess whether there is a need to set 
up a possible multi-annual training and exchange  programme for the administrative 
cooperation provisions of the Services Directive "8. 
This document accompanies the Commission Report on training and exchanges of 
officials in charge of the implementati on of mutual assistance under the Services 
Directive. It assesses the need for a multi-annual programme, on the basis of the 
experience gathered between the date of th e adoption of the Directive (December 2006) 
and October 2009, in particular from the IMI p ilot project for services. It considers the 
                                                 
6  Commission Decision 2009/ 739/EC of 2 October 2009 setting out the practical arrangements for the 
exchange of information by electronic means between Member States under Chapter VI of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on services in the internal market (OJ L263 of 7.10.2009, p. 32). 
7  Other language versions make it clearer than the English that what is meant by " relevant " exchanges 
and training is in fact the exchanges and the tr aining referred to in paragraph 2 (German: "(…) zur 
Organisation derartiger  Beamtenaustausch- und Fortbildungsmaßnahmen "; French: "(…)  afin 
d'organiser lesdits  échanges de fonctionnaires et formations "; emphasis added). 
8  See footnote 4. 
 4need for training on the one hand and the need  for exchanges of officials on the other 
hand separately. As regards training, it disti nguishes between training in relation to (1) 
the general obligation of administrative coope ration in the framework of the Services 
Directive (content-related training), (2) the use of IMI from a technical point of view and 
(3) general " language and computer training " as mentioned in Article 34(2) of the 
Services Directive. 
It should be noted that Article 34(1) of th e Services Directive refers to the Commission 
as the main actor, whereas Article 34(2) refers to Member States as the main actors. This difference will be reflected in the approach to the analysis:  
– As regards Article 34(1), the Commission ha s met its obligation to set up IMI and 
is now responsible for ensuring that IMI works well from a technical point of view. The assessment will therefore exam ine how well competent authorities and 
IMI coordinators are able to use IMI and what training is needed to support them 
in this respect; 
– As regards all other aspects, in particul ar the exchange of officials and general 
language and computer training (Article  34(2)), the Commission is asked to assist 
Member States. Therefore, the assessmen t in these regards will be based on an 
analysis of initiatives and demands on the part of the Member States.  
2. T
HE CURRENT SITUATION  
2.1. IMI for the Services Directive – a rapidly growing network 
The decentralised structure of the IMI netw ork requires each participating country to 
nominate a "national IMI coordinator" (NIMIC) to manage overall IMI project 
coordination in this country. The NIMIC is free to decide how to go about this, in 
particular how to ensure that all competent au thorities that need to use IMI are registered, 
how to raise awareness and how to provide training and support to end-users. Depending 
on their administrative structures, many Member States have decided to delegate all or 
certain coordinating functions to other levels , to "delegated IMI coordinators" (DIMIC) 
or, in the case of regional coordinators w ith full IMI responsibility, to "super-delegated 
IMI coordinators" (SDIMIC). Given that IMI now operates in different legislative areas 
(professional qualifications and services), some Member States have asked for the 
introduction of a coordinator with full respons ibility for one legislative area at either 
national or regional level, a "legislative area IMI coordinator" (LIMIC). 
At the time of writing, 2912 competent authoritie s throughout the EU were registered in 
IMI with access to the services module, comp ared to 731 for professional qualifications. 
From the second to the third quarter of 2009, the number of authorities registered for the 
services module nearly doubled, on the one hand showing that Member States were 
making good use of the pilot project to put th e necessary structures in place, but on the 
other hand making it impossible to predict how many authorities will be using IMI for 
services at maturity. 
 
 5050010001500200025003000Total number of authorities with access to Services module
NIMIC 30 30 30 30
SDIMIC 39 43 45 45
CA/LIMIC/DIMIC 939 1242 2046 2912Q1 Q2 Q301/10-
22/11/2009
 
Moreover, system statistics show that mo st registered authorities have only one 
registered user so far, and a significant percen tage of these have so far not yet logged in 
to IMI. 
2.2. Training for competent authorities and IMI coordinators 
Despite the low login rate, in a survey ca rried out in July and August 2009 amongst all 
authorities registered in IMI, 71% of responde nts registered for services indicated that 
they had already participated in an awaren ess-raising and/or training event about IMI, 
most of them at national level. 
Up until now, the Commission has supported Member States in their training and 
awareness-raising activities in a number of ways, namely by: 
(1) organising regular training sessions for NI MICs and other IMI coordinators in 
Brussels, on the basis of a "train the trainers" concept;9 
(2) providing assistance in the organisation of  national training and awareness-raising 
events;10 
(3) making available an IMI training system as  a tool to familiarise end-users with 
IMI; 
                                                 
9  During the services pilot project, the Commission organised three one-day sessions for coordinators 
catering for around 60 participants each. 
10  Assistance was provided on request and subject to availability, ranging from advice on developing the 
course to Commission staff acting as trainers. Priority was given to Member States with large user groups. During the pilot project, the Commission provided assistance to Germany, Spain, Cyprus and Denmark. 
 6(4) producing a range of training material s, including a comprehensive user 
handbook, a handbook on IMI and the Services Directive, interactive eLearning 
modules explaining important specific IM I functions and standard Powerpoint 
presentations;11 
(5) distributing promotional material such as  an IMI brochure and small promotional 
items;  
(6) maintaining and developing a multilingual website; and 
(7) providing ongoing assistance to IMI coordinators through a central IMI helpdesk. 
Also, to mark the launch of the pilot project for IMI and the Services Directive, the 
Commission held a large-scale conference in Brussels on 25 February 2009, bringing 
together nearly 400 representatives of nationa l, regional and local administrations from 
throughout the EU. 
At Member State level, training and awar eness-raising efforts differ enormously. 
Whereas some Member States systematically  organise training on a large scale, some 
others have organised hardly any training so far.12  
2.3. Exchanges of officials 
No formalised exchanges of officials in ch arge of administrative cooperation have taken 
place so far.  
However, the regular training events for NI MICs and other IMI coordinators that the 
Commission organises in Brussels provide a fo rum for participants to share experiences 
and good practices. The Commission has encouraged this by setting time aside for group discussions on points that are of interest to all. 
3. N
EEDS ASSESSMENT  
3.1. Gathering information about the needs of users and coordinators 
The data that underpins this assessment ha s been drawn from a number of different 
sources, in order to allow for cross-checks of the reliability and validity of the data. 
3.1.1.  Ongoing data collection in IMI and through trainer feedback forms 
Authorities that have participated in an in formation exchange in IMI are automatically 
sent an electronic feedback form, in which th ey can report their experiences of using the 
                                                 
11  All of these materials are available in the section "Training on IMI" of the IMI website at 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/imi-net. 
12  Member States are under no obligation to inform the Commission about their ac tivities in this respect. 
On a voluntary basis, the Commission was informed about a total of 93 training and awareness raising events between March and October 2009, 37 out  of which were organised in Germany. 
 7system. This form includes questions about the usability of IMI. At the time of writing, 
106 users had given their feedback after using IMI for services.13 
The Commission has also made a feedback form  (in Word format) available to Member 
States, with which trainers at national or regional events can communicate their 
experiences to the Commission. 22 trainers have made use of this opportunity so far. 
3.1.2.  Survey amongst all authorities registered in IMI 
Between 6 July and 21 August 2009, all authoritie s registered in IMI were invited to 
participate in an electronic survey about thei r training needs in relation to using IMI ("the 
authority survey"14). 378 replies from authorities regist ered for services were received 
(out of about 900 registered in that period) , making for a very good return rate that can 
be interpreted as a sign of considerable inte rest in the questions asked on the part of 
competent authorities. 
3.1.3.  Detailed feedback from IMI coordinators 
On 17 June 2009, during one of the regular training sessions organised by the 
Commission in Brussels, IMI coordinators  took part in a workshop with group 
discussions about their experience with training so far and their needs for the future ("the 
training workshop"15). 47 coordinators participated in this training session. 
Coordinators were then also given the oppor tunity to comment in more detail on these 
issues in a paper-based survey that ra n from 10 July to 15 September 2009 ("the 
coordinator survey"16). Replies were received from 51 coordinators from 26 countries. 
3.1.4.  Exchanges of officials organised by the Commission in other policy areas 
Given that there have so far not been any form alised exchanges of officials in charge of 
implementing administrative cooperation under th e Services Directive, information was 
gathered on exchange programmes organise d and/or financed by the Commission in 
other policy areas. 
Informal meetings were organised with Commission officials from the Directorates-
General concerned in order to learn from their experiences with such programmes. 
3.2. Analysis of the results 
On the basis of all the information gathered, eight main conclusions can be drawn. 
3.2.1.  IMI is user-friendly, but training remains necessary. 
                                                 
13  During the pilot project, competen t authorities can exchange informati on about either fictional or real 
cases falling within the scope of the Services Direc tive. 97% of exchanges concerned fictional cases.  
14  For an overview of all results of this survey, see Annex I. 
15  For a summary of the results of the group discussions, see Annex II. 
16  A synthesis of the results is shown in Annex III. 
 8A large majority of users of the IMI serv ices module who responded to the authority 
survey find IMI easy to use.17 Similarly positive reactions were registered for the 
statements "I was able to carry out all the ta sks that I had to complete in IMI without any 
problems" and "The legal obligations under th e Directive are easy to put into practice 
using IMI". This encouraging result is confir med by feedback received from participants 
in training courses18 and from users who participated in an information exchange through 
IMI: 52% of the latter found IMI very intuitiv e and easy to use, 42% found it quite easy 
to use, but would consider some training a nd guidance useful. Only  6% did not find IMI 
easy to use.  
When asked directly which type of trai ning, if any, was essential for successful 
administrative cooperation, only 6% of respondent s to the authority survey replied that 
no training at all was necessary. 
3.2.2.  Training in legal and practical implications of the Services Directive is more 
challenging than training in how to use IMI from a technical point of view. 
The three areas in which respondents to the au thority survey consider that training is 
most essential for successful administrativ e cooperation are: understanding the practical 
implications of the Directive (75%), understanding the legal obligations under the 
Directive (70%) and how to use IMI from a technical point of view (67%).19  
This is mirrored in the replies from coordi nators who were asked where they see the 
main challenges for competent authorities in using IMI for services. Most frequently named as the biggest challenges were: d ealing with differences in rules and 
administrative structures in other countries, understanding the legal changes introduced by the Services Directive and understanding the practical implications of the Services 
Directive for their work.
20 
The coordinators who participated in the training workshop concluded that there is a 
need for training both at a technical and at a content level. However, in their opinion, 
technical training is mainly needed when user s first join the system in order to overcome 
reluctance to use a new computer system. In  the view of a number of participants, 
content is much more of an issue for tr aining, as competent authorities often lack 
information about the expected impact of the Services Directive on their work. 
3.2.3.  General language and computer training is offered as part of on-the-job training 
and is not essential for administrative cooperation. 
                                                 
17  27% completely agree with th e statement "IMI is easy to use" , 48% agree somewhat, 9% disagree 
somewhat and 2% disagree completely. 
18  Feedback given personally to Commission representa tives where they were present at training sessions 
in the Member States and feedback given to the trainers who filled in the trainer feedback form 
provided by the Commission. 19 out of 22 trainers reported that their trainees either completely or somewhat agreed with the stat ement: "IMI is easy to use." 
19  The question allowed for multiple replies. 45% of  respondents found training in  how to respect data 
protection rules when using IMI essential, 18% found language training esse ntial and 9% general 
computer training. 
20  Coordinators were asked to rank a number of possible challenges on a scale from 1 to 10.  The three 
fields mentioned here were included in the "top 3" by 27, 24 and 24 coordinators respectively.  
 9Relatively few respondents to the authority su rvey feel that language training and/or 
general computer training are essential fo r successful administrative cooperation (18% 
language training, 9% general computer training).  
According to information provided by IMI coordinators, such general language and 
computer training is in many Member States  part of the on-the-job training to which 
officials either have access on a regular basis or if and when they need to address specific 
job-related requirements. However, a relativel y large minority of coordinators (20 out of 
51) feel that there is a need for more co mputer and language courses for officials in 
charge of implementing mutual assistance in their country. 
3.2.4.  Users like to be trained locally. 
In the authority survey, IMI users were aske d to name the three most appropriate forms 
of learning about administrative cooperation and IMI. Four possible replies received 
about the same amount of assent: Short inform al sessions with an experienced colleague 
in the respondent's own authority (51%), self-learning with support material (50%), 
training at regional level (47%) and training at national level (46%). Only 20% of respondents feel that centralised training at EU  level is one of the most appropriate forms 
of learning. 
Respondents to the coordinator survey gave si milar replies, except that only nine out of 
51 coordinators felt that training sessions or ganised locally would be appropriate. This 
may be explained by the fact that, at the moment, many competent authorities are new to the system, which means that there is ofte n no experienced colleague able to hold an 
informal training session, and it is of course unrealistic for IMI coordinators especially in large Member States to provide individual tr aining locally. However, participants of the 
training workshop confirmed that small events ar e preferable to larger ones as they result 
in more interaction with the participants and less stress for the trainer. 
More coordinators than users also find aw areness-raising events and training sessions 
organised centrally by the Commission appropria te. Participants of the training workshop 
pointed out that the large-scale conferen ce organised by the Commission in February 
2009 convinced many representatives of comp etent authorities of the importance and 
usefulness of IMI and created considerable momentum in implementing it at home. 
3.2.5.  The availability of trainers with the right skills is more of a concern than training 
costs. 
The number of persons who are involved in organising training on IMI and the Services 
Directive varies widely between Member States.
21 Additionally, in many cases only a 
very small amount of their total working time is allocated to this task. This is a big 
concern to a number of coordinators. Nine  out of 51 respondents to the coordinator 
survey think that they need a lot more human resources; 10 think they need a little more. 
As regards training costs, most coordinators w ho replied to the survey stated that they do 
not have any funding for traini ng on IMI and the Services Directive. 20 coordinators out 
of 51 feel that they need additional funding. However, according to the participants of 
                                                 
21  The average number of persons is three, whereby the numbers ranged from 0 to 20. 
 10the training workshop, training costs are actually  not a big issue in most Member States 
as trainers can use their own resources and participants can cover their own costs.  
For some coordinators, insufficient human resources also mean that there is insufficient 
expertise in how to organise and conduct training sessions. A number of respondents to 
the coordinator survey indicated that it is diffi cult for them to decide whom to invite to 
training sessions. Others struggled with c onvincing reluctant competent authorities to 
attend or with handling widely varying leve ls of prior knowledge. Several coordinators 
stated that they did not have any experience or skills in training. 
Lack of support from the hierarchy was also frequently mentioned as a big difficulty in 
raising awareness and organising training. 
3.2.6.  The support material produced by the Commission is much appreciated, but not 
known well enough. 
Among those respondents to the authority su rvey who have used training and support 
material produced by the Commission, all of th ese materials receive very good marks for 
usefulness. Of those who have used the IMI user handbook (containing a comprehensive 
description of all IMI functions), 92% find it either very useful or quite useful. 89% 
consider the IMI website to be useful. The eLearning modules about individual IMI functions are seen as useful by 86%. 92% of  respondents who have already used the new 
guide to IMI and the Services Directive find it either very or quite useful. 
However, it is disappointing to see that a large number of respondents, most of whom 
have already participated in a training or awareness-raising event, have never used these materials. Whereas it is understandable that 30% of respondents have never used the new 
guide to IMI and the Services Directive, it is difficult to see why 23% have never used the user handbook. Given that both users and c oordinators emphasised that self-learning 
is an appropriate form of learning about ad ministrative cooperation and IMI, it is also 
disappointing to see that 60% of users have never used the eLearning modules that were 
produced by the Commission exactly for the purpose of self-learning. 
It is somewhat surprising that even a signifi cant number of coordinators state that they 
never or only rarely use the eLearning modul es for training purposes, whereas most of 
them use the user handbook and the Commission's website very often. 
Opinions about the IMI training system that allows trainers to simulate information 
exchanges and set exercises in a safe envi ronment differ among coordinators. Some use it 
very often and find it very useful. Others do not use it at all, frequent reasons being, 
according to coordinators who participated  in the training workshop, the lack of 
meaningful data in the training system and th e fact that it is time-consuming to prepare 
exercises in it. 
3.2.7.  The main responsibility for training now lies with Member States, but the 
Commission should play a role as well. 
Amongst the participants of the training workshop, a broad consensus emerged that the 
Commission had already provided a lot of valuable assistance and that, with the implementation date of the Services Dir ective approaching rapidly, it was now the 
coordinators' turn to take action in their Me mber States. When asked how they intend to 
address the main challenges for competent authorities (see point 3.2.2), a large majority of respondents to the coordinator survey stated  that they plan to organise training and 
 11information events that will focus on the most  challenging points. A number of them also 
plan to send regular newsletters and/or to  provide individual assistance, by setting up a 
helpdesk or creating a web-based forum for IMI users.  
Some coordinators feel that it will be most useful to train competent authorities only as 
of 2010, once they are legally obliged to c ooperate. However, concern was expressed by 
some as to whether they would be provi ded with appropriate human and financial 
resources after the implementation has been finalised. 
Whilst coordinators accept their responsibility  in raising awareness and training IMI 
users in their countries, a majority of them (29 out of 51 coordinators) see a role for the 
Commission in the areas they identified as the most challenging. The main requests that were made in this respect were the following: 
(1) More and faster translations of all material; 
(2) Improve the IMI system itself (decrease system response time, enhance search 
function for identifying competent authorities in other Member States); 
(3) Produce some shorter and targeted s upport material (e.g. Frequently Asked 
Questions on the IMI website); 
(4) Give a clearer overview of available material; 
(5) Collect "success stories" from users who had good experiences using IMI; 
(6) Raise awareness with media/the general public. 
3.2.8.  Exchanges of officials could add significant value. 
A majority of respondents to the authority survey think that it would add significant 
value to meet officials from other countries  who work with IMI in order to exchange 
experiences (64%). A majority of these cons ider that such meetings should best be 
organised in the form of regional training events with participants from different 
countries (52%). Many also supported the idea of smaller scale conferences for 
geographical regions (46%) and short-term vi sits in authorities in different countries 
(45% - multiple replies allowed). 
On the coordinators' side, there are concrete plans to organise exchanges of officials in 
two Member States. Coordinators from three further countries stated that they might 
organise exchanges in the future. Howeve r, obtaining sufficient funding and overcoming 
language barriers are seen as problematic in this  context. One coordinator stated that they 
would organise exchanges only if they were supported by the Commission.  
During the training workshop, the idea of or ganising exchanges and/or cross-border 
events met with a positive reaction. However, some participants expressed the feeling 
that it was premature to consider such activities. 
Experience from exchange programmes organised and/or financed by the Commission in 
other policy areas appears to have been positive throughout. According to officials involved in the running of such programmes, the programme set-up requires a significant 
investment both in financial terms and in  terms of staff time. However, once the 
programme is established, it can generally run at a relatively small scale with low 
 12maintenance costs. According to the offi cials, feedback from participants was 
consistently positive, with many of them re porting to the Commission that the exchange 
had helped them come up with good ideas to  implement in their own country. Some 
drawbacks included the fact that, due to la nguage barriers, many participants chose to 
visit neighbouring countries with which thei r Member State communicates well anyway, 
and that, for prestige reasons, high-ranking offi cials took part who would not be involved 
in the practical application of what th ey learned abroad. A recurring recommendation 
therefore was to define the purpose and targ et group of the exchanges very precisely 
before starting a programme. 
4. OBJECTIVES  
The objectives to be achieved need to be  defined in the context of higher-ranking 
objectives that all derive from the Services Di rective. The broadest objective, that of the 
Services Directive itself, is to make it eas ier for businesses and consumers to take full 
advantage of the freedom of establishment a nd of the freedom to provide services across 
borders. Then, the objective of the provisions  on administrative cooperation within the 
Services Directive is to avoid a multiplica tion of controls and to ensure effective 
supervision of service providers. The objectiv e of IMI is to provide an efficient and 
secure technical tool that supports admini strative cooperation. This leaves the objective 
of the measures to be taken on the basis of this assessment, which should be to ensure 
that the users of IMI have the necessary knowledge and skills to be able to use the system effectively. 
The needs assessment has shown that, in order to achieve this last objective, (1) training 
is necessary, (2) appropriate support material is useful and (3) exchanges of officials 
could be useful. In relation to all three of these means, further objectives can be 
identified. 
4.1. Training 
One objective should be to organise training cl ose to the user, where this is possible. 
However, large scale events at European level are seen as helpful as well and could therefore be organised in parallel to local training. For all training activity, the Commission's aim should be to ensure that training is provided as consistently as possible throughout the EU.  
In the provision of training, IMI coordinato rs play a crucial role. Therefore, one 
important objective for the Commission should be  to support coordinators in a way that 
ensures that they can in turn train users more  effectively. In the cont ext of this support, it 
appears to be more important to address staff shortages than any financial concerns. 
In terms of the content of the training, th e needs assessment has shown that users and 
coordinators consider the main training needs to be, apart from technical training to help 
them get started in IMI, understanding the legal and practical implications of the Services 
Directive on the users' daily work. However, one has to bear in mind that the surveys 
amongst users and coordinators were carried out at a time when, in many Member States, 
national legislation to implement the Services  Directive had not yet been adopted and/or 
training on legal issues had not yet been provi ded. Therefore, it is not unlikely that the 
needs in terms of the content of training w ill change over time. It would thus appear 
premature to define objectives concerning the content of training at this stage.  
 134.2. Support material 
One clear objective in the provision of support material should be that it is adapted to the 
needs of users and trainers. As far as can be  seen from the needs assessment, this is 
already the case to a large extent. A more pressing objective is therefore to make the available material better known and more used. This is true in particular for the self-
learning material. 
4.3. Exchanges of officials 
IMI users consider that it could add signifi cant value to meet officials from other 
countries who work with IMI in order to exchange experience. Therefore, another 
objective to be achieved should be to promote and support exchanges of officials. 
4.4. General considerations 
Any measures that are adopted have to be cost-effective and proportionate to the needs 
identified. Their impact on the workload of  Commission staff needs to be taken into 
account as well. 
5. A
VAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS  
5.1. Maintain the status quo 
The policy option that would be easiest to implement for the Commission is, naturally, to 
continue providing assistance to Member States  in exactly the same way as to date. The 
Commission has gathered considerable expe rience in these activities which, as all 
information sources indicate, meet with high levels of satisfaction. Choosing to continue 
working in this way would imply no additional costs or impact on staff. 
On the other hand, coordinators would conti nue to face the difficulties with organising 
training and raising awareness in their count ry that are described in point 3.2.5. They 
would have to find solutions for staff shortage  and, in some countries, financial concerns 
at national level. There would also be no Eu ropean framework for those Member States 
that are going to, or would like to, organise exchanges of officials. 
5.2. Adapt and extend current approach 
A second option could be to develop the Co mmission's current approach to training and 
awareness-raising by adapting it to emerging needs or preferences communicated by Member States. For example, even with the fi nancial and staff resources currently at the 
Commission's disposal, it would be possible to  support Member States that decide to 
organise a conference with participants fr om several countries, by providing advice in 
organisational matters, by helping in the pr oduction of conference material and/or by 
sending speakers.  
If some Member States would like to organise exchanges, the Commission could 
establish contacts between them and help in  pairing up interested candidates. On the 
basis of the information gathered about existing European exchange programmes, the Commission could also give advice on the organisational set-up of exchanges.  
 14In terms of training, the Commission could offer targeted training events according to the 
needs identified by Member States, for exampl e for individual service sectors or specific 
IMI functions.  
As regards support material, the Commissi on could further develop and adapt the 
available material, for example by making it accessible in a user-friendly form through the IMI system itself.  
Based on the wishes voiced by some coordinators, the Commission could also assign a 
higher priority to the issues that were raise d, such as translation of material (within the 
limits of the Commission's restricted resources) and system development. 
However, any such requests would have to remain within the allocated resources.  
5.3. Set up a multi-annual programme 
Running a multi-annual programme would allow for a sharp increase in the scale of 
training and awareness-raising activities. Th ere are various ways of setting up such a 
programme. They could include, to name only a few examples, systematic training in all 
Member States provided by external specialists, professional assistance in organising cross-border conferences and/or a centralised  system to plan and run exchanges of 
officials.  
It is clear that such a programme would ma ke it possible to reach many more IMI users 
much more effectively than at present. It c ould help to ensure that all users receive the 
same standard of training and it could professionalise awareness-raising activities. Additionally, it could contribute to solving th e staff and financial concerns that some 
coordinators are facing and would relieve them  from some tasks for which they have not 
been trained. Moreover, the mere existence of  such a programme would be likely to raise 
awareness also within the officials' hier archies, which could undoubtedly have a positive 
impact on the overall implementation of administrative cooperation.  
Since users and coordinators consider that the main training needs, apart from technical 
training to get started in IMI, lie in understanding the legal and practical implications of the Services Directive, a possible programme could be devised accordingly. General computer and language training, which are ge nerally not perceived as essential for 
administrative cooperation, would not need to  be comprised in a programme. However, 
as explained under point 4.1, the needs in term s of the content of the training may well 
change over time. 
The costs of a multi-annual programme to the EU budget would depend very largely on 
the scope and ambition of such a programme.  Whereas, for example, exchanges between 
officials in border regions could be organise d at relatively low cost, the organisation of 
systematic training by external specialists throughout the EU would require substantial 
financial resources. Similarly, the impact  on the Commission's human resources would 
depend on the chosen programme content and on how much of its organisation could be 
delegated to external partners. 
However, the information received from coordinators raises the question whether now is 
the appropriate moment for setting up a programme. Many coordinators are only just starting to organise training and awareness-raising activities in their Member States. They stated that the Commission had already provided substantial assistance and that it 
was now up to them to make use of it. More over, all of the requests that have been 
 15voiced by coordinators for additional acti on on the part of the Commission are of a 
relatively small-scale and practical nature. None  of the actions that were called for would 
require a fully-fledged programme.  
5.4. Comparison of options 
The findings of the preceding analysis are pres ented in the table below, the criteria being 
defined as follows: 
• Effectiveness = degree to which the objectives are met 
• Costs = necessary input in terms of financial and human resources 
• Time = time needed for implementation 
 
 Effectivenes
s 
 
 High (+++) Medium (+/-) Low (---) Costs 
 
 Low (+ to +++) High (- to ---) Time 
 
 Short (+++) Medium (+/-) Long (---)  Overall assessment 
(Proportionality) 
 
Positive (+ to +++) Negative (- to ---) 
 
Option 1:  
Status quo 
 +/- +/- +/- +/- 
 
Option 2:  
Adapt and 
extend current approach  + - +/- + 
 
Option 3:  
Multi-annual 
programme  +++ --- -- -- 
 
In this table, the status quo (continuing to provide assistance to Member States exactly 
like up to date) is set as a base line, with all criteria being fulfilled to an intermediate degree. 
Adapting and extending the Commission's current approach could be more effective than 
the status quo in meeting the needs identified. It can be implemented quickly and relatively easily. It would naturally not be as effective as a multi-annual programme in 
reaching large numbers of new and existing IMI users in a consistent manner throughout 
the EU and it would not solve some of the coordinators' problems described under point 
3.2.5. However, it would allow for a high level of  flexibility in respect of the needs that 
are starting to develop in the Member States, whilst not precluding the adoption of a more resource intensive solution at a later stage. 
In comparison with this base-line situation, a multi-annual programme would score much 
more highly in effectiveness, i.e. it would fulfil the objective of ensuring that all IMI 
 16users have the necessary knowledge and skills  to use IMI better, albeit only once he 
medium- and long-term needs in respect of the content of the training can be assessed reliably. On the other hand, a multi-annual progr amme would be significantly more cost-
intensive. The real impact in terms of fina ncial and human resources cannot be quantified 
exactly as it depends to a large extent on the measures that would make up such a 
programme. Setting up a multi-annual programme would in any event require a lot of 
preparation time and would be relatively comp lex to implement. On the basis of the 
feedback received from users and coordinators, it appears that a multi-annual programme would not be proportionate to the needs identified at this stage. 
6. C
ONCLUSION  
The overall results of the assessment suggest th at there is currently no need to adopt a 
multi-annual programme for training and exch anges of officials. Such a programme 
would be premature, at a point in time when  cooperation under the Services Directive has 
only just become mandatory and operational.  The Commission and coordinators need to 
gain more experience in order to be able to  identify the medium- and long-term needs for 
training and, potentially, exchanges of officials. 
In the meantime, the Commission will continue its current efforts in supporting Member 
States in raising awareness for administra tive cooperation and in training IMI users, 
which have been very successful so far. Ho wever, it proposes to adapt and extend them 
in a flexible manner as and when it receive s corresponding requests from Member States 
(option 2).  On the part of the Member States, and in particular IMI coordinators, this 
requires that they take seriously their crucia l role in raising awareness and in training 
officials, by making use of the Commissi on's support and by allocating sufficient 
financial and human resources to these tasks. 
The Commission will continue to monitor developments in the Member States closely 
and will re-assess the necessity to adopt a multi-annual programme on the basis of the 
experience that will be gathered during the fi rst year of mandatory use of the IMI module 
for services. 
7. FOLLOW -UP: ARRANGEMENTS FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
Developments in the Member States will be monitored through a number of mechanisms: 
(1) Ongoing feedback from users who have par ticipated in an information exchange 
through IMI, by way of an electronic su rvey about IMI usability and potential 
difficulties encountered; 
(2) Feedback from trainers through trainer feedback form; 
(3) Feedback from IMI coordinators during regular training sessions in Brussels, 
during meetings of the IMI experts' working group and through direct contact 
with the IMI helpdesk. 
The Commission will report on the situation in the IMI Annual Report for 2010 (which is 
planned to be published in February 2011) in the light of the following two factors: 
 17– the growth of IMI for services in terms of the number of registered authorities and 
users (growth rates are currently impossible to predict, see point 2.1); 
– the frequency with which IMI is used  following the implementation of the 
Services Directive in the Member St ates, measured e.g. in the number of 
information exchanges. 
On this basis the Commission and IMI coordinators will be in a position to evaluate the 
real need and demand for training and ex changes of officials. The Commission will 
transmit necessary statistical information to Member States on a regular basis, in order to allow them to provide their input for the annual report. 
 
 18ANNEX I: RESULTS OF SURVEY AMONGST ALL AUTHORITIES REGISTERED IN IMI  FOR 
THE SERVICES MODULE  
 
ABOUT YOU AND YOUR AUTHORITY  Please provide us with some information about your authority.  Country 
  Number of 
responses % 
Czech Republic 71      (18.8%)      
Netherlands 61      (16.1%)      
Spain 52      (13.8%)      
Germany 35      (9.3%)      
Hungary 24      (6.3%)      
Austria 19      (5%)      
Greece 12      (3.2%)      
Poland 11      (2.9%)      
United Kingdom 11      (2.9%)      
Sweden 8      (2.1%)      
France 7      (1.9%)      
Italy 7      (1.9%)      
Bulgaria 6      (1.6%)      
Cyprus 6      (1.6%)      
Romania 6      (1.6%)      
Estonia 5      (1.3%)      
Lithuania 5      (1.3%)      
Malta 5      (1.3%)      
Ireland 4      (1.1%)      
Slovakia 4      (1.1%)      
Slovenia 4      (1.1%)      
Belgium 3      (0.8%)      
Denmark 3      (0.8%)      
Latvia 3      (0.8%)      
Portugal 3      (0.8%)      
Finland 1      (0.3%)      
Iceland 1      (0.3%)      
Luxembourg 1      (0.3%)      
Liechtenstein 0        (0%) 
Norway 0        (0%) 
 
 Level (geographical coverage)     
  Number of 
responses % 
National 176      (46.6%)      
Local 104      (27.5%)      
Regional 98      (25.9%)      
  
What is your authority's role in IMI? 
  Number of 
responses % 
Competent Authority 238      (63%)      
Delegated IMI coordinator (DIMIC) 54      (14.3%)      
 19Don't know 40      (10.6%)      
National IMI coordinator (NIMIC) 26      (6.9%)      
Super-delegated IMI coordinator (SDIMIC) 20      (5.3%)      
 
ABOUT USING IMI 
 Have you logged in to IMI so far?   
  Number of 
responses % 
Yes 323      (85.4%)      
No 55      (14.6%)      
 
[If yes] In which way have you used IMI? (multiple replies allowed)  
  Number of 
responses % 
I have carried out administrative work in IMI (such as: 
update your authority's data, register new user, reset passwords). 173      (53.6%)      
I have logged in and looked at the system, but never 
actively used it. 125      (38.7%)      
I have used IMI to exchange information with an 
authority in another Member State. 119      (36.8%)      
(only for coordinators) I have worked on the set-up 
and/or management of authorities I coordinate in IMI (such as: register new authorities, follow your authorities' information exchanges, intervene in case of problems). 63      (19.5%)      
 
Please describe the impressions you had when you used IMI.  
 IMI is easy to use.  
  Number of 
responses % 
Agree somewhat 181      (56%)      
Agree completely 100      (31%)      
Disagree somewhat 35      (10.8%)      
Disagree completely 7      (2.2%)      
 
I was able to carry out all the tasks that I ha d to complete in IMI without any problems.  
  Number of 
responses % 
Agree somewhat 158      (48.9%)      
Agree completely 96      (29.7%)      
Disagree somewhat 62      (19.2%)      
Disagree completely 7      (2.2%)      
 
The legal obligations under the Directive(s)  are easy to put in practice using IMI. 
  Number of 
responses % 
Agree somewhat 193      (59.8%)      
Disagree somewhat 66      (20.4%)      
Agree completely 56      (17.3%)      
Disagree completely 8      (2.5%)      
  
If I have a question or a problem with the Di rective(s) and/or using IMI, I know whom to 
 20contact for advice. 
  Number of 
responses % 
Agree completely 188      (58.2%)      
Agree somewhat 100      (31%)      
Disagree somewhat 29      (9%)      
Disagree completely 6      (1.9%)      
 
ABOUT TRAINING ON IMI 
 The Commission and Member States have already organised a number of training and awareness raising events. Have you taken part in any of these events?  
  Number of 
responses % 
Yes 267      (70.6%)      
No 111      (29.4%)      
 
[If yes] Please specify in which of these events you have taken part.  
 General awareness raising event (multiple replies allowed)    
  Number of 
responses % 
National level 119      (44.6%)      
EU level 72      (27%)      
None 54      (20.2%)      
Regional level 43      (16.1%)      
Local level 21      (7.9%)      
  
Training event (multiple replies allowed) 
  Number of 
responses % 
National level 163      (61%)      
EU level 50      (18.7%)      
None 33      (12.4%)      
Regional level 28      (10.5%)      
Local level 23      (8.6%)      
 
Exchange of officials (m ultiple replies allowed) 
  Number of 
responses % 
None 236      (88.4%)      
National level 16      (6%)      
Regional level 12      (4.5%)      
EU level 5      (1.9%)      
Local level 3      (1.1%)      
 
The Commission and Member States have developed a range of support material for IMI 
users (see the IMI website at ec.europa.eu/internal_market/imi-net). Please rate the usefulness of those items that you have used.  IMI User Handbook  
  Number of 
responses % 
Quite useful 147      (38.9%)      
Very useful 124      (32.8%)      
 21Never used 85      (22.5%)      
Not so useful 17      (4.5%)      
Not useful at all 5      (1.3%)      
 
User Guide to IMI and the Services Directive 
  Number of 
responses % 
Quite useful 153      (40.5%)      
Never used 114      (30.2%)      
Very useful 91      (24.1%)      
Not so useful 15      (4%)      
Not useful at all 5      (1.3%)      
 
European Commission website 
  Number of 
responses % 
Quite useful 146      (38.6%)      
Never used 133      (35.2%)      
Very useful 70      (18.5%)      
Not so useful 28      (7.4%)      
Not useful at all 1      (0.3%)      
 
eLearning modules ("Captivate") 
  Number of 
responses % 
Never used 224      (59.3%)      
Quite useful 79      (20.9%)      
Very useful 54      (14.3%)      
Not so useful 21      (5.6%)      
Not useful at all 0        (0%) 
 
Powerpoint presentations 
  Number of 
responses % 
Never used 175      (46.3%)      
Quite useful 129      (34.1%)      
Very useful 50      (13.2%)      
Not so useful 24      (6.3%)      
Not useful at all 0        (0%) 
 
National material 
  Number of 
responses % 
Never used 170      (45%)      
Quite useful 130      (34.4%)      
Very useful 63      (16.7%)      
Not so useful 10      (2.6%)      
Not useful at all 5      (1.3%)      
 
In your opinion, which of the following types of training, if any, are essential for successful 
administrative cooperation? (multiple replies allowed)  
  Number of 
responses % 
 22Understanding the practical implications of the 
Directive(s) 282      (74.6%)      
Understanding the legal obligations under the 
Directive(s) 264      (69.8%)      
How to use IMI from a technical point of view 254      (67.2%)      
How to respect data protection rules when using IMI 171      (45.2%)      
Language training 69      (18.3%)      
General computer training 35      (9.3%)      
No training is necessary 21      (5.6%)      
Other 12      (3.2%)      
 
What do you think are the most appropriate forms of learning about administrative 
cooperation and IMI? (multiple replies allowed)  
  Number of 
responses % 
Short informal session with an experienced colleague 
in your own authority 193      (51.1%)      
Self-learning with IMI User Handbook, eLearning 
modules ("Captivates") and other support material 190      (50.3%)      
Training session at regional level 176      (46.6%)      
Training session at national level 173      (45.8%)      
Centralised training at EU level 75      (19.8%)      
Other 9      (2.4%)      
 
ABOUT MEETINGS AND EXCHANGES 
 
Do you think if would add significant value to meet officials from other countries who work 
with IMI in order to exchange experience?  
  Number of 
responses % 
Yes 240      (63.5%)      
No 138      (36.5%)      
 
[If yes] In which form should such meetings be organised in your opinion? (multiple replies 
allowed) 
  Number of 
responses % 
Regional training events with participants from 
different countries 125      (52.1%)      
Smaller scale conferences for geographical regions 111      (46.2%)      
Short term visits in authorities in differ ent countries 107      (44.6%)      
Centralised training events  73      (30.4%)      
Centralised large scale conferences  46      (19.2%)      
Longer term exchanges of officials 37      (15.4%)      
 23 
  A
NNEX II: SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF TRAINING WORKSHOP HELD ON 17 JUNE 2009 
1. Training needs in relation to IMI and the Services Directive 
• Participants felt that there is a need for training both on technical and content 
level. 
• Feedback from competent authorities show s that IMI is seen as user-friendly. 
Technical training seems to be needed mainly at the beginning to overcome reluctance to use a new system. 
• Participants from a number of Member St ates felt that training on content would 
be important, as competent authorities of ten need more information about the 
impact of the Services Directive on thei r work and about their obligations that 
derive from it. 
 
2. Organisation of training in Member States 
• Training organised in the Member States has been well received and successful. 
• Commission training material is widely used and much appreciated. 
• Mix of theory and practice in training sessions was seen as most effective. 
• Small events were often more successf ul than big ones, resulting in more 
interaction and less stress for the trainer. 
 
3. Resources 
• In most Member States, financial  resources for training are not perceived as a 
major problem. 
• On the other hand, many participants feel they have insufficient human  resources 
to manage training. 
 
4. Typical problems 
• It is difficult to reach the right audience (Should one invite people working on the 
technical or on the content side? Which level of hierarchy should participate?). 
• Motivating authorities to participate in training, especially if geographically 
remote, is a challenge. 
• Finding the right balance in length and cont ent of training can be difficult as well 
(danger of overloading trainees). 
• Staff shortage. 
• Some participants reported a lack of interest and support from hierarchy. 
 
 245. Good practice  
[not reproduced]   
6. Ideas for Member State activity 
• Exchanges of officials and regional even ts are generally perceived as good ideas, 
but as dependent on sufficient resources  and on overcoming language barriers and 
logistic problems; some participants sa id it is premature to think about such 
activities. 
• Data protection: Participants suggested  building up regular contacts with an 
expert or data protection supervisor, to prepare simplified guidelines and to 
circulate them to competent authorities. 
• Organising training right away after coor dinators come back from Brussels 
ensures that the acquired skills are not lost. 
• An idea could be to organise meetings  focussing on a particular sector (eg 
tourism) and to work on fictional cases. 
• One could also organise online training on a platform on which participants can 
exchange theoretical information and prac tise in the system; this seems to exist 
already in other areas. 
  
7. Requests for Commission activity 
• The general feeling seems to be that  the Commission is already doing a lot 
(training help, publications and helpdesk) and that it is up to the Member States 
now to become active. However, a number of requests were mentioned: 
• The Commission should translate more material into all languages. 
• Some participants raised concerns about the training database: the data in it is not 
meaningful, the email function is switched off and it often performs poorly. 
• The Commission should set up a fictiona l authority and send out fictional 
requests for training purposes. 
• Another large awareness raising conference in Brussels would be very useful; it 
would be good to have a lot of competent authorities represented there. 
• Many Member States are working on se tting up an IMI helpdesk; it would be 
useful if the Commission could hold a training session on how to organise a 
helpdesk. 
• The Commission could publish a diagram of the IMI structure in each country on 
the IMI website. 
• Training on alerts and case-by-case derogations would be good. 
• The Commission could give more info rmation about experiences with 
professional qualifications and success storie s, so that trainers can use them as 
examples. 
 
 
 25ANNEX III:  RESULTS OF SURVEY AMONGST IMI  COORDINATORS  
General  information  
(1) Please provide us with some information about your authority: 
Country:  51 replies received from 26 countries. 
Level:   36 national, 15 regional 
(2) What is your authority's role in IMI?  22 national IMI coordinators 
           15 delegated IMI coordinators 
           13 super-delegated IMI coordinators 
Exchange of officials and training – where do we stand? 
(3) In your opinion, which are the most a ppropriate forms in which IMI users 
should learn about administrative cooperation and IMI?  (Please tick up to 3 
options)  
31 Self-learning on the basis of handbooks and support material  
20 Self-learning on the basis of eLearning modules ("Captivates")  
9 Training sessions organised locally  
23 Training sessions organised at regional level  
31 Training sessions organised at national level  
17 Awareness raising events and training sessions organised centrally 
by the Commission  
7 Exchanges of officials from different countries  
(4) Are there any programmes already in place in your country that have been 
established irrespective of the requirements of the Services Directive , but 
that could facilitate the training of officials and/or exchanges between officials for the purposes of the Directive?  Yes: 6, No: 32, n.a.: 13 
If yes, please specify: [not reproduced]  
(5) Are there any accompanying measures that  have been taken in your country 
specifically for the purposes of the Services Directive  so far or are such 
measures planned? 
13    No.  
0  Yes, to facilitate the exchange of officials.  
34  Yes, we have organised/plan  to organise training and/or 
awareness raising events.  
 26[sub-questions about detailed plans not reproduced]  
(6) If you organised training sessions, pl ease indicate which subjects were 
covered: [not reproduced]  
(7) Do officials in charge of the implem entation of mutual assistance in your 
country have access to general computer and/or language training?  
Yes, to both: 15 
Yes, to computer training: 6 Yes, to language training: 2 No: 13 Don't know: 1 n.a.: 4 
 If yes, please describe the organisation and accessibility of such courses 
(e.g. duration, intensity, number of available places, costs): [not 
reproduced]  
Training – resources 
(8) For training that relates specifically to IMI and the Services Directive, please 
indicate the number of persons who are currently involved in providing such 
training and the amount of their working time they spend on this training: 
Between 0 and 20  persons with roughly 0-100  % of their working time. 
(9) Do you think that these figures should be increased?  
 Yes, a lot: 9 
 Yes, a little: 10  No: 19  n.a.: 13 
(10) If training on IMI and the Services  Directive has been provided in your 
country, how have these activities been financed so far? 
  3  Specific funds were made available for the implementation of the 
Services Directive.  
 5 Through existing national programmes for training of officials.  
16 No funding was available. The tr ainers used their own resources 
and participants covered their own costs.  
4 Other.  
n.a.: 23  
(11) Do you feel that you need additi onal funding for training on IMI and the 
Services Directive?  
 Yes: 20 
 27 No: 17 
 n.a.: 14  
 
Training – practical experiences 
(12) If you organised training sessions, please describe any difficulties you may 
have had: (please tick all relevant boxes)  
7 I did not have any difficulties.  
2 I was not sure which subjects to cover.  
10  I hesitated about whom to invite to the training.  
2  I felt that I did not have sufficient knowledge about IMI/the 
Services Directive to hold the training.  
7 I have no experience or skills in training.  
9  I did not have enough time to hol d the training myself and could 
not find another trainer.  
6  I did not have sufficient funding to organise the kind or number of 
training sessions I wanted to organise.  
7  Other; please specify:  
Reaching reluctant competent authorities 5 
Handling different levels of understanding 2 
(13) If you organised training, please i ndicate how often you used the following 
support material for training purposes (t he material made available by the 
Commission can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/imi-net ): 
 
IMI User Handbook Very   Often   Sometimes   Rarely   Never 
often 
13          8           5              0           1        
 
Guide to IMI and the 
Services Directive  
 5           9            5             1           7      
 
IMI training database  
13          3            2             4           4       
 
European Commission website  
10          8            7             3           1        
  
 28eLearning modules 
("Captivate")  6         4           4              4            8        
 
Powerpoint presentations  
11        5           4              4            2       
 
National material  
10        6           4              2            3       
 
(14) Please rate the usefulness of this material: 
 
IMI User Handbook Very     Quite      Not so    Not useful  
Never useful   useful     useful      at all           used 
24         13          1            0              0        
 
Guide to IMI and the 
Services Directive  
17         13          2             0             8         
 
IMI training database  
14         12          7             2             4         
 
European Commission website  
18         19          4             0             0        
 
eLearning modules ("Captivate")  
10          13         8              0            7       
 
Powerpoint presentations  
14          20         4              0            3         
 
National material  
15          12         4               0           5       
(15) Is there anything about the mate rial produced by the Commission which, in 
your opinion, should be changed ? 
 No: 25 
Yes: 19 
-  more and quicker translations: 8 -  produce shorter/practical support material: 4 -  improve performance of training database: 1 
 29-  improve search function: 1 
-  organise material better: 1 -  provide example cases: 1 
 (16) Please describe any material wh ich, in your opinion, would be useful to add 
to the range of support material provided by the Commission: 
 n.a.: 39 
  Yes: 11 
 - Frequently asked questions 
-  short targeted material (eg "Captivates" on specific 
function, targeted test questions) 
 -  success stories 
-  information about administrat ive structures in Member 
States 
 
Future needs 
 (17) What do you see as the main cha llenges for competent authorities in using 
IMI for the purposes of implemen ting the Services Directive? ( please rank 
the options below on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being  the biggest challenge and 
1 the smallest) 
 (number of respondents who ranked items in top 3)  
24 Understanding the legal changes introduced by the Services 
Directive 
24 Understanding the practical implications of the Services Directive 
for their work 
17  How to identify the correct authority in another country 
27 How to deal with differences in rules and administrative structures 
in other countries (for example wh en an authority asks for a type 
of authorisation through IMI that does not exist in the other country) 
10  How to interpret the information provided through IMI 
11  Overcoming initial reluctance to use a new computer system 
4  How to use IMI from a technical point of view 
6  Language problems 
5  Data protection issues 
2  Other 
 30(18) For the three aspects that you identif ied as the most challenging in question 
17, please describe how you intend to support and train competent authorities: [not reproduced] 
(19)  Do you think the Commission should play a role in these areas? 
 No: 12 
 Yes: 29 
If yes, please explain what this role should be in your opinion: 
-  Advice: 7 
-  Improve system functionality: 7 -  Help in interpreting the Directive (eg example cases): 6 -  Produce support material: 4 -  Translations: 4 -  Training: 2 -  Large conference in Brussels: 2 -  Awareness raising with general public: 2 -  Formal letter to hierarchy: 2 -  Produce data protection report: 1 -  Organise exchanges and cross-border conferences: 1 
(20) In your view, is there a need for more computer and language courses for 
officials in charge of implementing mutual assistance in your country? 
 Yes: 20 
 No: 27 
 If yes, please describe how su ch courses should be organised: [not 
reproduced]  
(21) Are you planning any exchanges of officials? 
 Yes, concrete plans: 2 
 Yes, possibly: 3  No: 31  n.a.: 15 
If yes, please specify: [not reproduced]  
(22) Any additional comments and suggestions: 
 [not reproduced]