Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Final evaluation of the implementation of the multiannual Community programme (1998-2002) to stimulate the establishment of the Information Society in Europe (PROMISE)
Date: 2005-06-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, financing, globalisation, information society, management, public awareness campaign, socioeconomic conditions

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 24.6.2005 
COM(2005) 260 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Final evaluation of the implementation of the multiannual Community programme 
(1998-2002) to stimulate the establishment of the Information Society in Europe 
(PROMISE) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Final evaluation of the implementation of the multiannual Community programme 
(1998-2002) to stimulate the establishment of the Information Society in Europe 
(PROMISE) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  Communication  is  drawn  up  in  accordance  with  article  8,  4  of  the  PROMISE  Council 
Decision. This stated that at the end of the programme, “the Commission shall submit to the 
European Parliament, Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the 
Regions an evaluation report on the best results obtained in implementing the actions referred 
to in implementing the actions of the programme”1.  

An  external  evaluation  report  was  commissioned  from  EIM  Business  Policy  and  Research 
under the guidance of a steering committee appointed by the Commission. The final report of 
the evaluation was published in February 2004 and presented to the management committee 
of the successor to PROMISE in July 2004.2 

The general aim of this final evaluation was: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

To  examine  the  performance  of  the  PROMISE  Programme  with  reference  to  the 
programme objectives. 

To assess the impact of the programme for the European Information Society. 

To provide recommendations for the successor of the PROMISE programme. 

2. 

BACKGROUND 

The “Multi-annual Community programme to stimulate the establishment of the Information 
Society in Europe” (PROMISE) was adopted by Council on 30 March 1998. The programme 
covered  a  5  year  period  from  January  1998  to  December  2002  with  a  total  budget  of  €25 
million. It was set up to promote a coherent approach to the information society which would 
promote  benefits  such  as:  a)  more  efficient,  more  transparent  and  more  responsive  public 
services, b) more efficient management and more competitive companies with better access to 
services,  customers  and  suppliers,  c)  more  opportunities  for  Europe’s  telecommunications 
operators  d)  new  opportunities  for  regions  to  express  their  identities  while  minimising 
geographical drawbacks.  

1 

2 

98/253/EC:  Council  Decision  of  30  March  1998  adopting  a  multiannual  Community  programme  to 
stimulate  the  establishment  of  the  Information  Society  in  Europe  (Information  Society),  OJ  L  107, 
7.4.1998, p. 10. 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/information_society/evaluation/docs/highlights/promise/-
promise_final_report.pdf 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In June 2000, the European Council adopted a new approach to the Information Society in the 
form of the eEurope 2002 Action Plan. The PROMISE programme was reoriented to support 
the  new  strategy,  and  also  in  response  to  the  findings  of  the  mid  term  evaluation  of  the 
Programme,  which  had  been  presented  to  the  Commission  in  January  2000.3  In  particular, 
PROMISE was adapted to the needs of the open method of coordination (OMC) proposed in 
the Action Plan, which called for a greater emphasis on benchmarking.  

3. 

OBJECTIVES AND IMPLEMENTATION 

The objectives of the programme were implemented in the following phases: 

3.1. 

Phase One (1998/1999) 

In phase one the programme followed closely the objectives as formulated in the legal basis: 

•  Awareness  raising  of  the  public  and  understanding  of  the  potential  of  the 
Information  Society.  This  included  activities  such  as  the  European  Information 
Society Day, support to the Information Society Forum and promotion of the IS 
through the media. The Information Society Project Office (ISPO) provided a web 
service  and  helpdesk,  as  well  as  brochures,  newsletters,  leaflets.  In  addition, 
subventions were provided for continuation of awards, seminars and conferences. 

•  Optimising Socio-economic benefits of the Information Society in Europe; this 
focused  on  studies  to  analyse  ongoing  activities  in  the  Member-States,  and  on 
dissemination of good-practices via work-shops. Surveys were carried out for the 
European  Survey  of  Information  Society  projects  (ESIS),  opinion  surveys  were 
undertaken by Eurobarometer and studies were launched to support the IS Forum. 

•  Enhancing Europe’s role and visibility within the global dimension of the IS. 
Activities  focused  on  focused  on  the  support  of  dialogue  aiming  to  facilitate 
exchange  of  views,  and  experiences  mainly  with  the  Acceding  countries  and 
countries of the Mediterranean Sea (i.e. the EUMEDIS initiative in the context of 
the MEDA programme). 

3.2. 

Transition (2000) 

In 2000, the eEurope 2002 Action plan was introduced with three main objectives: 

•  Cheaper faster and secure Internet 

•  Investing in people and skills 

•  Stimulate the use of Internet. 

PROMISE  was  identified  as  a  means  to  support  the  eEurope  Action  Plan,  and  in  2000  its 
activities were refocused and some were curtailed. Awareness raising was primarily targeted 
on  to  promotion  of  the  IS  via  the  website.  Optimising  socio-economic  benefits  was  re-
orientated towards studies and support to the IS Forum. That is, the ESIS activity continued 

3 

COM(2001) 350 final 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
but  was  focused  onto  what  became  the  eEurope+  2003  Action  Plan  and  EUMEDIS.4  The 
the 
Eurobarometer  surveys  focused  on  collecting  comparable  statistics 
implementation  of  the  eEurope  Action  Plan.  The  Global  Dimension  continued  with  a 
separate budget but only to complete a legacy of work. 

to  support 

3.3. 

Phase Two (2001-2002) 

In phase two a new set of objectives were mapped onto the old objectives. The new mapping 
was directly in line with the needs of the eEurope Action Plan: 

•  Benchmarking involved surveys of a set of 23 indicators endorsed by the Council 
for  the  monitoring  of  the  eEurope  2002  Action  Plan  and  qualitative  studies  to 
monitor  new  developments  in  the  IS.  The  benchmarking  results  were  published 
regularly  on  the  web  and  provided  timely  comparative  data  on  progress  in  key 
areas  such  as  Internet  penetration  for  the  general  population,  workforce  and 
education, security of networks, health, government services.  

•  The  identification  and  dissemination  of  good  practices  was  focused  on  a 
limited number of high visibility actions. The programme co-financed conferences 
organised  by  different  EU  Presidencies  to  promote  public  dialogue  on  good 
practices in the Information Society. 

•  eEurope portal - the ISPO activity had already been refocused onto a web-based 

service, this was now consolidated into the eEurope web portal. 

•  Information Society Forum continued but as a virtual forum with a new mandate 

to support the optimisation of eEurope. 

3.4. 

Evaluation of results in meeting the programme objectives5 

The  mid-term  evaluation  of  PROMISE,  covering  the  first  phase  to  2000,  found  “clear 
examples of the effectiveness of the Programme”, but concluded that its initial scope was too 
wide and that a clear link to the Commission’s IS strategy should be sought.6 A rationalised 
management approach and clear quantitative targets were recommended. 

The refocusing of PROMISE in line with the eEurope Action Plan, which took place over the 
course  of  2000,  responded  to  the  evaluation.  In  particular,  the  emphasis  on  support  to  the 
benchmarking  activities 
the 
recommendation for more quantitative targets. 

information  on  concrete  progress  reflected 

to  provide 

This  refocusing  was  evaluated  positively.  The  benchmarking  activity  provided  for  the  first 
time quantitative indicators of the progress of Europe towards the IS that were comprehensive 
and  up-to-date.  Of  the  23  indicators  agreed  with  Member  States,  19  were  measured  at  least 

4 

5 

6 

Euro-Mediterranean Information Society Initiative 
http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/eumedis/englishversion/i_welcome_en.html 
A  full  list  of  the  recommendations  of  the  final  evaluation  is  provided  in  Table  1together  with  the 
Commission’s responses. 
COM(2001)  350  final  ‘Intermediate  evaluation  of  the  implementation  of  the  multiannual  Community 
programme to stimulate the establishment of the Information Society in Europe (PROMISE)’ 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
once and 13 were measured twice or more. The benchmarking exercise was evaluated to have 
delivered real value for eEurope. 

The identification and  dissemination  of best practices was designed as a  form of qualitative 
benchmarking.  Policy  makers  would  compare  and  exchange  experiences  and  thus  build  up 
better  knowledge  on  how  to  design  better  policies.  This  objective  was  pursued  through 
strategic  studies,  workshops  of  stakeholders  at  national  level  and  the  co-funding  of 
conferences on e-government and e-health under the Belgian, Italian and Greek presidencies.  

The information services objective was met by focusing the broader ISPO concept on mainly 
web-based information and renaming it the eEurope portal. The eEurope portal was one of the 
most  highly  visited  sites  on  the  IS  web  pages  over  the  period  2000  to  2002.  Finally,  the  IS 
Forum continued to work on a much reduced basis and in practice did not contribute to the 
eEurope  Action  Plan.  This  decision  reflected  the  difficulty  of  managing  a  body  of  128 
members with six working groups was heavy to manage and difficult to keep fresh.  

As regards budget expenditure, despite difficulties on spending during the first two years of 
implementation  (1998  and  1999),  considerable  progress  was  made  after  2000.  Nevertheless 
the consultants responsible for the final evaluation considered that “multi-annual planning of 
activities” could improve the quality of the management of the programme. 

On management, in PROMISE the role of the programme committee was limited. Different 
activities  linked  to  programme  implementation  (definition  of  benchmarking  indicators, 
definition of priorities in areas of activities) were discussed with the with government experts 
such  as  statisticians  and  council  working  groups,  and  the  programme  committee  informed 
about the results. The evaluation sought a clear role for the Management Committee. 

Overall, the external evaluation of PROMISE found that most of the formal objectives were 
met,  adding  value  at  EU  level  to  other  initiatives,  measuring  needs  and  monitoring  of 
awareness, promoting the exchange of good practices and removing obstacles to involvement 
on  the  side  of  disadvantaged  groups,  peripheral  areas,  SMEs  and  third  countries.  As  noted 
above,  the  objectives  for  the  programme  were  ambitious  and  in  certain  areas  -  such  as 
enhancing the visibility of real projects, preparation of demonstrators, stimulating the interest 
of industry and inventorising international initiatives – less was achieved.  

4. 

IMPACT OF PROMISE ON THE EUROPEAN IS. 

The  benchmarking  of  eEurope,  by  providing  a  set  of  indicators  not  available  before,  is 
considered  to  have  had  real  added  value.  In  addition,  it  has  provided  orientations  for  the 
measurements  of  the  IS  used  by  national  level  statistical  institutes  and  in  the  OECD.  As 
regards influencing policy, the benchmarks are considered to have raised the visibility of the 
IS  and  caused  policy  makers  to  reflect  on  their  relative  performance.  In  addition, 
benchmarking has drawn policy attention to areas such as e-government and e-health. Critics 
of the benchmarking results, however, have pointed out that some of the data were not robust 
and that the indicators alone cannot explain why take-up of the IS is not more rapid or more 
effective.  

The  promotion  of  best practices  was considered to be effective where it contributed to high 
profile events such as Presidency conferences. These events mobilised policy agendas through 
high  level  participation  and  direct  recognition  of  successful  initiatives  through  award 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
schemes.  Workshops  helped  to  form  communities  of  practice  around  certain  issues  and 
stimulated further debate amongst stakeholders. The evaluation pointed towards a need for a 
more  systematic  relationship  with  existing  networks  and  to  an  engagement  with  grassroots 
actors at regional level.  

With the replacement of ISPO by the eEurope portal, the resources allocated to this activity of 
PROMISE were reduced. The eEurope portal was heavily used. The evaluation pointed out, 
however,  that  the  primary  usage  was  by  officials  (at  EU,  national  and  regional  levels), 
journalists and researchers. It recommended that an easier to use portal is needed to make the 
information accessible to smaller firms and the wider public. 

The  IS  Forum  was  seen  as  having  made  useful  contributions  during  its  early  phase.  By  the 
second  half  of  PROMISE,  however,  its  relevance  was  less  clear  and  the  level  of  creativity 
lower.  This  decline  was  in  part  due  to  an  unclear  and  open  ended  relationship  with  the 
Commission. Working Groups were set up without specific mandates and timescale and the 
expected  contribution  of  the  IS  Forum  to  the  policy  making  process  was  not  defined.  The 
evaluation pointed to the need to bring the IS Forum formally to an end and to make sure that 
future bodies such as the eEurope Advisory Group have a clear role in the policy process. 

5. 

LESSONS FROM PROMISE ADOPTED IN MODINIS 

The  successor  to  PROMISE  was  adopted  on  17  November  2003.  This  programme 
“Monitoring  of  the  eEurope  2005  action  plan,  dissemination  of  good  practices  and  the 
improvement of network and information security (MODINIS)” will run from 2003 to 2005.  

The  MODINIS  programme  follows  closely  the  same  philosophy  as  the  second  half  of 
PROMISE.  It  supports  the  eEurope  2005  Action  Plan  which  was  launched  by  the  Seville 
European  Council  in  June  2002.  MODINIS  focuses  on  four  objectives,  which  can  be 
summarised as;  

(1)  Monitoring performance of and within the Members-States and comparing it with the 

best in the world by using official statistic data; 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

Supporting efforts made by Member States in the framework of eEurope at national, 
regional  or  local  level,  by  analysis  of  eEurope  good  practices  and  developing 
mechanisms of exchange of experiences; 

Providing the eEurope steering group with the necessary information for it to be able 
to assess the appropriate strategic direction of the eEurope 2005 action plan 

Preparing for the establishment of  the future structure at European level for network 
and information security issues. 

The  first  objective  continues  the  benchmarking  activities  that  were  launched  under  the 
eEurope 2002 Action Plan. A new Council Resolution was adopted to cover this aspect of the 
eEurope  2005  Action  Plan.7  This  resolution  defined  a  set  of  15  policy  indicators  and  22 
supplementary  benchmarking  indicators  and  the  data  collection  methodology  to  be  used.  In 
response  to  concerns  expressed  by  Member  States  as  well  as  in  the  evaluation  about  the 

7 

OJ C 48, 28.2.2003 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
quality of the benchmarking data, a large share of the statistics are being collected by national 
statistical institutes under auspices of Eurostat. MODINIS will also be used to fill gaps were 
official data is not available through launching ad hoc surveys.  

In addition, MODINIS funds will be used to address the issue of the value of the indicators in 
guiding policy. A balance is being sought between the simple supply-side indicators that have 
provided  the  concrete  measures  of  progress  of  Europe  towards  the  IS  and  more  qualitative 
information  that  provides  insight  into  patterns  of  use  and  the  impact  of  information  and 
communication technologies. 

The second objective continues the good practice exchanges launched under PROMISE. The 
main  lesson  drawn  from  the  evaluation  of  PROMISE  was  to  make  an  explicit  strategic 
connection  between  the  eEurope  goals  and  the  actions  supported  by  MODINIS.  Thus, 
contributions  to  high  visibility  conferences  are  intended  to  continue  where  they  have  a 
strategic  value.  MODINIS  is  also  being  used  to  procure  studies  which  are  related  to  stated 
policy  goals  (primarily  e-government,  e-health and  security).  Meetings  of  high  level  groups 
and workshops are likewise being supported in relation to specific policy targets. In addition, 
specific actions are being launched to implement ‘good practice frameworks’ in the fields of 
e-business, e-government and e-health. 

The  third  objective  of  MODINIS  envisages  the  creation  of  a  Steering  Group  (now 
established as the eEurope Advisory Group). The Decision of the Council and the European 
Parliament on the MODINIS programme has allowed the Commission to establish an eEurope 
Advisory Group, chaired by the Commission and open to participation from all stakeholders 
(Members States, accession countries, consumer groups, and private sector, etc.). According 
to the Decision, the role of this Group is to assist the Commission by: 

•  Providing  a  strategic  overview  of  ongoing  e-initiatives  across  sectors  and  exchange 

information on progress made and on obstacles encountered; 

•  Offering a forum for strategic discussions and for the exchange of experiences; 

•  Monitoring  progress  of  the  implementation  of  the  eEurope  2005  Action  Plan  and  give 

input and advice on possible improvements; 

•  Permitting early participation of candidate countries; 

•  Disseminating information about eEurope. 

The  Advisory  Group  has  two  sections.  The  first  section  is  made  up  of  one  senior 
representative  per  participating  country,  and  the  second  section  is  made  up  of  40  experts 
drawn  from  a  range  of  backgrounds  (industry,  consumer  groups,  social  partners  and  other 
interest  groups).  The  Group  operates  through  working  groups  that  have  a  specific  mandate 
and  a  limited  duration.  The  plenary  meetings  are  chaired  by  the  Director  General  of  DG 
Information  Society.  Through  these  mechanisms,  the  lessons  of  the  IS  Forum  have  been 
integrated into the working methods of eEurope. 

A further aspect of the third objective is to improve the eEurope web portal to make it more 
accessible for wider public consultation of data and communications related to eEurope. This 
is  being  addressed  through  a  complete  reconstruction  of  the  web  site,  using  an  external 
consultant, which will start during 2004 and will be completed in the first half of 2005. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Finally,  the  fourth  objective  provides  during  2003  and  2004  for  preparatory  support  to  the 
European  Network  and  Information  Security  Agency  (ENISA),  which  formally  came  into 
being  on  the  15  March  2004.8  These  actions  aim  at  improving  network  and  information 
security  as  defined  in  the  Commission  communication  “Network  and  Information  Security; 
Proposal for a European Policy Approach”9. 

The  PROMISE  evaluation  raised  management  concerns  related  to  the  efficiency  of  budget 
use,  and  relations  with  the  management  committee.  With  MODINIS,  budget  expenditure 
remains  a  challenge.  The  MODINIS  programme  was  adopted  at  the  end  of  2003  and  only 
became operational in April 2004. In effect, the programme was half way through before the 
first  actions  could  be  launched.  Continuous  effort  is  being  applied  on  the  part  of  the 
Commission to recover the situation, but given the short programming period this delay will 
continue  to  affect  the  achievement  of  the  primary  goal,  to  support  the  implementation  of 
eEurope 2005 Action Plan. Concerning the management committee, the relationship between 
the eEurope Action Plan and MODINIS is now much clearer. The eEurope Advisory Group 
provides a forum for debate on overall strategic vision while the MMC provides guidance to 
the  Commission  on  the  implementation  of  specific  support  and  coordination  actions, 
including the activities of the eEurope Advisory Group. This link gives a very clear role to the 
MMC which was lacking in the past.  

regards  communication,  previous  evaluations 

As 
recommended  more  streamlined 
communication with the MMC. To this end MODINIS will use electronic communications to 
interact  with  the  members  of  the  Management  Committee  and  as  far  as  possible  with 
members of the eEurope Advisory Group. A Circa database has been created in order to foster 
dialogue between the members of the Management Group and the Commission. 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Overall,  the  evaluation  supports  the  Commission’s  re-orientation  of  the  programme  in  line 
with the eEurope 2002 Action Plan. 

It notes that the programme had clear strengths and in addition that the refocus gave it unique 
value-added.  Despite  some  criticisms  related  to  the  methodology  followed,  which  are  now 
being  addressed  through  a  much  greater  use  of  National  Statistical  Institutes,  the 
benchmarking exercise was considered particularly useful. 

The evaluation also acknowledges that the co-financing of conferences on e-government and 
e-health  was  a  success  with  significant  impact  in  terms  of  follow-up  actions  by  national 
policy-makers. However, it recommends that greater efforts be made to support exchange of 
good  practices  and  dissemination  in  a  more  integrated  way.  This  recommendation  is  now 
being  implemented  through  increased  emphasis  on  the  strategic  aims  of  the  studies  that  are 
financed,  and  specific  attention  to  the  development  of  good  practice  frameworks  in  e-
government, e-business and e-health. 

The evaluation recognises that the Information Society Forum was a “successful initiative in 
the first years” of the implementation of the programme. It made important contributions in 
the area of social aspects and the demand-side of ICT for consumers and citizens. The work of 

8 
9 

http://www.enisa.eu.int 
COM(2001) 298 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the  eEurope  Advisory  Group  under  MODINIS  can  be  seen  as  a  continuation  and  an 
improvement of the role played by the IS Forum.  

Finally,  the  recommendations  on  the  management  of  the  MODINIS  in  the  light  of  the 
PROMISE  experience  have  been  followed  through  with  a  clear  role  for  the  management 
committee in the implementation of the eEurope strategy. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
Table 1: List of Recommendations from the Evaluation and Commission responses 

Recommendation 

Commission response 

Greater  efforts  should  be  made  to  support  the 
exchange of best practices at regional level 

The budget of MODINIS remains relatively small so that its impact at 
regional level can only be limited to a demonstration effect.  

The  balance 
towards 
dissemination  and  exchange  of  best  practices  in 
the MODINIS work programmes 

should  be 

shifted 

The Decision on MODINIS provides an indicative budget allocation. 
Within  this,  contributions  to  high  visibility  conferences  are  being 
continued. High level groups and workshops are supported in relation 
to specific policy targets. ‘Good practice frameworks’ in the fields of 
e-business, e-government and e-health are supported.  

In order to support the exchange of best practice 
at  the  regional  level,  co-ordination  and  co-
operation with DG Regio should be improved 

Public dissemination through websites should be 
redesigned to better meet the needs of SMEs 

Co-ordination  with  DG  Regio 
interservice 
arrangements where they are appropriate to the implementation of the 
eEurope Action Plan notably in e-government and digital divide.  

is  assured 

through 

The website is undergoing a major redesign to improve its usability 

The  ISF  needs  to  be  formally  closed;  the 
Members  should  be  thanked  for  their  work  and 
informed  about  new  arrangements  under  the 
MODINIS programme 

The Commission considers it inappropriate to close the ISF formally 
after such a long time of inactivity. Many members will be difficult to 
contact  as  they  will  have  changed  function.  Such  an  exercise 
undertaken properly would be an inefficient use of public funds. 

The eEurope Steering Group should have a clear 
mandate  to  address  certain  topics  for  a  certain 
period of time. This mandate should be regularly 
reviewed and renewed 

The eEurope Steering group directly engages MS administrations and 
is goal orientated. The Group provides technical support and strategic 
advice to the Commission in the implementation of the Action Plan. It 
operates  through  working  groups  that  have  a  specific  mandate  and  a 
limited duration. 

The  Commission  should 
the 
Management  Committee  in  the  preparation  and 
adoption of the Modinis work programmes 

fully  engage 

The  Management  Committee  is  consulted  at  the  early  stages  of  the 
preparation  of  the  annual  work  programmes,  and  its  favourable 
opinion is needed in order to adopt the work programme. 

Budget utilisation should be further improved by 
multi-annual  planning  and  timely  initiation  of 
public procurement actions, where needed 

Budget  expenditure  remains  a  challenge.  The  MODINIS  programme 
was adopted only at the end of 2003 and became operational in April 
2004. Given the short programming period this delay will continue to 
affect the achievement of the primary goals.  

The  Commission  should  ensure  an  effective 
about  programme 
transfer  of  knowledge 
implantation  as  staff  are  replaced  and  a  clear 
allocation  of  responsibilities  between  Units  for 
programme and budget utilisation 

An  active  formal  and  informal  interservice  consultation  procedure 
takes  place  in  the  preparation  of  the  annual  work  programme.  All 
budget  allocations  are  subject  to  formal  sub-delegations  under  the 
financial 
for  by  sharing 
responsibility for the Programme between a number of staff.  

regulations.  Continuity 

is  provided 

The work programme for MODINIS should have 
a  clear  strategic  plan,  but  should  also  leave 
flexibility to adapt to political, technological and 
economic  opportunities  as 
they  arise.  The 
Commission  should  develop  clear  performance 
indicators  for  measuring  the  contribution  of  the 
programme’s  activities 
the  programme’s 
objectives. 

to 

The decision  to  link  the  eEurope Action  Plan,  the  eEurope  Advisory 
Group  and  MODINIS  guarantees  that  the  Programme  will  maintain 
political  relevance.  The  MODINIS  annual  work  programme  has 
recently been revised in the light of the mid-term review and update of 
eEurope  2005  Action  Plan  in  order  to  maintain  its  relevance. 
Benchmarking  activities,  which  form  a  large  part  of  the  MODINIS 
programme,  provide  a  quantitative  measure  of  performance,  whilst 
qualitative indicators will be requested in the final evaluation. 

EN 

10 

   EN