Special Report No 9/2011 ‘Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?’
Date: 2011-10-22
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU financing, European Regional Development Fund, electronic government

EUROPEAN
COURT OF AUDITORS

4
3
8
0
-
1
3
8
1
N
S
S

I

1
1
0
2

9
o
N

t
r
o
p
e
R

l

a
i
c
e
p
S

HAVE THE e-GOVERNMENT PROJECTS

SUPPORTED BY ERDF BEEN EFFECTIVE?

EN

 
 
 
 
Special Report No 9 

 2011

HAVE THE e-GOVERNMENT 
PROJECTS SUPPORTED  
BY ERDF BEEN EFFECTIVE?

(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1
Fax +352 4398-46410
e-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu
Internet: http://www.eca.europa.eu

Special Report No 9 

 2011

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. 

It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2011

ISBN 978-92-9237-245-3

doi:10.2865/61428

© European Union, 2011

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Luxembourg

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

CONTENTS

3

Paragraph

GLOSSARY

I–VI	

EXECUTIVE	SUMMARY

1–12	

INTRODUCTION

1–3	

4–8	

9	

DEFINITION	AND	OBJECTIVES	OF	e-GOVERNMENT

LISBON	STRATEGY,	eEUROPE	AND	i2010

EU	FINANCIAL	SUPPORT

10–12	

THE	PRINCIPLES	OF	ERDF	MANAGEMENT	IN	THE	2000–06	PROGRAMME	PERIOD

13–15	

AUDIT	SCOPE	AND	APPROACH

16–51	

OBSERVATIONS

16-27	

HAVE	THE	PROJECTS	BEEN	SELECTED	ACCORDING	TO	ASSESSED	NEEDS?

19–23 

INITIAL STRATEGIES WERE NOT BASED UPON IDENTIFIED NEEDS

24–27 

 PROJECT SELECTION RARELY ASSESSED WHETHER THE PROJECTS SELECTED WERE THE MOST LIKELY 
TO OFFER THE BEST VALUE FOR MONEY

28–42	

WERE	PROJECTS	WELL	DESIGNED	AND	DELIVERED	AS	PLANNED?	

30–34 

 PROJECT OBJECTIVES WERE TOO GENERAL AND PROJECT DESIGN DID NOT DEAL  
ADEQUATELY WITH NON-TECHNICAL ISSUES

35–36 

PROJECTS MOSTLY IN LINE WITH EIF PRINCIPLES

37–42 

MOST PROJECTS NOT IN LINE WITH PLANNING

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

	
 
4

43–51	

ARE	THE	PROJECTS	USEFUL	AND	DURABLE?	

45–49 

EXPECTED ADVANTAGES PARTIALLY ACHIEVED

50–51 

IN MOST CASES PROJECT MAINTENANCE WAS ASSURED

52–60	

CONCLUSIONS	AND	RECOMMENDATIONS

55–56	

HAVE	THE	CO-FINANCED	PROJECTS	BEEN	SELECTED	ACCORDING	TO	ASSESSED	NEEDS?

57–58	

WERE	PROJECTS	WELL	DESIGNED	AND	DELIVERED	AS	PLANNED?	

59–60	

ARE	THE	PROJECTS	USEFUL	AND	DURABLE?	

REPLY	OF	THE	COMMISSION

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

GLOSSARY

55

Broadband: high-speed data transmission in which the bandwidth is shared by more than one simulta-
neous signal.

DG	INFSO: Directorate-General for the Information Society and Media

DG	REGIO: Directorate-General for Regional Policy

EIF: European interoperability framework

ERDF: European Regional Development Fund

ICT: Information and Communication Technologies

IDA: interchange of data between administrations — programme aiming at promoting the development 
and operation of trans-European ICT networks for data interchange between Member State administra-
tions and/or the Community institutions.

IDABC: interoperable delivery of European e-Government services to public administrations, businesses 
and citizens. Successor of the IDA instrument.

Interoperability: capability of different programs to exchange data via a common set of exchange for-
mats, to read and write the same file formats, and to use the same protocols.

IS: Information Society

ISA: new programme for the period 2010–15 ‘Interoperability solutions for European public administrations’.

NDP: national development plan

Open	source	software: broad general type of software license that makes source code available to the 
general public with relaxed or non-existent copyright restrictions.

Open	standard: any communication, interconnection or interchange protocol, and any interoperable 
data format whose specifications are public and without any restriction in their access or implementation.

PLN: official ISO 4217 currency name for Polish złoty 

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

6

PMM: Project Management Methodology is a process-based method for effective project management. 
The PMM provides a method for managing projects within a clearly defined framework. It describes pro-
cedures to coordinate resources and activities engaged in a project, giving indication on how to design 
and supervise the project, and how to react if the project has to be adjusted to respond to changes.

SF: Structural Funds

SMART: specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

  
 
 
77

EXECUTIVE 
SUMMARY

I.
Pu b l i c   a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s   i n   t h e   p e r i o d   c o v -
e r e d   b y   t h i s   r e p o r t   s a w   e - G o v e r n m e n t 
a s   a   m e a n s   o f   l e s s e n i n g   t h e   a d m i n i s t r a -
t i v e   b u r d e n   o f   c i t i z e n s ,   b u s i n e s s e s   a n d 
o t h e r   a d m i n i s t rat i o n s.   I t   c a n   a l s o   s e r ve   to 
i m p r o v e   t h e   s e r v i c e s   t h e y   d e l i v e r.   T h i s   i s 
i n   k e e p i n g   w i t h   t h e   a c h i e v e m e n t   o f   t h e 
L i s b o n   g o a l s   ( c o m p e t i t i ve n e s s   a n d   i n n ov-
a t i o n ) ,   t h e   r e d u c t i o n   o f   b a r r i e r s   t o   t h e 
i n t e r n a l   m a r k e t ,   t h e   m o b i l i t y   o f   c i t i z e n s 
across Europe,  an d regional develo pment. 

II.
The Cour t ’s audit focused on ERDF expend -
i t u re   o f   t h e   2 0 0 0 – 0 6   p ro gra m m e   p e r i o d   i n 
fo u r   M e m b e r   S t a t e s :   Fr a n c e ,   I t a l y,   Po l a n d 
a n d   S p a i n .   T h e   C o u r t   e x a m i n e d   t h e   r e l e -
v a n t   s t r a t e g i c   a n d   p r o g r a m m i n g   d o c u -
m e n t s   a n d   v i s i t e d   2 8   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e 
p r o j e c t s   d e v e l o p i n g   e - G o v e r n m e n t .   A n 
o n l i n e   s u r v e y   s e n t   t o   a   s a m p l e   o f   p r o j e c t 
man ager s supplemente d t his wor k . 

III.
Th e   Co u r t   ex a m i n e d   w h e t h e r   t h e s e   e - G ov-
er n ment proj ec ts:

( a)  h a v e   b e e n   s e l e c t e d   a c c o r d i n g   t o   a s -

ses sed ne eds;

( b)  h ave been well designed an d d eli ve re d 

as plan ne d;

( c)   are usef ul and  durable.

IV.
T h e   C o u r t   c o n c l u d e d   t h a t   t h e   e - G o v e r n -
ment projec ts suppor ted by the ERDF have 
c o n t r i b u t e d   t o   t h e   d e v e l o p m e n t   o f   e l e c -
tronic public ser vices. However despite the 
f a c t   t h a t   t h e   m a j o r i t y   o f   t h e m   a r e   t e c h -
nically operational, due to insufficient focus 
o n   p r o j e c t   r e s u l t s   t h e   b e n e f i t s   o b t a i n e d 
a r e   m u c h   l o w e r   t h a n   c o u l d   h a v e   b e e n 
expec ted.

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

8

EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY

( d)  M a n a g i n g   a u t h o r i t i e s   s h o u l d   e m p h a -
s i s e   t h e   p r a c t i c a l   a p p l i c a t i o n   o f   b e s t 
p r a c t i c e   a n d   s t r o n g l y   r e c o m m e n d   t h e 
u s e   o f   a n   a p p ro p r i ate   p ro j e c t   m a n a g e -
m e n t   m e t h o d o l o g y   f o r   e - G o v e r n m e n t 
projec t s in receipt  of E RD F f und i ng.     

( e)  The Commission should ensure that the 
EU principles and recommendations en-
abling  t rans- European interope rabili t y, 
in par ticular the EIF principles, are con -
sidered by projec ts benefiting from the 
ERDF, in order to increase the European 
a d d e d   v a l u e   o f   a   p ro j e c t   a n d   f a c i l i t a t e 
fur t her  E U-wide  systems  inte grat ion . 

( f )  When selec ting e - Government projec ts, 
m a n a g i n g   a u t h o r i t i e s   s h o u l d   e n s u r e 
t h a t   a l l   s i g n i f i c a n t   c o s t s ,   i n c l u d i n g 
m a i n t e n a n c e   h a v e   b e e n   s u f f i c i e n t l y 
p r o v i d e d   f o r   i n   t h e   c o s t - b e n e f i t   a n a -
lysis which should underpin the financing 
decision.

( g)  T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s h o u l d   e n s u r e   t h a t 
m a n a g i n g   a u t h o r i t i e s   m o n i t o r   a n d 
eva luate  proj ec t   results  and  im pac ts   in 
o rd e r   to   d e m o n s t rate   t h e   e f fe c t i ve   u s e 
o f   E U   f u n d i n g   a n d   p r o v i d e   i m p o r t a n t 
fe e d b a c k   t o   i m p r o v e   t h e   d e s i g n   o f   f u -
ture progra mm es.

V.
M ore specific al ly the Cou r t  ob s e r ve d  t h at:

(a)  Despite the fact that e -Government pro-
g r a m m i n g   a t   n a t i o n a l   l e v e l   g r a d u a l l y 
improved during the programme period, 
w e a k n e s s e s   i n   e a r l y   s t r a t e g i e s   m e a n t 
th at  p roj ec t s  did  no t  fo cus   on  ad dre ss-
i n g   p r i o r i t y   n e e d s   f o r   e - G o v e r n m e n t 
develo pme nt.

(b)  Pro j e c t s   g e n e r a l l y   d e l i v e re d   t h e i r   o u t -
p u t s.   H owe ve r,   t h e s e   we re   o f te n   d e l i v-
e r e d   l a t e   o r   w i t h   a   r e d u c e d   s c o p e   d u e 
to poor design or lack of a sound imple -
ment at ion  m ethod ol o gy.

(c)  Most audited projects were technologic-
a l l y   s o u n d   a n d   d e v e l o p e d   I T   a p p l i c a -
t i o n s   p r o v i d i n g   e l e c t r o n i c   s e r v i c e s   t o 
p u b l i c   b o d i e s,   b u s i n e s s e s   a n d   c i t i ze n s. 
The systems co -financed by the ERDF, in 
genera l  were  ap p ro p r iatel y   mai nta ine d 
a n d   f i n a n c i a l l y   s u s t a i n a b l e .   H o w e v e r, 
i n   t h e   a b s e n c e   o f   t h e   m e a s u r e m e n t   o f 
a c t u a l   p r o j e c t   b e n e f i t s ,   i t   i s   n o t   p o s -
sible to evaluate projec ts or accumulate 
k nowl edg e for f ut ure p ro gramm e s.

V I.
Therefore  t he Co ur t reco mmend s   t hat :

(a)  M e m b e r   S t a t e s   s h o u l d   d e v e l o p   s t r a t -
egies for e -Government, which are based 
u p o n   i d e n t i f i e d   n e e d s ,   h a v e   c l e a r   o b -
j e c t i v e s   a n d   a s s i g n   r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s   t o 
the bodies accountable for the achievement 
of t hes e o bjec t ives.   

(b)  M a n a g i n g   a u t h o r i t i e s   s h o u l d   s e l e c t   e -
G ove r n m e nt   p ro j e c t s   fo r   E R D F   s u p p o r t 
o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   a n   a s s e s s m e n t   o f   l i k e l y 
projec t  co st s and  b en efits. 

(c)  M anaging author ities in M ember States 
s h o u l d   e n s u r e   t h a t   e - G o v e r n m e n t 
p r o j e c t s   s e l e c t e d   f o r   E R D F   f u n d i n g 
f o c u s   n o t   o n l y   o n   p r o j e c t   o u t p u t s   b u t 
also on the changes in processes or organ-
i s a t i o n   n e c e s s a r y   t o   f u l l y   b e n e f i t   f r o m 
th e sys tems  d evel op ed. 

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

INTRODUCTION

9

1.  

2.	

3.	

4.	

5.	

D E F I N I T I O N 	 A N D 	 O B J E C T I V E S	 	
O F 	e - G O V E R N M E N T

E l e c t r o n i c   G o v e r n m e n t   ( e - G o v e r n m e n t )   r e f e r s   t o   e l e c t r o n i c 
transac tions bet ween gover nment and citizens or businesses, 
o r   b e t w e e n   d i f fe r e n t   g o v e r n m e n t a l   a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s .   e - G o v -
er n ment   requ ires   t he  us e  of  I n for m ati on   an d  Com muni c ati on 
Technologies (IC T ) combined with organisational change and 
ne w  sk il ls in o rd er to del iver bet ter  q ua lit y  publi c  s er vi ce s 1. 

Public administrations in the period covered by this repor t saw 
e - G ove r nment   as  a  means  of  reduc in g   adm in is trat ive   burd en 
a n d   w a i t i n g   t i m e s ,   w h i l s t   i m p r o v i n g   c o s t   e f fe c t i v e n e s s,   a n d 
r a i s i n g   p r o d u c t i v i t y.   I t   w a s   i n   l i n e   w i t h   t h e   L i s b o n   s t r a t e g y 
g o a l s   i n   co m p e t i t i ve n e s s   a n d   i n n ovat i o n ,   a i d   re gi o n a l   d e ve l-
opment and reduce barriers in the inter nal mar ket. I t can also 
facil it ate t he mo b il it y  of citizen s  across  Europe.   

 I n   o rd e r   to   avo i d   t h e   e m e rg e n ce   o f   s o - c a l l e d   e l e c t ro n i c   b a r -
r i e r s 2,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   r e c o m m e n d e d   t h a t   E u r o p e a n   p u b l i c 
administrations should respect a number of general principles, 
w h i c h   w e r e   s e t   o u t   i n   t h e   E u r o p e a n   i n t e r o p e r a b i l i t y   f r a m e -
wo r k 3 (EI F ) pu b lished in November  2 00 4.

L I S B O N 	 S T R AT E G Y,	e E U R O P E 	 A N D 	i2 01 0

 Th e   L i s b o n   Eu ro p e a n   Co u n c i l   h e l d   i n   2 0 0 0   s e t   t h e   a m b i t i o u s 
o b j e c t i ve   o f   Eu ro p e   b e co m i n g   t h e   m o s t   co m p e t i t i ve   a n d   d y-
namic economy in the world and recognised the need for Eur-
o p e   to   gra s p   t h e   o p p o r t u n i t i e s   o f fe re d   by   t h e   n e w   e co n o my 
an d t he I nter net in p ar ticul ar.

Th e   Eu ro p e a n   Co m m i s s i o n   l a u n c h e d   t wo   s u cce s s i ve   e Eu ro p e 
Ac tion Plans for the per iod 2000 –05 aimed at stimulating ser-
vices, applications and I nternet content, covering both online 
p u b l i c   s e r v i c e s   a n d   e - b u s i n e s s .   T h e   a c t i o n   p l a n s   w e r e   a l s o 
des igned to addres s deficien c ies in  broadba nd  i n fras tr uc ture 
a n d   s e c u r i t y   m e a s u r e s .  T h e s e   a c t i o n s   w e r e   t o   b e   r e i n f o r c e d 
by s uch  ac t iv it ies as  th e diss emin at ion  of  g ood prac t ice s an d 
be nchm ar k ing 4 o f I C T  deve lopment in  M ember  State s.

1  The role of e-Government for 
Europe’s Future, COM(2003) 567 

final of 26.9.2003, p. 7.

2  For example lack of 
interoperability between  

IT systems could be a barrier 

hampering exchange of 

administrative data.

3  The European interoperability 
framework was endorsed in 

June 2002 by the 15 Member 

States and was supported in 

the Manchester and Lisbon 

declarations of 24 November 

2005 and 19 September 2007, 

respectively.

4  http://ec.europa.eu/
information_society/eeurope/

i2010/benchmarking/index_

en.htm

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

10

6.	

7.	

 From the outset 5, the Commission considered e -Government as 
impor tant and the transformation of public ser vices became a 
cor ners to ne  of  IC T   p o l ic y.  Followin g   t he   eEurope20 02   Ac t ion 
Plan, the Commission published a communication 6 expanding 
on the e - Government ac tions contained in the ac tion plan and 
detailing the steps necessar y for transfor ming public ser vices 
wit h t he u se o f IC T.

I n   2 0 0 5   e Eu ro p e   Ac t i o n   Pl a n s   we re   re p l a ce d   by   a   n e w   s t rate -
gic framework , i2010 — European I nformation S ociet y 2010 — 
l ay i n g   o u t   b ro a d   p o l i c y   o r i e nt at i o n s 7.  Th i s   re n e we d   s t rate gi c 
framework put even more emphasis on e - Government. I ndeed 
a c c o r d i n g   t o   r e c e n t   s t u d i e s 8  t h e r e   i s   a   s t r o n g   l i n k   b e t w e e n 
modern and efficient public administration and national com -
p e t i t i v e n e s s   a n d   i n n o v a t i o n .   A   2 0 0 6   C o m m i s s i o n   c o m m u n i-
c a t i o n 9,   d e s c r i b e d   p r e v i o u s   a c h i e v e m e n t s   a n d   s e t   o u t   n e w 
o b j e c t i v e s   f o r   e - G o v e r n m e n t   p o l i c y.   T h e   p o l i t i c a l   c o m m i t -
m e n t   o f   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a n d   o t h e r   s t a k e h o l d e r s   i s   i m p o r t a n t 
f o r   s u c h   a c t i o n s   a n d   a t   a   n u m b e r   o f   c o n f e r e n c e s 1 0  M e m b e r 
States demonstrated this by signing declarations to this effect. 
T h e   f i r s t   s i g n i f i c a n t   l e g a l   a c t 1 1,   t h e   ‘ S e r v i c e s   D i r e c t i v e ’   ( s e e 
B ox 1), p ubl ished in 2006 and required to be in  force  in 200 9, 
re q u i re s   c e r t a i n   p u b l i c   s e r v i c e s   fo r   b u s i n e s s   t o   b e   a v a i l a b l e 
ele c t ronic ally. 

5  eEurope 2002: Impact and 
Priorities, COM(2001) 140 final of 

13.3.2001.

6  COM(2003) 567 final.

7  i2010 – A European 
Information Society for  

growth and employment, 

COM(2005) 229 final of 1.6.2005.

8  World Economic Forum Global 
Competitiveness Reports - 

(http://www.weforum.org/reports-

results?fq=report%5Ereport_

type%3A%22Competitiveness%22), 

Citizen Advantage: Enhancing 

economic competitiveness 

through e-Government 

(http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/

groups/public/documents/apcity/

unpan022639.pdf)

9  i2010 e-Government Action 
Plan: Accelerating e-Government 

in Europe for the benefit of 

all, COM(2006) 173 final of 

25.4.2006.

10  Ministerial Declarations 
approved unanimously in 

Brussels (2001), Como (2003), 

Manchester (2005) and Lisbon 

(2007).

11  Directive 2006/123/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the 

Council of 12 December 2006 on 

services in the internal market 

(OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 36).

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

11

8.	

I n   p a r a l l e l   w i t h   i t s   a c t i o n   p l a n s,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   d e v e l o p e d 
a   n u m b e r   o f   i n i t i a t i v e s 1 2  i n   s p e c i f i c   f i e l d s   w i t h   v a r i o u s   o b -
jec tives such as removing technological bottlenecks or facili-
t a t i n g   e xc h a n g e   o f   b e s t   p r a c t i c e.   A m o n g s t   m o re   s p e c i a l i s e d 
programmes and initiatives, the IDABC 13 programme deser ves 
m e n t i o n   a s   i t   f a c i l i t a t e d   c o o p e r a t i o n   b e t w e e n   t h e   C o m m i s -
sion and Member States in work ing out common interoperable 
sta ndards 14. 

12  Programmes such as Modinis, 
eTEN, IDABC, CIP-PSP,  

ePractice.eu.

13  Decision 2004/387/EC of 
the European Parliament and  

of the Council of  21 April 2004 

on interoperable delivery of 

pan-European e-Government 

services to public 

administrations, business and 

citizens (IDABC) (OJ L 181, 

18.5.2004, p. 25). The programme 

expired in 2009.

14  While the IDABC was more 
focused on the digitisation 

of public administrations, its 

follow-on ISA aims at elaborating 

concrete generic tools and 

common services which could 

be directly applied by interested 

Member States. Decision  

No 922/2009/EC of the 

European Parliament and of 

the Council of 16 September 

2009 on interoperability 

solutions for European public 

administrations (ISA).

B O X 	 1

T H E 	 S E R V I C E S 	 D I R E C T I V E

The directive requires Member States to simplify procedures and formalities that service pro-
viders need to comply with. In particular, it requires Member States to remove unjustified and 
disproportionate burdens and to substantially facilitate:

 ο the establishment of a business, i.e. cases in which a natural or legal person wants to set 

up a permanent establishment in a Member State, and

 ο  the cross-border provision of services, i.e. cases in which a business wants to supply ser-
vices across borders in another Member State, without setting up an establishment there.

Pursuant to the directive Member States are obliged to set up ‘points of single contact’, through 
which service providers can obtain all relevant information and deal with all administrative for-
malities without the need to contact several authorities. The ‘points of single contact’ have to be 
accessible at a distance and by electronic means.

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

12

15  The Court calculation made 
on the basis of information 

published by the Commission on 

the http://www.europa.eu

16  For the 2000–06 programme 
period, the Structural Funds 

and European Regional 

Development Fund was funded 

on the basis of the following 

legal acts: Council Regulation 

(EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 

1999 laying down general 

provisions on the Structural 

Funds (OJ L 161, 26.6.1999,  

p. 1) and Regulation (EC)  

No 1783/1999 of the European 

Parliament and of the Council 

of 12 July 1999 on the European 

Regional Development Fund  

(OJ L 213, 13.8.1999, p. 1).

E U 	 F I N A N C I A L 	 S U P P O R T

9.	

App roximate ly 11  b il l ion eu ro 15 of  E U s uppor t was ear mar ked 
f o r   t h e   I n f o r m a t i o n   S o c i e t y   i n   t h e   2 0 0 0 – 0 6   p r o g r a m m e 
period. Amongst its aims were the development of new secure 
technologies, infrastruc tural capabilities and connec tivit y be -
t we e n   re g i o n s   t h ro u g h   b ro a d b a n d.   E R D F   f u n d i n g   a c c o u n t e d 
f o r   6 , 7   b i l l i o n   e u r o   ( 6 1  % )   o f   t h i s .   N o   a g g r e g a t e   f i g u r e s   a r e 
avail ab l e for e - G over nme nt  a c tions.

10.  

11.  

12.  

T H E 	 P R I N C I P L E S 	 O F 	 E R D F 	 M A N AG E M E N T	 	
I N 	T H E 	2000 – 0 6	 P R O G R A M M E 	 P E R I O D

 The  E RD F  management  s ys tem  re f lec t s   t he   pr i n ciple s  of   s ub -
sidiar it y and par tnership 16, with responsibilities and manage -
ment share d b et ween t he Eu rope an  Comm is si on  a nd  M em ber 
S t a t e   g o v e r n m e n t s .   T h e   E R D F   p r o g r a m m i n g   a n d   t h e   i m p l e -
mentatio n  p ro cess   o f  co - finan ced  ac ti on s  in   force   d ur in g   t he 
a u d i t e d   2 0 0 0 – 0 6   p ro g r a m m e   p e r i o d   i s   s e t   o u t   i n   Fi g u r e   1   i n 
simp l ifie d for m .

T h e   m u l t i a n n u a l   p r o g r a m m e s   w e r e   d r a w n   u p   b y   M e m b e r 
States  fo l lowing a p ro cess  o f dialog ue wi th  th e re le vant  pub -
lic author itie s and the economic and social par tners. M ember 
S t a t e s   i d e n t i f i e d   b ro a d   p ro g r a m m e   p r i o r i t i e s,   a n d,   a f t e r   n e -
go t iat ions,  t he  Co mmissio n  approve d  al l  program min g   doc u-
ments. The broad description of measures was included in the 
operational programmes while the detailed measures and the 
cho ice o f pro je c ts were mad e  by M ember States.

 The pro gramme s contain establi sh e d an d approve d pr ior it ie s 
to b e  imp lem ented d ur in g th e programm e pe r i od.  E ach  oper-
at i o n a l   p ro gra m m e   o r   s i n g l e   p ro gra m m i n g   d o c u m e nt   h a s   a n 
a s s o c i a t e d   p r o g r a m m e   c o m p l e m e n t   w h i c h   d e s c r i b e s   p r o -
gramme measures in detail. Measures may include specific ac-
tio ns fo r the de vel o p ment  of e - G over n me nt.

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

13

F I G U R E 	 1

S I M P L I F I E D 	 E R D F 	 M A N AG E M E N T 	 P R O C E S S 	 F O R 	2000 – 06

What

Who

Feedback

Multiannual programmes 
operational programmes 
or 
single programming 
document comprising a set of 
priorities and measures

One or more measures in 
the programme might 
include actions for 
e-Government development

Prepared by the competent bodies in 
the Member States on the basis of ex ante 
evaluation

Approved and supervised by the 
European Commission 

DG REGIO

DG INFSO

Inter-service consultations

v

Programme complement
setting detailed criteria for measures

ERDF
managing authority
at national level

v

Selection of e-Government projects

Intermediary body
at regional or local level

v

Project design, implementation and use

Final beneficiary

v

v

v

Annual 
implementation 
report

Aggregated information
on outputs, results
and impacts

v

Aggregated information
on outputs, results
and impacts

v

Monitoring reports

Detailed information on
output, results and
impacts of individual
projects

v

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH

14

13.  

 T h e   m a i n   o b j e c t i v e   o f   t h e   a u d i t   w a s   t o   a s s e s s   w h e t h e r   t h e 
a u d i te d   e - G ove r n m e nt   a d m i n i s t rat i ve   p ro j e c t s   s u p p o r te d   by 
the  ER DF:

(a )  have  b een se lec ted accordin g to  ass es s ed  n ee ds ;

(b)  have  b een wel l des igned an d d eli ve re d as  pla nn ed ;

(c)  are u se ful  and d urab l e.

14.  

T h e   C o u r t ’s   a u d i t   f o c u s e d   o n   t h e   2 0 0 0 – 0 6   p r o g r a m m e 
period and four Member States: France, I taly, Poland and Spain 
w h o   b e t w e e n   t h e m   a c c o u n t e d   f o r   3 , 0   b i l l i o n   e u r o   ( 4 5  % )   o f 
exp end it u re  from t he ER DF  on  t he  I n for mat ion  S oc i et y.   

15.  

The  aud it  wo r k  inc l u ded:

(a )  a   r e v i e w   o f   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s t r a t e g i c   f r a m e w o r k   o n  

e - G over nme nt  p o l ic y ;

(b)  a n   e x a m i n a t i o n   o f   n a t i o n a l   a n d   re l e v a n t   re g i o n a l   e - G o v -
ernment strategy documents for the 2000–06 period, in the 
c o u n t r i e s   v i s i t e d ,   c o m b i n e d   w i t h   a n   a n a l y s i s   o f   n a t i o n a l 
development plans, relevant operational programmes and 
su p p or ting  pro gramme com plem e nt s; 

(c)  vis it s   to  natio nal   an d  region al  auth or it ie s  re s pons i ble  for 
e - G o ve r n m e n t   d e ve l o p m e n t   a n d   p ro j e c t   s e l e c t i o n   i n   t h e 
vis ited M emb e r States ;

(d )  a n   e x a m i n a t i o n   o f   2 8   r e g i o n a l   p r o j e c t s   w i t h   t o t a l   f u n d -
ing  o f 216 ,9 mil lion eu ro and t he  E R DF contr i buti ng  s ome 
1 2 7 , 2   m i l l i o n   e u r o   o f   t h i s .   T h e   a v e r a g e   e - G o v e r n m e n t 
p r o j e c t   v i s i t e d   h a d   a   v a l u e   o f   7 , 8   m i l l i o n   e u r o   w i t h   a n 
ave ra g e   E R D F   co nt r i b u t i o n   o f   4 , 5   m i l l i o n   e u ro.  Te n   o f   t h e 
p r o j e c t s   w e r e   o f   l e s s   t h a n   o n e   m i l l i o n   e u r o   w i t h   t h e   l a r-
g es t  fo ur  pro jec ts  rangin g  from  2 7   to  5 0   mi l lion   e uro.   For 
t he t yp es  o f pro jec t  exam ined ( se e t he  Tab le an d B ox  2) ; 

(e)  a n   o n l i n e   s u r v e y   s e n t   t o   3 6 3   p r o j e c t   m a n a g e r s   o f  
e - G o v e r n m e n t   p r o j e c t s   c o - f i n a n c e d   b y   t h e   E R D F   i n   t h e 
visited countries. Replies were received from 212 managers 
(58 ,4 % ).

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

15

TA B L E

T Y P E S 	 O F 	e - G O V E R N M E N T 	 P R O J E C T S 	V I S I T E D 	 O N 	T H E 	 S P OT

Type of project

Spain

France

Italy

Poland

Total

Geographical Information System

Workflow system

Tax services

Referential database

Other

Total

1

3

1

0

2

7

3

1

0

0

3

7

3

2

0

1

1

7

1

4

1

1

0

7

8

10

2

2

6

28

B O X 	 2

E X A M P L E S 	 O F 	 P R O J E C T S 	 P R O V I D I N G 	e - G O V E R N M E N T 	 S E R V I C E S

Geographical	Information	System	(GIS)	—	Tuscany	Region,	Italy

The development of a GIS accessible online by citizens, public bodies and professionals was one 
of the objectives of the projects of the Single Programming Document of the Tuscany Region. 
Within this framework, the provincial authority of Florence supported the creation of a spatial 
database linked to the theme of hydrogeology, as well as the development of software to manage 
the administration of the use of ground and surface water. It also sought to manage fully online 
the submission of groundwater search requests and the issuing of authorisations.

Workflow	system	—	Warmia	i	Mazury	Region,	Poland

The main objective of the project was to create a web portal allowing online contact between 
the public and 112 authorities. Electronic document circulation procedures were developed for 
three levels of local administration, aiming to improve operational efficiency whilst ensuring full 
interoperability of data processed by the administration.

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

OBSERVATIONS

16

H AV E 	T H E 	 P R O J E C T S 	 B E E N 	 S E L E C T E D	
ACCO R D I N G 	TO 	 A S S E S S E D 	 N E E D S ?

16.  

The purpose of e - Government is to enhance access to govern-
ment se r v ices an d info r mation  for  t he  publi c,  busi ne ss es  a nd 
o t h e r   a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s,   l e a d i n g   t o   b e t t e r   s e r v i c e   q u a l i t y   a n d 
im p roved effec t iven ess and ef ficie n c y.   

17.   Br inging this about requires an overall strategy based upon a 
needs assessment, the definition of pr ior ities and a consider -
at ion  of  the l ike ly co sts  an d bene f it s of  t h e s trate gy.

18.  

 The  Co ur t  examined  w heth er :

(a )  the national or regional strategic framewor k had been de -
ve l o p e d   o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   i d e n t i f i e d   n e e d s   a n d   k n o w l e d g e 
o f w hat wa s be in g p rovided by  exi s ti ng  IT  s ys tem s,  t ak in g 
into account guidance issued by the European Commission; 

(b)  p ro jec t   sel ec tio n  p rocedures  were  ba se d  upon   con sis tent 
and  co he rent  se l ec tion  c r iter ia whi ch  ad dre ss ed  t he  most 
u rg ent needs  a nd del ivere d adde d val ue  for  s tak e ho lde r s; 
w i t h   i n d i v i d u a l   p r o j e c t   o b j e c t i v e s   c o m p l y i n g   w i t h   t h e 
p r io r itie s o f the s trategic  f rame wo r k .

19.  

20.  

I N I T I A L 	 S T R AT E G I E S 	W E R E 	 N OT 	 B A S E D 	 U P O N 	 I D E N T I F I E D	
N E E D S	 	

 I n  t he   2000 –06  p e r io d  co mmunication  patte r ns   e vol ve d  from 
those based upon telephone and paper to an ex tensive use of 
the   I nter net   and   b ro adb and.  A  num ber   of   co unt r ie s  beg an   to 
ad ap t  th eir admin is tratio ns accord in g ly. 

 I n   t h e   Eu ro p e a n   U n i o n ,   t h e   e Eu ro p e   Ac t i o n   P l a n s   p r i o r i t i s e d 
e - G over n ment related in itiatives, wh i c h lin k e d regio nal  com-
pe tit ivenes s and effec tive p ublic a dmi n is trat ion .  Th roug hout 
t h e   p e r i o d,   M e m b e r   St ate s   co m m i t te d   t h e m s e l ve s,   by   way   o f 
m i n i s te r i a l   d e c l a rat i o n s   to   p ro p o s i n g   re l e va n t   a c t i o n s   at   n a-
tio nal   l eve l,  l eading   to   th e  preparati on  of   nati ona l  strate gie s 
in  line  wit h th e eEu rop e in it iative. 

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

17

21.  

 At  t he beginning  o f t he p ro gramm e per iod, th e  s trategi es  for 
e -Government in the Member States visited had been prepared 
i n   t e r m s   o f   b r o a d   d e c l a r a t i o n s,   r a t h e r   t h a n   b a s e d   u p o n   r e a l 
identif ied nee ds.

22.  

The  Co ur t   examined   the  rel evant   s trate gy   docume nts   for   t he 
Member States visited and detected the following weak nesses:

(a )  The needs of citizens, businesses and administration were 
n o t   d e te r m i n e d   i n   a d va n ce   a n d   s t rate gi c   o b j e c t i ve s   we re 
t o o   g e n e r a l   a n d   l a c k e d   s p e c i f i c   t a rg e t s.  Th e re   w a s   i n s u f -
ficient analysis of what was ac tually required. For example, 
in cer t ain co unt r ies,  th e ne cess ar y le g al prov is io ns for  al -
l ow ing  el ec t ro nic tran sac tions  were n ot  i n  pl ace.

(b)  Responsibilities for the achievement of objec tives had not 
b e e n   c l e a r l y   a t t r i b u t e d   t o   t h e   r e s p o n s i b l e   p u b l i c   b o d i e s 
(s ee B ox  3 ) or t hes e b o dies lack ed suf ficie nt aut h or it y  for 
e f f e c t i v e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n .   M o n i t o r i n g   s y s t e m s   w e r e   n o t 
es tab l is hed   t hu s  p revent ing   time ly   co r rec ti ve   a c t ion s  be -
i n g   t a k e n   a n d   t h e   a c c u m u l a t i o n   o f   e x p e r i e n c e   fo r   f u t u re 
imp rovements.

B O X 	 3

E X A M P L E 	 O F 	 U N C L E A R 	 A S S I G N M E N T 	 O F 	 R E S P O N S I B I L I T I E S

Strategy	‘e-Poland	for	the	years	2004–06’

The main weakness of the strategy was a failure in all cases to clearly define areas of responsibil-
ity. There were 83 specific tasks allocated to various ministries and agencies and 30 of these had 
more than one entity responsible for its implementation. However in these cases, no indication 
had been given as to who was responsible for coordination. Insufficient coordination and co-
operation amongst ministries was highlighted in the final strategy evaluation as being one of 
the factors preventing the achievement of objectives.

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

18

23.  

 A   c o m p a r i s o n   o f   e a r l y   s t r a t e g i e s   w i t h   t h o s e   p re p a re d   a t   t h e 
end of the audited period clearly indicates some improvement 
i n   q u a l i t y.   I n   a d d i t i o n ,   s o m e   c o u n t r i e s   p r i o r i t i s e d   e - G ove r n -
ment, recognising it as a way to modernise public administra -
t i o n .   H o w e v e r   a t   M e m b e r   S t a t e   l e v e l   t h e r e   w a s   l i t t l e   m e t h -
odo l o gical   s up p or t  of fered  to  th e   a ut h or i tie s   re spon s ible   for 
projec t deliver y, in par ticular as regards projec t management 
techniques and technical guidelines. See Box 4 for an example 
of  met ho dol o gical  su p p o r t wh ic h  was  ac tually  gi ven .

B O X 	 4

A N 	 E X A M P L E 	 O F 	 M E T H O D O LO G I C A L 	 S U P P O R T

The Italian National Centre for the Information Systems in the Public Sector (CNIPA) was estab-
lished in June 2003 as a public agency under the aegis of the Italian Ministry of Public Adminis-
trations and Innovations. 

CNIPA became responsible for putting into operation the e-Government plans devised by the 
ministry and were specifically charged with:   

(a)  enacting rules, standards and technical guidelines for the introduction of ICT within the public 

administration;

(b) assessing and monitoring projects developed by local, regional and national administrations;

(c)  drafting opinions for the public administration on the strategic coherence of projects.

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

19

P R O J E C T 	 S E L E C T I O N 	 R A R E LY 	 A S S E S S E D 	W H E T H E R 	T H E	
P R O J E C T S 	 S E L E C T E D 	W E R E 	T H E 	 M O S T 	 L I K E LY 	TO 	 O F F E R	
T H E 	 B E S T 	VA LU E 	 F O R 	 M O N E Y	

24.  

The project selection procedures were organised and managed 
by national authorities responsible for ERDF management and 
usu al l y fol l owe d  on e of  t he mode ls  below :

(a )  M o d e l   A   —   P r o j e c t s   w e r e   p r e s e l e c t e d ,   n a m e d   a n d   t h e i r 
scope indicated in the ERDF programming documents (e.g. 
p ro gra mme co m p lem ent ).

(b)  M o d e l   B   —   Fo l l o w i n g   a   c a l l   fo r   p r o p o s a l s ,   p r o j e c t s   w e r e 
selec ted on a competitive basis, with grants being offered 
t o   p r o j e c t s   b e s t   f u l f i l l i n g   m e a s u r e   o b j e c t i v e s .   S p e c i f i c 
amounts of money were made available for such measures, 
as  the  de ve lo p ment of  el ec tro nic   publi c ad min ist rat ion .

25.  

 T h e   C o u r t   a n a l y s e d   2 8   p r o j e c t s   s e l e c t e d   o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   t h e 
t wo  p ro ced ures ( 11  A,  17  B):

(a )  The  cent ral ised ap p roach  (M ode l A) , w i th  E RDF gra nt s be -
ing assigned in advance to named projec ts. There was little 
attention paid to any analysis of costs or benefits and quite 
o f te n th ere was n o fo r mal grant   applic at io n  proced ure.

(b)  The other approach (M odel B), designed to selec t the best 
projec ts. This addressed priorit y issues defined in the pro -
gramming documents, on the basis of project content com-
p ar is on  c ar r ie d o ut  by  ind epe nd ent exper ts. ‘Cost benefit 
a n a l y s i s ’   w a s   a n   o b l i g a t o r y   p a r t   o f   t h e   a p p l i c a t i o n   p r o -
cedure in Poland. The bodies responsible for selec tion did 
n o t   s e t   o u t   a   t i m e t a b l e   f o r   t h e   o v e r a l l   p r o c e d u r e   o t h e r 
than the deadline for applications. When there were many 
a p p l i c a n t s ,   t h e r e   w e r e   l o n g   d e l a y s   i n   t h e   a s s e s s m e n t   o f 
applications and in Poland the original star t date of four of 
the projec ts visited had to be postponed due to the longer 
se le c t ion p rocedu re. 

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

20

26.   A u t h o r i t i e s   s o m e t i m e s   t e n d e d   t o   s e l e c t   a m b i t i o u s   p r o j e c t s 
i n   te r m s   o f   g o a l s,   s c o p e   a n d   e s t i m a t e s   o f   t h e   n u m b e r   o f   p o -
tential   use rs,   w hils t   not  su fficie nt ly   as se s si ng   t h e  promoter s’ 
abilit y to manage complex IT projec ts or establish if they had 
s u f f i c i e n t   a n d   a p p r o p r i a t e l y   q u a l i f i e d   s t a f f.   I n   o n e   p r o j e c t 
i n   Po l a n d ,   t h e   f i r s t   p r o j e c t   m a n a g e r   w a s   a p p o i n t e d   i n   2 0 0 6 , 
17 mo nth s af ter th e finan cing was grante d.  D ur i n g 2 0 07 , f ive 
d i f f e r e n t   p r o j e c t   m a n a g e r s   w e r e   r e s p o n s i b l e   f o r   t h e   t a s k , 
whil s t t he co mp o sitio n o f the s tee r i n g com mit tee  ove r se e in g 
the projec t was amended four times. This lack of stabilit y was 
c i t e d   i n   a n   i n t e r n a l   a u d i t   re p o r t   a s   b e i n g   p a r t l y   re s p o n s i b l e 
fo r   p ro j e c t   d e l ay s.   I n   a   f i n a l   a s s e s s m e n t   re p o r t   o n   a n   I t a l i a n 
projec t, delays in implementation were attr ibuted to changes 
i n   t h e   p ro j e c t   m a n a g e m e n t   t e a m   a n d   a   l a c k   o f   c o o rd i n a t i o n 
be t wee n l o cal b o dies p ar t ic ipat in g  i n  th e  proje c t.

27.  

In fact, most projects which failed to meet their original object-
ives were ver y complex as regards the number of stakeholders 
invo l ved and t he s op h is tic ation  of  s er v ice s  of fered. Th is  s it u -
at ion ,  in   co mbination  w it h  the  n ee d  to  f in is h   proje c ts   be fore 
t h e   c l o s u re   o f   t h e   p ro gra m m e   c a u s e d   a   s i gn i f i c a nt   s co p e   re -
duc t io n in s ome  c ases  (see paragraph  3 9 ) .

W E R E 	 P R O J E C T S 	W E L L 	 D E S I G N E D 	 A N D	
D E L I V E R E D 	 A S 	 P L A N N E D ?

28.   A n   e - G o v e r n m e n t   p r o j e c t ,   a s   w i t h   a ny   I T   p r o j e c t ,   s h o u l d   b e 
p l a n n e d   i n   d e t a i l   t o   e n s u r e   a   s m o o t h   r e a l i s a t i o n .   T h e   p l a n 
should include clear objec tives with a detailed descr iption of 
the ac tions necessar y for projec t completion, and an estimate 
of  tim e and re source co ns t raints. 

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

21

29.  

 The aim of the Cour t was to assess whether projec ts were car -
r i e d   o u t   a s   i n i t i a l l y   p l a n n e d   a n d   t o   i d e n t i f y   t h e   r e a s o n s   f o r 
m a j o r   d e v i a t i o n s.   Fo r   e a c h   a u d i t e d   p ro j e c t   t h e   f u n d a m e n t a l 
pro jec t el eme nts  were exam ined : 

(a )  Pl a n n i n g   a n d   d e s i gn  —   S p e c i a l   at te nt i o n   wa s   p a i d   to   t h e 
a p p r o p r i a t e   s e t t i n g   o f   p r o j e c t   o b j e c t i v e s   a n d   t a r g e t s   i n 
the form of SMAR T indicators and the use of best prac tice, 
su ch  as  the us e of reco gn ised proje c t m anag e me nt  me t h -
o do l og y (PM M). 

(b)  Compliance with European interoperability framework (EIF) 
p r i n c i p l e s   —   T h e   i n c o r p o r a t i o n   i n   p r o j e c t   d e s i g n   o f   E I F 
p r in cip le s was  examined.

(c)  I m p l eme nt at io n  — The  p rocess  was  examin ed  in   ter m s  o f 
t he man age ment  o f time, budge t an d  proj ec t  s cope. 

(d )  Availabilit y for use  — The existence of projec t assets (e.g. 
IT sof t ware, ser vers, platforms) as well as planned ser vices 
was  ch ecke d dur ing o n-t he -spo t in spe c t io ns.

30.  

31.  

P R O J E C T 	 O B J E C T I V E S 	W E R E 	TO O 	 G E N E R A L 	 A N D	 	
P R O J E C T 	 D E S I G N 	 D I D 	 N OT 	 D E A L 	 A D E Q UAT E LY 	W I T H	
N O N - T E C H N I C A L 	 I S S U E S

The setting of detailed projec t objec tives was a necessar y pre -
re q u i s i te   fo r   p u b l i c   b o d i e s   a p p l y i n g   fo r   a n   E R D F   gr a n t .   H ow -
ever projects were normally defined in general terms in relation 
to national or regional strategies and objec tives contained in 
t h e   E R D F   p ro gra m m i n g   d o c u m e n t s.   Pro j e c t   a d d e d   v a l u e   w a s 
r a re l y   d e t e r m i n e d   a s   a p a r t   f ro m   t h e   p ro j e c t s   i n   Po l a n d,   co s t 
be nefit  anal yses were n ot  p repare d. 

 The quality of projec t documentation varied significantly from 
p r o j e c t   t o   p r o j e c t   a n d   i n   e x t r e m e   c a s e s   n o   d o c u m e n t a t i o n 
was available for examination. The responsible authorities had 
n o t   s e t   o u t   m i n i m u m   s t a n d a r d s   i n   t e r m s   o f   d o c u m e n t a t i o n 
am o ng st  ot her th ings.   

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

22

32.  

For the majorit y of projec ts visited, objec tives were set which 
w e r e   t o o   g e n e r a l   a n d   n o t   q u a n t i f i e d .   Fo r   i n s t a n c e ,   s e t t i n g 
o b j e c t i v e s   a s   v a g u e   a s   ‘ t o   i m p r o v e   s e r v i c e   q u a l i t y ’ .   M o r e -
ove r   w h e re   t a rg e t s   we re   s e t,   t h e y   re fe r re d   m a i n l y   to   o u t p u t s 
( e. g.   n u m b e r   o f   s e r ve r s   p u rc h a s e d ) ,   r a t h e r   t h a n   fo c u s i n g   o n 
be nefit s  for the ent it y  o r end- us er  (e. g.  d ec re as e th e  r un n in g 
cos t o f  the de par tment by  x %) . According  to th e proj ec t pro -
moters sur veyed (Figure 2) impac t indicators were defined for 
onl y 4 2 % o f p ro jec t s.

F I G U R E 	 2

W H AT 	T Y P E 	 O F 	 P R O J E C T 	 O B J E C T I V E S 	W E R E 	 S E T ?

Output (e.g. number of servers, 
software installed, etc.)

92 %

Result (e.g. time savings, increased efficiency, 
higher service quality, cost reduction, etc.)

75 %

Impact (e.g. higher competitiveness, 
job creation, more investments, etc.)

42 %

None of the above

2 %

0 %

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

Number of projects

The	output	and	result	objectives	were	clearly	set	in	most	of	the	cases,	but	objectives	in	terms	of	impact	were	less	often	
established.

Source: European Court of Auditors’ survey.

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

23

33.   Pro j e c t   p l a n n i n g   w a s   s t ro n g l y   fo c u s e d   o n   t e c h n i c a l   a s p e c t s, 
o f t e n   n e g l e c t i n g   i m p o r t a n t   i s s u e s   s u c h   a s   t h e   r e d e s i g n   o f 
a d m i n i s t ra t i ve   p ro ce s s e s   to   b e n e f i t   m o re   f u l l y   f ro m   t h e   n e w 
t e c h n o l o g i e s   a n d   t h e r e b y   l e s s e n i n g   t h e   p o t e n t i a l   i m p a c t   o f 
pro jec ts.

34.  

35.  

 Fa ilu re  to   con sider  coo rdination   be t we en   de par t me nt s  or   or-
g a n i s a t i o n a l   i s s u e s   s u c h   a s   t h e   re c o n f i g u r a t i o n   o f   p ro c e s s e s 
a n d   wo r k f l ows   fo r   d i f fe re nt   p ro j e c t s   re s u l te d   i n   t h e   d u p l i c a -
t i o n   o f   p r o c e d u r e s ,   p r o j e c t   d e l a y s ,   p r o b l e m s   w i t h   d a t a   e x -
change and in some cases projec ts which were not developed 
a s   e x p e c t e d ,   u n d e r u s e d   o r   e v e n   a b a n d o n e d   ( s e e   B oxe s   5 ,   7 
an d 9).

P R O J E C T S 	 M O S T LY 	 I N 	 L I N E 	W I T H 	 E I F 	 P R I N C I P L E S	

The Euro p ean intero pe rab ilit y f ramewor k ( EIF) was publishe d 
i n   N ove m b e r   2 0 0 4   a n d   d e f i n e s   a   s e t   o f   g u i d e l i n e s   fo r   e - G ov-
e r n m e nt   s e r v i ce s   s o   t h at   p u b l i c   a d m i n i s t rat i o n s,   e n te r p r i s e s 
a n d   c i t i z e n s   c a n   i n t e r a c t   a c r o s s   b o r d e r s   i n   a   p a n - E u r o p e a n 
contex t. The 15 projec ts visited which star ted in 2005 or later 
we re  examine d  to  see  to   w h at  ex te nt   th e y  h ad   t ake n   i nto  ac -
cou nt  t hese  g uidel ines. 

B O X 	 5

E X A M P L E 	 O F 	 I N A D E Q UAT E 	 CO O R D I N AT I O N 	 A N D 	 I T S 	 I M PAC T

Integrated	broadband	platform	for	Sicily,	Italy

One of the objectives of this project was the development of a web portal for tourists with specific 
interactive features such as booking and paying for holiday packages online.

The lack of coordination between different directorates within the regional administration caused 
significant delays and scope reduction with some planned features not being developed. 

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

24

36.  

 T h e   C o u r t   a s s e s s e d   t h e s e   p r o j e c t s   f o r   c o m p l i a n c e   w i t h   t h e 
pr inc ipl e s of :

17  The World Wide Web 
Consortium (W3C) is an 

international community 

that develops standards to 

ensure the long-term growth 

of the web. (World Wide Web 

Consortium (W3C)).

(a)  Accessibility — Access was mainly through the Internet and 
i n   a   fe w   c a s e s   o t h e r   c h a n n e l s   o f   c o m m u n i c a t i o n ,   s u c h   a s 
mobile phone, were used. Most projects used recommended 
guidelines 17 for the design of web pages and inter faces. 

(b)  M u l t i l i n g u a l i s m   —  T h e   f r o n t   o f f i c e   s e r v i c e s   w e r e   m a i n l y 
l imite d to  the n atio nal  l anguage( s)  an d  onl y  17 % of t hem 
p rovid ed info r matio n in mo re th an  on e lan g uag e.

(c)  S e cu r it y  and  p r ivac y   — Th e  Cour t  foun d  th at  du e  co nsi d -
e r a t i o n   h a d   b e e n   g i v e n   t o   t h e   p r o b l e m s   o f   s e c u r i t y   a n d 
p r i v a c y   o f   d a t a   a n d   t h e r e   w a s   a   p r o p e r   l e v e l   o f   s e c u r i t y 
and  com pl ia nce w ith t he relevant   legis l ati on .

(d )  U s e   o f   o p e n   s t a n d a r d s   a n d   o p e n   s o f t w a r e   —   T h e   u s e   o f 
o p e n   s t a n d a rd s   i s   co m m o n   a n d   m a ny   p ro j e c t s   co u l d   p ro -
d u c e   a n d   e x c h a n g e   d a t a   i n   v a r i o u s   o p e n   f o r m a t s .   O p e n 
s o f t w a re   i s   f re q u e n t l y   u s e d   a s   i t   a l l o w s   I T   c o n t r a c t o r s   t o 
offer a more competitive price. The systems examined were 
developed using a mix ture of commercial and open source 
so l ut io ns.

M O S T 	 P R O J E C T S 	 N OT 	 I N 	 L I N E 	W I T H 	 P L A N N I N G

37.  

T h e   C o u r t   e x a m i n e d   t h e   p r o j e c t   d o c u m e n t a t i o n   o f   a l l   2 8 
visited projec ts, assessing projec t progress compared to plan -
n i n g,   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   p ro c e d u re s   a n d   t h e   q u a l i t y   o f   p ro j e c t 
manag e ment.

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

25

38.  

The  vas t  m ajo r it y   of  aud ited  proj ec t s   de li ve re d  th ei r   out puts 
as   p l anned;  however,  82 %  (2 3)   were  n ot  implemented  in  l ine 
with the planning defined in the grant application (Figure 3). 
The  main reas ons for deviations  were  as  foll ows :

(a ) Planning and design  — As a consequence of inadequate or 
i m p re c i s e   p l a n n i n g,   i s s u e s   s u c h   a s   t h e   c l a r i f i c at i o n   o f   o b -
jec tive s  and  re sp on sib il it ies   or   t he   rec r ui tme nt  of   su pple -
mentar y staff, had to be dealt with during implementation.

(b) Procedural — Cer tain procedures were more time - consuming 
t h a n   f o r e s e e n   i n   t h e   o r i g i n a l   p l a n n i n g ,   m o s t   c o m m o n l y 
issues  related  to  procurement,  or  coordination. There  were 
a l s o   g e n e r a l   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   d e l a y s   l i n k e d   t o   b u r e a u c r a t i c 
procedures, the insufficient empowerment of projec t teams 
or legal issues.

F I G U R E 	 3

WA S 	T H E 	 P R O J E C T 	 D E L I V E R E D 	 O N 	T I M E ?

14 %

3 %

3 %

25 %

24 %

32 %

No, delay > 2 years

No, delay > 1 to 2 years

No, delay 6 to 12 months

No, delay < 6 months

Yes

Yes, ahead of schedule

0 %

5 %

10 %

15 % 20 % 25 % 30 % 35 %

Number of projects

Only	35	%	of	projects	were	completed	on	time,	and	17	%	were	delayed	by	more	than	one	year.

Source: European Court of Auditors’ survey.

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

26

(c) H um an reso u rce s — O f the s mall number of  pu blic  adm in -
istrations who decided to develop systems themselves, two 
l ack ed  st aff  exp er ienced  in  IT  p roj e c t  man age m ent  re s ult-
ing in projec t delays and a high tur nover of key personnel.

(d ) Exogenous — Fac tors having an impac t on deadlines which 
were no t co ntro l lab l e by proj ec t  ben e fi c iar ie s ( e.g.  beh av-
i o u r   o f   c o n t r a c t o r s   a n d   t h e i r   a b i l i t y   t o   d e l i v e r   p r o d u c t s , 
ch ang es  to t he nat ion al l e gal f ramewor k) .

39.  

The m ajo r it y o f del ays were of le ss  th an  on e  ye ar  an d did  n ot 
affec t projec t deliverables or mar kedly increase overall costs, 
a s   m o s t   c o n t r a c t s   i n c l u d e d   a   f i x e d - p r i c e   c l a u s e   w h i c h   p r o -
t e c t e d   a g a i n s t   c o s t   i n c re a s e s.   H owe ve r,   d e l ay s   o f   m o re   t h a n 
o n e   y e a r   c o m b i n e d   w i t h   t h e   n e e d   t o   f i n i s h   p r o j e c t s   b e f o r e 
the closure of the programme had an adverse impac t on three 
pro jec ts l eading  to  a red uc t ion  in  s cope  ( se e B ox  6) .   

40.   Of the 28 projects visited 10 (36 %) used a project management 
methodology. Results from the sur vey revealed that only 23 % 
of  p ro jec ts had  been  imp le mente d us in g  PM M pr in c iple s.  The 
C o u r t   f o u n d   t h a t   5 0  %   o f   v i s i t e d   p r o j e c t s   w h i c h   h a d   u s e d   a 
recognised PMM had been completed on time and 90 % within 
budget. In the 18 projec ts where PMM was not used, only 22 % 
we re o n t ime  and 5 6 % had  kept with in  budget. 

B O X 	 6

E X A M P L E 	 O F 	 S CO P E 	 R E D U C T I O N 	 R E S U LT I N G 	 F R O M 	 D E L AYS

Electronic	office	—	Online	procedures	in	the	Canary	Islands,	Spain

The rules for the 2000–06 programme period required all ERDF co-financed projects to be com-
pleted before the end of 2008. Due to poor planning, the project experienced a delay of five years, 
posing a risk that the ERDF grant would have to be returned. To avoid the loss of EU co-financing, 
the original scope of the project had to be significantly modified. Although they had intended to 
include over 50 procedures for electronic processing, the project managers decided to focus on the 
main two, accounting for approximately 75 % of the total number of files processed.

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

27

41.  

 I n   o n e   s u c h   c a s e,   i n s u f f i c i e n t   fo c u s   o n   o rg a n i s a t i o n a l   i s s u e s 
meant   that   t he  IT   system  th at  h ad  be en   d eve loped   could  n ot 
b e   u s e d .   T h e   c o n t r a c t s   n e c e s s a r y   f o r   o b t a i n i n g   t h e   d a t a   t o 
b e   i n p u t   to   t h e   s ys te m   h a d   n o t   b e e n   s i gn e d   i n   d u e   t i m e   a n d 
the re fo re a tec hn ical l y  op eratio na l s yste m was  re dun dant.

42.   A n o t h e r   f a c t o r   h a v i n g   a n   i m p a c t   o n   t h e   u s e   o f   s y s t e m s   r e -
s u l t i n g   f ro m   e - G ove r n m e n t   p ro j e c t s   w a s   t h e   co m m i t m e n t   o f 
management to exploit the new solutions and ser vices. These 
syste ms   of te n  o ffered  new   f un c t ion s  be yon d  th os e  t ra di tion -
a l l y   p r o v i d e d   b y   p u b l i c   a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s ,   s u c h   a s   e l e c t r o n i c 
t e n d e r i n g   o r   p e r s o n a l i s e d   u s e r   p r o f i l e s   f o r   m e m b e r s   o f   t h e 
public. Such features constitute the main added value of new 
e l e c t r o n i c   s y s t e m s   a n d   e n a b l e   t h e   m o d e r n i s a t i o n   o f   p u b l i c 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .   H o w e v e r   i n   s o m e   c a s e s   t h e   b e n e f i t s   a r i s i n g 
fro m new  technol o gy were un rea lis e d ( se e  B ox  7) . 

B O X 	 7

E X A M P L E 	 O F 	 U N U S E D 	 F U N C T I O N S 	 O F 	 I T 	 S YS T E M S

Internet	portal	of	the	Maritime	Office	in	Gdynia,	Poland

The computerised system was designed to provide online access to services for customers of the 
Maritime Office. The system offered a procurement module which made electronic tendering possible. 
A feasibility study estimated positive benefits from the use of electronic tendering and an objective 
of organising 30 online auctions per year was set but despite full system implementation by the time 
of the audit visit, no Internet auctions had taken place. 

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

28

A R E 	T H E 	 P R O J E C T S 	 U S E F U L 	 A N D 	 D U R A B L E ?

43.   M aintenance   of   an   I T  p roduc t  re fer s   to  th e  proce s se s  n e ed ed 
t o   s u s t a i n   i t   t h r o u g h o u t   i t s   o p e r a t i o n a l   l i f e   c y c l e   i n c l u d i n g 
training for key staff and ac tions necessar y to provide suppor t 
for us ers, su ch as th e provision  of  a h e lp - de sk . 

44.  

Fo r   t h i s   p a r t   o f   i t s   a u d i t   t h e   Co u r t   fo c u s e d   o n   t h e   fo l l o w i n g 
issu es :

(a)  Usefulness — The final project stage was examined, focusing 
o n   h o w   u s e f u l   t h e   p r o j e c t   o u t p u t s   w e r e ,   w i t h   a n   a s s e s s -
ment of the ac tual take -up of new ser vices and the related 
eco no mic b ene fits yiel de d by  t he   proj e c t.

(b)  M a i n t e n a n c e   —   A n   a s s e s s m e n t   o f   a p p r o p r i a t e   p r o j e c t 
m a i n t e n a n c e   i n   t h e   fo re s e e a b l e   f u t u r e   w i t h o u t   E U   i n t e r-
vention and an evaluation of the financial and operational 
s u s t a i n a b i l i t y   o f   p r o j e c t s ,   t a k i n g   m a i n t e n a n c e   i n t o   a c -
co unt.

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

29

E X P E C T E D 	 A D VA N TAG E S 	 PA R T I A L LY 	 AC H I E V E D

45.   A l m o s t   a l l   a u d i te d   p ro j e c t s 1 8  we re   p u t   i n to   o p e ra t i o n   s h o r t l y 
after completion, replacing and digitising many existing intern-
a l   p r o c e d u r e s .   D e s p i t e   t h e   f a c t   t h a t   o u t p u t s   w e r e   a c h i e v e d 
projec ts were less successful at delivering improved results or 
positive impac ts (Figure 4).

18  The only exception were two 
cases where due to coordination 

issues and lack of project 

ownership the use of systems 

was indefinitely postponed or 

completely abandoned.

F I G U R E 	 4

H AV E 	 A L L 	 P R O J E C T 	 O B J E C T I V E S 	 P R E S E N T E D 	 I N 	T H E 	 A P P L I C AT I O N	 	
B E E N 	 AC H I E V E D ?

j

s
t
c
e
o
r
p
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

100 %

90 %

80 %

70 %

60 %

50 %

40 %

30 %

20 %

10 %

0 %

3 %
2 %
7 %

88 %

6 %

11 %

23 %

60 %

Output 

(e.g. number of servers, 
software installed, etc.)

Result 

increased efficiency, higher 
(e.g. time savings,
service quality, cost reduction,

etc.)

N/A

Too early to say

No

Partially

Yes

31 %

18 %

4 %

16 %

31 %

Impact 

(e.g. higher competitiveness, 
job creation, more investments, etc.)

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

In	general	objec tives	linked	to	outpu ts 	were	me t,	b ut 	t here 	wa s	l es s	s ucces s	w i th	reg ard	to	
results	and	especially	imp ac t	objec ti ve s.

Source: European Court of Auditors’ survey.

 
 
 
 
  
	 	
 
 
30

46.  

I t   i s   c l e a r   t h at   t h e re   i s   i nte re s t   w i t h i n   p u b l i c   a d m i n i s t rat i o n s 
for the development of e - Government ser vices but the take -up 
o n   t h e   p a r t   o f   b u s i n e s s   o r   t h e   g e n e r a l   p u b l i c   h a s   r e m a i n e d 
below the estimates contained in the projec t applications. The 
Co u r t   c o n s i d e r s   t h a t   t h e r e   a r e   a   n u m b e r   o f   r e a s o n s   c i t e d   b y 
projec t promoters when inter viewed which could explain this:

(a )  E l e c t r o n i c   i d e n t i f i c a t i o n   —   M o s t   s e r v i c e s   c a r r i e d   o u t   b y 
p u b l i c   a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s   re q u i r e   i d e n t i f i c a t i o n .   Fo r   d i g i t a l 
se r v ice s el ec t ron ic id enti fic at ion  i s n or ma ll y re qui re d but 
i t s   l e ve l   o f   u s e   v a r i e s   f ro m   co u n t r y   to   co u n t r y.   I n   ce r t a i n 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   s u c h   a s   S p a i n ,   t h e   e l e c t ro n i c   s i g n a t u re   i s 
e m b e d d e d   i n   t h e   n a t i o n a l   i d e n t i f i c a t i o n   c a r d ,   t h e r e f o r e 
access to identification card readers can become a bar r ier 
to its use. Whereas in Poland, for example, the e -signature 
is sold as a separate cer tificate and therefore cost can limit 
acces s  to  digital  ser vices.

(b)  Legal framework — Paper-based transactions are embedded 
i n   o u r   c u l t u re   o f   a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .  T h e re   a re   s t i l l   e xe c u t i ve 
r e g u l a t i o n s   r e q u i r i n g   t h e   p r e s e n t a t i o n   o f   o r i g i n a l   p a p e r 
documents, mak ing impossible the full elec tronic handling 
o f   a p p l i c a t i o n s   a n d   l e s s e n i n g   t h e   p o te n t i a l   b e n e f i t s   f ro m 
elec tronic communication.

(c)  Ac c e s s   —   A l t h o u g h   n o t   a   p ro b l e m   i n   s o m e   c o u n t r i e s   a n d 
in urban areas, lack of access to computers and broadband 
net wor ks  still  impac ts  on  ser vice  take -up.  Computer  liter -
ac y can also be a problem affec ting demand for elec tronic 
ser vices.

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

31

47.   Acco rding  to  th e p rojec t p ro moter s  i nte r v ie we d, t he  be ne f it s 
are  p ar t icul ar l y  n oticeab l e  in  orga ni sati ons   wh ere  IT   sys te ms 
r e p l a c e d   a   s i g n i f i c a n t   p a r t   o f   t h e i r   s t a n d a r d   p r o c e s s e s   a n d 
w h e r e   t h e y   a r e   u s e d   b y   t h e   m a j o r i t y   o f   o p e r a t i o n a l   d e p a r t -
ments. The b enef it s  stated were  th e  followi n g  (Fi gu re  5) :

(a )  Simplification of procedures — IT systems allow for single -
access or contac t points where requests are automatically 
direc ted to the appropr iate personnel within an organisa -
t i o n   a n d   t h i s   m a k e s   a c c e s s   m o r e   s t r a i g h t fo r w a r d   fo r   t h e 
en d-us er.

(b)  B e t te r   c a s e   m o n i to r i n g  —   M o re   s o p h i s t i c ate d   b a c k   o f f i ce 
s y s t e m s   a r e   a   p o w e r f u l   m o n i t o r i n g   t o o l   f o r   p u b l i c   b o d -
ies.  B et ter  info r mation  about   wor k loads   a nd  avai lable   re -
so u rces  al lows  fo r  mo re  acc urate  plann ing   an d  be t ter   use 
o f hu ma n reso u rces. 

(c)  Time savings — Access to centralised files and digital docu-
m e n t s   a l l ows   q u i c k e r   re s p o n s e   t i m e s   a n d   e l i m i n a te s   t i m e 
lag linked to document circulation. I t also facilitates access 
to both cur rent and archived files (see B ox 8).

(d )  New channels of communication — The Internet and e -mail 
provided new channels of communication for the exchange 
o f   i n fo r m a t i o n   a n d   a l l o we d   t h e   p u b l i c   t o   a c c e s s   s e r v i c e s 
in a m o re co nve nient  and us er-f r ie ndl y  way.

B O X 	 8

E X A M P L E 	 O F 	 E F F I C I E N C Y 	 G A I N S

Land	information	system	for	the	city	of	Łódź	—	Phase	V,	Poland

This project consisted of the building of a modern portal and system of databases of geographical 
information, to provide online land and property information on the city of Łódź.

According to calculations made by management, the project has resulted in a considerable increase 
in efficiency (20 % to 52 %, across the various departments), estimated at having a value of ap-
proximately 4,5 million PLN in 2009 (ca. 1,1 million euro). This was in excess of the 3,2 million PLN  
(ca. 0,8 million euro) estimated in the Feasibility Study for 2009.

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

32

48.   Howe ver t he Co u r t  co ns idered t h at in  g e n eral in s uf f ic ie nt at-
t e n t i o n   h a d   b e e n   p a i d   t o   p o s s i b l e   p r o j e c t   b e n e f i t s   a n d   t h e 
a d v a n t a g e s   o f f e r e d   b y   a d v a n c e d   t e c h n o l o g y   w e r e   n o t   f u l l y 
exp l oited. I n one I t alian p roj ec t,  th e  sof t ware  de velope d wa s 
u s e d   fo r   i n t e r n a l   a d m i n i s t r a t i ve   p u r p o s e s   o n l y   a l t h o u g h   t h e 
planned objec tive of the projec t was to ex tend the elec tronic 
s e r v i ce   to   t h e   e n d - u s e r.   M o re ove r,   ce r t a i n   p ro j e c t s   v i s i te d   i n 
Fr a n c e   a n d   Po l a n d   k e p t   p a p e r - b a s e d   p r o c e s s e s   r u n n i n g   i n 
p a r a l l e l   w i t h   I T   wo r k f l ow   s y s te m s   w i t h   n o   d e f i n e d   e n d- d a te, 
lea ding  to  dup lic atio n and  reduc i n g th e  pote nt ia l be ne f it s of 
the  IT  de ve lo p ment.

F I G U R E 	 5

80%

60%

40%

20%

j

s
t
c
e
o
r
p
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

W H AT 	W E R E 	T H E 	 B E N E F I T S 	 F R O M 	T H E 	 P R O J E C T 	 A N D 	 F O R 	W H O M ?

%
6
6

%
3
6

%
3
8

%
2
7

%
3
5

%
3
7

%
9
4

%
8
7

%
4
8

%
2
5

%
9
7

%
1
7

%
4
7

%
5
5

%
8
1

%
4

%
7
1

%
2
1

%
8

%
7

%
9
1

%
1
8

%
2
1

%
4

Your organisation

End-users of your services

No benefits

0%

Simplified procedures

Better case monitoring
Time saved
and transparancy

Increased efficiency
Easy access to services
of administration

Increased service quality

offered

New services offered

New channels of
communication

In the opinion of project managers, the projects delivered a wide range of benefits for users.

Source: European Court of Auditors’ survey.

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
33

49.   G l o b a l l y   i n   t h e   a b s e n c e   o f   p r o j e c t   m o n i t o r i n g   o r   m e a s u r e -
m e n t   o f   t h e   a c t u a l   b e n e f i t s ,   i t   i s   n o t   p o s s i b l e   t o   d e t e r m i n e 
t o   w h a t   e x t e n t   n e w   s e r v i c e s   i n c r e a s e d   t h e   q u a l i t y   o f   p u b -
l i c   a d m i n i s t ra t i o n .  Th e re   w a s   o n l y   o n e   p ro j e c t   i n   t h e   s a m p l e 
which could quantify the tangible benefits resulting from the 
a i d   g r a n t e d .   Wi t h o u t   s u c h   m e a s u r e m e n t ,   v a l u a b l e   fe e d b a c k 
k n o w l e d g e   i s   n o t   b e i n g   b u i l t   u p   a n d   t h e   e x p e r i e n c e   g a i n e d 
f r o m   t h e s e   p r o j e c t s ,   w h i c h   c o u l d   l e a d   t o   b e t t e r   p l a n n i n g   o f 
fut u re  p roj ec t s, is  b ein g l os t.

I N 	 M O S T 	 C A S E S 	 P R O J E C T 	 M A I N T E N A N C E 	WA S 	 A S S U R E D

50.  

 A   s i g n i f i c a n t   m a j o r i t y   o f   t h e   p r o j e c t s   e n s u r e d   p r o p e r   t e c h -
ni cal  and o rganis atio nal  (e.g.  he lp - de sk )  m ainte nan ce  for  th e 
systems developed. Usually maintenance and upgrading were 
c a r r i e d   o u t   by   co nt ra c to r s   d u r i n g   t h e   wa r ra nt y   p e r i o d   w h i c h 
lasted from one to three years. After this period, the IT systems 
we re   s u p e r v i s e d   b y   i n - h o u s e   I T   D e p a r t m e n t s   o r   t h e   m a i n t e -
nance was outsourced, depending on the availability of IT staff 
i n - h o u s e.  T h e   re s u l t   o f   t h e   s u r ve y   p rov i d e s   a   s i m i l a r   v i e w   t o 
that  fro m the  p roj ec ts visited (Fi gu re  6) .

F I G U R E 	 6

I S 	 A 	 M A I N T E N A N C E 	 CO N T R AC T 	 I N 	 P L AC E 	 F O R 	YO U R 	 I T 	 P R O D U C T ?

7 % 7 %

19 %

25 %

42 %

The product is under guarantee

Yes, the contract is/will be signed

No, the maintenance is ensured by
internal IT specialist(s)
No, we see no need

No, other reasons

The maintenance for 86 % of the projects was assured by internal IT Departments or outsourced experts.

Source: European Court of Auditors’ survey.

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

 
 
34

51.  

 Where planning of the full projec t life c ycle was included in a 
‘Co st  bene fit  anal ysis’,  maintenan ce costs  were budge ted  for. 
I n   t h o s e   c a s e s   t h e r e   w a s   l i t t l e   r i s k   f o r   p r o j e c t   c o n t i n u i t y   a s 
beneficiaries had anticipated the resources required. However 
i n   t h re e   c a s e s,   u n d e re s t i m a t i o n   o f   m a i n t e n a n c e   co s t s   p o s e d 
a   r i s k   t o   p r o j e c t s   b e i n g   p u t   i n t o   u s e   o r   c o n t i n u i n g .   Fa i l u r e 
to  fa c tor   in  m aintenan ce  cost s  me ant  th at   be n ef i c iar ie s  we re 
unable to finance operational costs in whole or in par t and in 
o n e   c a s e,   c a u s e d   t h e   p ro j e c t   to   s h u td ow n   a f te r   t h e   wa r ra nt y 
pe r io d (s ee B ox   9).

B O X 	 9

I M PAC T 	 O F 	 M A I N T E N A N C E 	 CO S T S 	 O N 	 P R O J E C T 	 S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y

e -Government:	 centre	 for	 services	 to	 citizens	 and	 businesses	 and	 infrastructure	 services		
in	Sicily,	Italy

The aim of the project was to establish a technological infrastructure, shared by 57 participating  
bodies,  and  to  implement  a  number  of  IT  applications  for  the  joint  management  of  a  raft  of  
e-Government services. 

The system was developed and became operational in April 2007. As the maintenance costs and its 
allocation between the participating bodies had not been foreseen at the planning stage, in May 
2008, the application was shut down.

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

 
CONCLUSIONS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS

35

52.  

53.  

T h e   C o u r t   c o n c l u d e d   t h a t   t h e   e - G o v e r n m e n t   p r o j e c t s   s u p -
p o r te d   by   t h e   E R D F   h ave   co nt r i b u te d   to   t h e   d e ve l o p m e nt   o f 
elec tronic public ser vices in the four selec ted M ember States. 
H o w e v e r,   d e s p i t e   t h e   f a c t   t h a t   t h e   m a j o r i t y   o f   p r o j e c t s   a r e 
te c h n i c a l l y   o p e r a t i o n a l,   i n s u f f i c i e n t   fo c u s   o n   p ro j e c t   re s u l t s 
h a s   m e a n t   t h a t   t h e   b e n e f i t s   o b t a i n e d   we re   m u c h   l owe r   t h a n 
exp ec te d.

The recommendations below have relevance for the European 
C o m m i s s i o n   a s   r e s p o n s i b l e   fo r   t h e   e xe c u t i o n   o f   t h e   b u d g e t 
a n d   f o r   t h e   a p p l i c a t i o n   o f   t h e   p r i n c i p l e   o f   s o u n d   f i n a n c i a l 
m a n a g e m e n t   a n d   M e m b e r   S t a t e s ’  m a n a g i n g   a u t h o r i t i e s   i n 
t h e   c o n t e x t   o f   e - G o v e r n m e n t   a c t i o n s   f o r   t h e   r e m a i n d e r   o f 
t h e   2 0 0 7 – 1 3   p ro gr a m m e   p e r i o d   a n d   fo r   t h e   d e s i gn   o f   f u t u re 
e - G over n ment o r simil ar  sc hemes.

54.  

The Cour t ’s conclusions and recommendations related to each 
of  the  audit  sub qu est io ns  are as  follows:

H AV E 	T H E 	 CO - F I N A N C E D 	 P R O J E C T S 	 B E E N	
S E L E C T E D 	 ACCO R D I N G 	TO 	 A S S E S S E D 	 N E E D S ?

55.   D e sp ite t he fac t  that  e - G over nm ent programmi n g at n ati on al 
level  gradual ly  imp roved du r ing  t h e 2 0 0 0–0 6 programme pe -
riod, weak nesses in early strategies meant that the co -funded 
p r o j e c t s   d i d   n o t   f o c u s   o n   a d d r e s s i n g   p r i o r i t y   n e e d s   f o r 
e - G ove r nment  d evel o p ment.

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

36

56.  

This  is mainly  due to t he fol lowi n g:

(a )  Early e - Government strategies were prepared mainly in re -
sponse to political declarations instead of a rigorous needs 
assessment. As a result strategies and their objectives were 
u n a b l e   t o   a d d re s s   t h e   m o s t   i m p o r t a n t   a n d   u r g e n t   i s s u e s 
which could unlock and boost e - Government development 
(s ee p aragraph  20 ).

(b)  When p rojec t s were p reselec te d ce nt rally, t he re  was l it tle 
or no evaluation of the costs or benefits of projects or their 
p o tential  im pac ts  and results  ( se e  paragraph  2 5 ) .

(c)  I n cases where insufficient consideration was given to the 
capacit y of projec t teams, in ter ms of sk ills and resources, 
to deliver e - Government systems as planned, this resulted 
in s ignific ant  scop e red uc t ions  (s e e paragra ph  26 ).

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N 	 1

(a)  M e m b e r   S t a t e s   s h o u l d   d e v e l o p   s t r a t e g i e s   f o r   e - G o v -
e r nm e nt , w hi ch are b as e d up o n  i d e nti f i e d n e e ds ,  have 
c l e a r   o b j e c t i v e s   a n d   a s s i g n   r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s   t o   t h e 
b o d i e s   a c c o u n t a b l e   f o r   t h e   a c h i e v e m e n t   o f   t h e s e   o b -
j e c ti ve s .

(b)   M a n a g i n g   a u t h o r i t i e s   s h o u l d   s e l e c t   e - G o v e r n m e n t 
projec ts for ERDF supp or t on the basis of an assessment 
o f like l y  p roj e c t cos t s an d b e n e f i t s .

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

37

57.  

58.  

W E R E 	 P R O J E C T S 	W E L L 	 D E S I G N E D 	 A N D	
D E L I V E R E D 	 A S 	 P L A N N E D ?

The p ro jec t s au dited  ac hieved re sult s in  t h e are as of i n cre as-
i n g   t h e   a v a i l a b i l i t y   o f   e l e c t r o n i c   p u b l i c   s e r v i c e s   a n d   i n   t h e 
deve lo p ment o f tec hnical  mean s  wit h in  publi c  auth or i ti es.   

 Projec t outputs, although generally delivered, were of ten de -
livered late or with a reduc tion in scope due to poor design or 
la ck  o f  an  implem entation   meth odol ogy.  Th e   mai n   ide nti fi ed 
syste mic p ro bl e ms were as follows :

(a )  M o s t   p r o j e c t   p r o m o t e r s   f a i l e d   t o   i d e n t i f y   a n d   q u a n t i f y 
projec t benefits and as a result objec tives were mainly set 
in ter ms of outputs. I n consequence, projec t benefits (see 
p a r a g r a p h   3 2 )   w e r e   r a r e l y   c o m p l e t e l y   a c h i e v e d   a n d   t h e 
possibilities given by new technologies were not exploited 
to  the  f ul l.  This redu ced the  pote nt ia l ben efi ts  of  proje c t s 
fo r   e n d - u s e r s   ( s e e   p a ra gr a p h   4 6 ) .   O rg a n i s a t i o n a l   a n d   a d-
m i n i s t r a t i v e   i s s u e s ,   w h e n   a d d r e s s e d ,   p r o v e d   m o r e   d i f -
f i c u l t   t o   re s o l ve   t h a n   t e c h n i c a l   p ro b l e m s   ( s e e   p a r a g r a p h 
33 an d 34).

(b)  I n  many c ases, t he l ack  of a proj ec t man a ge ment me th od-
o lo g y in additio n to  in adequate plan n in g  i mpac te d n eg a -
tively on projec t implementation, causing delays or scope 
modifications. Visited projec ts which used PMM per formed 
better in terms of being completed on time and on budget 
(s ee p aragraph  40 ).

(c)  M o s t   o f   t h e   E I F   p r i n c i p l e s   we re   we l l   a d d re s s e d   i n   t h e   d e -
s i g n   o f   p ro j e c t s,   h o we ve r   c o n s i d e r a t i o n   s h o u l d   b e   g i ve n 
t o   t h e   p r o v i s i o n   o f   s e r v i c e s   i n   m o r e   t h a n   o n e   l a n g u a g e 
w h e n   t h i s   i s   o f   a s s i s t a n c e   t o   s i gn i f i c a n t   u s e r   gro u p s   ( s e e 
p ara grap h 36).

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

38

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N 	 2

(a)  M ana gin g au th o r i ti e s  in  M e m b e r  St ate s  sh o ul d  e nsure 
t h a t   e - G o v e r n m e n t   p r o j e c t s   s e l e c t e d   f o r   E R D F   f u n d -
i n g   f o cus   n ot   o n l y   o n   p roj e c t   o u t p u t s   b u t   a ls o   o n   th e 
changes in processes or organisation necessar y to fully 
b e n e f i t  f ro m th e s y s te ms d eve l o p e d . 

(b)   M a n a g i n g   a u t h o r i t i e s   s h o u l d   e m p h a s is e   t h e   p r a c t i c a l 
a p p l i c at i o n   o f   b e s t   p r a c t i ce   a n d   s t r o n g l y   r e co m m e n d 
t h e   us e   o f   a n   a p p ro p r iate   p r oj e c t   m a n a g e m e nt   m e th -
o d o l o g y f o r  e - G ove r nm e nt  p roj e c t s  in re ce ip t o f  ER D F 
f u n din g . 

(c)  T h e   Co m m issi o n   s h o u l d   e nsu r e   t h at   t h e   EU   p r i n c i p l e s 
an d  re co m m e n d ati o ns   e n a b lin g   tr ans- Euro p e a n   inte r-
o p e r a b i l i t y,   i n   p a r t i c u l a r   t h e   E I F   p r i n c i p l e s ,   a r e   c o n -
si d e re d by p roj e c t s b e n e f itin g f ro m th e ER D F, in o rd e r 
to in creas e th e Euro p ean a d d e d v alu e of a p roj e c t an d 
f a cili t ate f ur th e r EU - w i d e  s y s te ms  inte g r ati o n .

A R E 	T H E 	 P R O J E C T S 	 U S E F U L 	 A N D 	 D U R A B L E ?

59.   M o st  o f t he p ro jec t s aud ited were  te ch n ologic al ly  soun d an d 
the IT applications developed provided elec tronic ser vices to 
public bodies, citizens and businesses. I n general, the systems 
co -fina nced  by  th e  ER DF,  were  a ppropr i ately   ma intai ne d  an d 
financ ial l y s ust ain ab le. 

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

39

60.   H o w e v e r,   m a n y   p r o j e c t s   d i d   n o t   d e l i v e r   a l l   o f   t h e   e x p e c t e d 
benefits to end-users and indeed the quantification of results, 
in any precise way, was usually not possible. This situation was 
mainl y d ue to  th e fol l ow ing :

(a )  Organisations rarely reconfigured their processes or struc -
t ures   to   t ake  o p timu m  advantage   o f  th e  poss i bilit ie s   cre -
a t e d   b y   t h e   n e w   s y s t e m s .   I n   s o m e   c a s e s   e x t r a   w o r k   w a s 
c r e a t e d   b y   r u n n i n g   p a p e r   a n d   e l e c t r o n i c   v e r s i o n s   o f   t h e 
sa me p ro ces s in p aral l el  ( see paragra ph  48 ).

(b)  U n d e r e s t i m a t i o n   o f   m a i n t e n a n c e   c o s t s   o r   t h e   f a i l u r e   t o 
t a k e   t h e m   i n t o   a c c o u n t   a t   a l l   p u t   a   f i n a n c i a l   s t r a i n   o n 
projec ts and in three cases posed a r isk to their continued 
o p erat io n (see p aragrap h 5 1) .

(c)  T h e r e   w a s   l i t t l e   o r   n o   p r o j e c t   f o l l o w - u p   p r o v i d i n g   m a n -
a g e m e n t   i n fo r m a t i o n   r e l a t e d   t o   p r o j e c t   r e s u l t s .  T h e   l a c k 
o f   s u c h   d at a   m a k e s   p ro p e r   p ro j e c t   e va l u at i o n   i m p o s s i b l e 
a n d   p r e v e n t s   t h e   a c c u m u l a t i o n   o f   e x p e r i e n c e   w h i c h   c a n 
l e a d   to   b e t te r   e - G ove r n m e nt   p ro j e c t   d e s i gn   i n   t h e   f u t u re 
(s ee p aragraph  49 ).

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N 	 3

(a)  W h e n   s e l e c t i n g   e - G o v e r n m e n t   p r o j e c t s ,   m a n a g i n g 
 au th o r i ti e s sh o ul d e nsure that all si g ni f i c ant cos t s , in -
c l u d i n g   m a i nte n a n ce   h ave   b e e n   su f f i c i e nt l y   p r ov i d e d 
f o r in th e cos t- b e n e f i t anal y sis w hi ch sh o ul d un d e r p in 
th e  f in an cin g d e cisi o n . 

(b)   T h e  Co m m issi o n  sh o ul d e nsure th at m ana gin g  au th o r-
i ti es m o ni to r an d ev aluate p roj e c t re sul t s an d imp a c t s 
in order to demonstrate the ef fec tive use of EU funding 
and provide imp or tant fe e dback to improve the design 
o f f u tu re  p ro g r amm e s . 

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

40

This repor t was adopted by Chamber II, headed by M r M or ten 
L E V YS O H N ,   M e m b e r   o f   t h e   Co u r t   o f   Au d i to r s,   i n   Lu xe m b o u rg 
at  its  me eting  o f 13  J ul y 2011 .

Fo r  th e  Co u r t  o f  Audi to rs

Víto r  M anue l  da  S I LVA   C A L D E I R A
Presi de nt

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

 
4141

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

I I.	
T h e   p r o j e c t s   e x a m i n e d   b y   t h e   Co u r t   w e r e 
s e l e c t e d   f o r   f u n d i n g   b y   t h e   m a n a g i n g 
a u t h o r i t i e s   i n   t h e   f o u r   M e m b e r   S t a t e s 
c o n c e r n e d .  T h e   2 8   p r o j e c t s   v i s i t e d   r e p r e -
s e n t   1 , 9  %   o f   t o t a l   E R D F   a l l o c a t e d   t o   I C T 
p r o j e c t s   o v e r a l l   a n d   4 , 2  %   o f   I C T   a l l o c a -
t i o n s   r e p o r t e d   i n   t h e   fo u r   M e m b e r   S t a t e s 
c o n c e r n e d .   Fu r t h e r m o r e,   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n 
would like to point out that e - G over nment 
a c t i o n s   r e c e i v e   f i n a n c i a l   s u p p o r t   f r o m 
o t h e r   E U   p ro g r a m m e s,   s u c h   a s   f r a m e wo r k 
p r o g r a m m e s   f o r   r e s e a r c h   a n d   d e v e l o p -
ment.

I V.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   C o u r t ’s 
a s s e s s m e n t   t h a t   e - G o v e r n m e n t   p r o j e c t s 
s u p p o r t e d   b y   t h e   E R D F   h a v e   c o n t r i b u t e d 
t o   t h e   d e v e l o p m e n t   o f   e l e c t r o n i c   p u b l i c 
ser vices. 

T h e   d e ve l o p m e n t   o f   e - G o ve r n m e n t   a p p l i -
c a t i o n s   fo l l owe d   e a r l i e r   e f fo r t s   t o   u s e   I C T 
by pr ivate enter pr ises. The pr ivate sec tor ’s 
e f fo r t s   a l s o   s u f fe re d   d i f f i c u l t i e s   i n   a c h i e v-
i n g   t h e   i nte n d e d   b e n e f i t s.   S u c h   s h o r tco m-
i n g s   a r e   n o t   u n u s u a l   w h e n   m a j o r   i n n o v -
at ion s are bein g int roduced. 

H o w e v e r,   l o o k i n g   a t   t h e   m a x i m i s a t i o n   o f 
benefits from early e - G overnment projec ts, 
t h e r e   i s   t o d a y   a   w e l l   a d v a n c e d   l e v e l   o f 
p u b l i c   e S e r v i c e s   a v a i l a b l e   i n   t h e   M e m b e r 
States.

EXECUTIVE	SUMMARY

I.
E - G o v e r n m e n t   p r a c t i c e s   a n d   a p p l i c a t i o n s 
h ave   d e ve l o p e d   r a p i d l y   ove r   t h e   l a s t   d e c -
a d e   a s   t h e   u n d e r s t a n d i n g   o f   i t s   r a p i d l y 
c h a n g i n g   p o t e n t i a l   a n d   r a p i d   c h a n g e s   i n 
s u p p o r t i n g   t e c h n o l o g i e s   h a v e   b e e n   p r o -
g r e s s i v e l y   u n d e r s t o o d   b y   p u b l i c   a u t h o r -
ities  acro ss Euro p e.

I n   t h e   y e a r s   2 0 0 0 – 0 5 ,   e - G o v e r n m e n t 
w a s   m a i n l y   a b o u t   b a c k   o f f i c e   a u t o m a -
t i o n   i n   t r a n s a c t i o n a l   s e r v i c e s .   To d a y   i t   i s 
s t i l l   a b o u t   e f f i c i e n c y,   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   b u r -
d e n   r e d u c t i o n ,   a n d   b e t t e r   p u b l i c   s e r -
vices, but the emphasis is shif ting towards 
user- dr iven  pu b l ic  s er vices   w hic h   e nh ance 
t r a n s p a r e n c y,   p a r t i c i p a t i o n   a n d   a c c o u n t -
abilit y.

Al l   M e m b e r   St ate s   h ave   n ow   co m m i t te d   to 
a m b i t i o u s   o b j e c t i ve s   s e t   o u t   i n   t h e   e - G ov-
e r n m e n t   Ac t i o n   P l a n   2 0 1 1 – 1 5 1,   n a m e l y   by 
2 0 1 5 ,   5 0  %   o f   E U   c i t i z e n s   a n d   8 0  %   o f   E U 
e n t e r p r i s e s   w i l l   h a v e   u s e d   e - G o v e r n m e n t 
s e r v i c e s ,   w h i l e   a   n u m b e r   o f   k e y   c r o s s -
b o r d e r   s e r v i c e s   w i l l   b e   a v a i l a b l e   o n l i n e , 
e n a b l i n g   c i t i z e n s   m o b i l i t y   a n d   b u s i n e s s 
t o   b e n e f i t   f ro m   t h e   i n t e r n a l   m a r k e t .   S o l i d 
c o m m i t m e n t   b y   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o   c r o s s -
b o r d e r   s e r v i c e s   h a s   i n   t u r n   n e w   i m p l i -
c a t i o n s   o n   t h e   w a y   e - G o v e r n m e n t   E R D F 
projec t s wil l be  s el ec ted in the  f ut u re.

1  Council Conclusions of 27 May 2011 adopting the 

Communication COM(2010) 743 final ‘The European 

e-Government Action Plan 2011–15 Harnessing ICT 

to promote smart, sustainable & innovative Government’.

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

V.	(a)
Ce r t a i n   d e l ays   o r   u n ce r t a i n t i e s   i n   t h e   s e t -
ting of pr ior ities are not unusual in an area 
u n d e rg o i n g   ra p i d   d e ve l o p m e n t .  Th e   Co m -
m i s s i o n   r e c o g n i s e s   i n i t i a l   w e a k n e s s e s   a t 
n a t i o n a l   l e v e l   t o   d r a f t   c o h e r e n t   a n d   t a r -
g e t e d   s t r a t e g i e s.  Th i s   d o e s   n o t   m e a n   t h a t 
all  the  pro jec t s  did  no t  address   an  i mpo r t-
a n t   n e e d   b u t   r a t h e r   t h a t   t h e re   we re   we a k 
m e c h a n i s m s   t o   p r i o r i t i s e   p r o j e c t s   a n d 
therefore it is difficult to establish that the 
projec t s were  in deed the mos t i mp or t ant.

To d a y,   a l l   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   h a ve   d e ve l o p e d 
m o r e   s o p h i s t i c a t e d   e - G o v e r n m e n t   s t r a t -
e gi e s,   a s   d e m o n s t rate d   t h ro u g h   t h e i r   p a r-
t i c i p at i o n   i n   t h e   e - G ove r n m e nt   H i g h   Le ve l 
G r o u p   j u s t   e s t a b l i s h e d   b y   t h e   E u r o p e a n 
C o m m i s s i o n   a s   a   m e a n s   o f   j o i n t   g o v e r n -
a n ce   ( Eu ro p e a n   Co m m i s s i o n   w i t h   M e m b e r 
S t a t e s )   o f   t h e   e - G o v e r n m e n t   A c t i o n   P l a n 
2011–15.

V.	(b)
T h e s e   we re   i n d e e d   we a k n e s s e s   i d e n t i f i e d 
in t he   years 2000– 05 . 

K e e p i n g   u p   w i t h   t e c h n o l o g i c a l   c h a n g e s 
was and continues to be a major challenge 
i n   t e r m s   o f   a n t i c i p a t i n g   n e e d s   a n d   m a i n -
ta ining stab le se r vices. 

V.	(c)
The Commission welcomes the Cour t ’s con -
c l u s i o n   t h a t   m o s t   a u d i t e d   p r o j e c t s   w e r e 
t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y   s o u n d   a n d   d e v e l o p e d   I T 
a p p l i c at i o n s   p rov i d i n g   e l e c t ro n i c   s e r v i ce s 
to public b odie s,  b us iness es and   c i ti ze n s.   

42

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

Although measurement of projec t benefits 
m a y   n o t   h a v e   b e e n   f u l l y   i n   p l a c e   a t   t h e 
p e r i o d   o f   t h e   a u d i t e d   p r o j e c t s ,   t h e   C o m -
m i s s i o n   n o t e s   i n   a   m o re   g e n e r a l   p e r s p e c -
t i v e   t h a t   u n d e r   t h e   e - G o v e r n m e n t   A c t i o n 
P l a n   2 0 0 6 – 1 0   s i g n i f i c a n t   w o r k   w a s   d o n e 
o n   t h e   e f f e c t i v e n e s s   a n d   e f f i c i e n c y   g a i n s 
a c h i e ve d   f ro m   e - G ove r n m e nt   s e r v i ce s.   Fo r 
e x a m p l e ,   p u b l i c   e - P r o c u r e m e n t   p r o j e c t s 
were launched in almost all M ember States 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s   b e c a u s e   t h e y   h a d   t h e 
p o t e n t i a l   t o   s a v e   b i l l i o n s   o f   e u r o   i n   t h e 
E U’s public sec tor. 

V I.	 (a)
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   o n   t h e   n e e d   f o r 
c o m p r e h e n s i v e   e - G o v e r n m e n t   s t r a t -
e g i e s   a n d   c a n   c o n f i r m   t h a t   n o w   a l l   M e m -
b e r   S t a te s   h ave   m o re   m a t u re   s t ra te gi e s   i n 
p l a ce.   H owe ve r,   s u c h   a   p ro ce s s   t a k e s   t i m e 
and the cost of migrating to e - G over nment 
is h uge. Pr ior ities are needed an d  it  i s rea-
s o n a b l e   t h a t   t h e y   we re   p rov i d e d   by   p o l i t -
i c a l   s t a t e m e n t s   a n d   d e c l a r a t i o n s ,   w h i c h 
s e r v e d   a s   e a r l y   s t r a t e g i e s.   Pr i o r i t i e s   w e r e 
b a s e d   o n   t h e   k n o w l e d g e   a n d   a v a i l a b i l i t y 
o f   m at u re   te c h n o l o g y   o f   t h e   t i m e.   Pr i o r i t y 
s e t t i n g   h a s   i m p r o v e d   s i g n i f i c a n t l y   i n   t h e 
inter im. 

V I.	 (b)
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   s u p p o r t s   t h e   Co u r t ’s   re c -
o m m e n d a t i o n   t h a t   s e l e c t i o n   s h o u l d   b e 
o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   a n   a s s e s s m e n t   o f   l i k e l y 
p ro j e c t   c o s t s   a n d   b e n e f i t s,   w h e re   q u a n t i -
f i c a t i o n   i s   f e a s i b l e   o r   m e a n i n g f u l .   I t   w i l l 
c o n t i n u e   t o   e n c o u r a g e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o 
a s s e s s   p ro j e c t s   o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   l i k e l y   co s t s 
a n d   b e n e f i t s .   B o t h   q u a l i t a t i v e   a n d   q u a n -
t i t a t i v e   b e n e f i t s   s h o u l d   b e   c o n s i d e r e d 
( e. g.   t r a n s p a re n c y   a n d   a c c o u n t a b i l i t y   i s   a 
m a j o r   a c h i e v e m e n t   o f   o p e n   g o v e r n m e n t 
projec ts).

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

 
4343

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

V I.	 (f )
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   t h a t   t h e   r e c o m -
m e n d a t i o n   to   co n s i d e r   a l l   s i gn i f i c a n t   co s t 
w h e n   a s s e s s i n g   i nve s t m e nt   d e c i s i o n s   re p -
r e s e n t s   g o o d   p r a c t i c e   a n d   w o u l d   s u p p o r t 
th e developm ent  of sus tain able   proj e c ts.   

I n   2 0 0 2   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   p ro d u ce d   a   g u i d e 
to cost benefit analysis for Struc tural Funds 
m a n a g i n g   a u t h o r i t i e s ,   w h i c h   h a s   s i n c e 
b e e n   re v i s e d   i n   2 0 0 8   ( ht t p : / / e c. e u ro p a . e u /
re gi o n a l _ p o l i c y / s o u rce s / d o c g e n e r / g u i d e s /
c o s t / g u i d e 2 0 0 8 _ e n . p d f ) .   U n d e r   C o u n c i l 
R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   1 2 6 0 / 1 9 9 9   a   C B A   w a s 
a   s p e c i f i c   re q u i re m e nt   i n   re l at i o n   to   m a j o r 
projec t defined under Ar ticle 25. 

V I.	 (g)
I n   t h e   f r a m e w o r k   o f   s h a r e d   m a n a g e m e n t , 
M e m b e r   S t a te s   a n d   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   s h a re 
re s p o n s i b i l i t i e s   fo r   m o n i to r i n g   a n d   e v a l u-
ating assistance from the funds. According 
t o   C o u n c i l   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   1 0 8 3 / 2 0 0 6 
of 11 July 2006, M ember States are respon -
s i b l e   f o r   m o n i t o r i n g   a n d   c a r r y i n g   o u t   e x 
a n t e   a n d   o n g o i n g   e v a l u a t i o n s   o f   p r o -
grammes, while the Commission is respon-
s i b l e   fo r   e x   p o s t   e v a l u a t i o n s .   I n   t h i s   c o n -
t e x t ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   e n c o u r a g e s   a n d 
suppor ts managing author ities in fulfilling 
th eir  duties.   

VI.	(c)
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   s u p p o r t s   t h i s   re co m m e n -
d a t i o n   a n d   w i l l   c o n t i n u e   t o   e n c o u r a g e 
M e m b e r   St ate s   to   a s s e s s   p ro j e c t s   n o t   o n l y 
o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   o u t p u t s   b u t   a l s o   o n   t h e 
b a s i s   o f   i m p r o v e m e n t s   t o   p r o c e s s e s   a n d 
orga n isatio n.

VI.	(d)
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s u p p o r t s   t h i s   r e c o m -
m e n d a t i o n   a n d   h a s   w o r k e d   t o   c a p t u r e 
a   l a r g e   a m o u n t   o f   e x p e r i e n c e   a n d   m a k e 
g o o d   p r a c t i c e s   av a i l a b l e,   i n   p a r t i c u l a r   v i a 
t h e   e P r a c t i c e   c o m m u n i t y   ( h t t p : / / w w w .
e p r a c t i c e . e u ) .   T h i s   c o m m u n i t y   a n d   t h e 
p o r t a l   a r e   r e s o u r c e s   f o r   g o o d   p r a c t i c e 
e x c h a n g e ,   w h i c h   s h o u l d   h e l p   t o   d e s i g n 
s o u n d   p r o j e c t s ,   b a s e d   o n   l e a r n i n g   f r o m 
t h e   e x p e r i e n c e   o f   o t h e r s   a c r o s s   t h e   E U . 
T h e   e P r a c t i c e   c o m m u n i t y   i n c l u d e s   a b o u t 
1 5 0   0 0 0   m e m b e r s   w i t h   m o r e   t h a n   1   5 0 0 
p ro j e c t   c a s e s   f ro m   3 2   co u nt r i e s.  Th e   q u a l -
i t y   o f   i n d i v i d u a l   p r o j e c t   m a n a g e m e n t   b y 
recipients remains a concer n in some cases 
which is being addressed through capacit y- 
building p ro gra mmes.

VI.	(e)
To   m o n i t o r   a n d   e n c o u r a g e   r e s p e c t   o f   t h e 
E I F   p r i n c i p l e s ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   s e t 
u p   a n   o b s e r v a t o r y   i n   2 0 0 9   t o   m o n i t o r   t h e 
d e v e l o p m e n t   o f   n a t i o n a l   i n t e r o p e r a b i l i t y 
f r a m e w o r k s   ( N I F O ) .   M a n y   M e m b e r   S t a t e s 
h ave   a l re a d y   d e ve l o p e d   s u c h   f r a m e wo r k s, 
n o t a b l y   s i n c e   t h e   a v a i l a b i l i t y   o f   t h e   E I F 
v e r s i o n   1 . 0   o f   N o v e m b e r   2 0 0 4 .   M o r e o v e r 
th e  EU  e - G over nment  Ac tio n  Pl a n  i n c lude s 
a c t i o n s   t o   e n s u r e   t h a t   M e m b e r   S t a t e s 
align their national interoperabilit y frame -
w o r k s   t o   t h e   E I F   a n d   E u r o p e a n   i n t e r o p e r -
a b i l i t y   s t rate g y   ( E I S )   a d o p te d   by   t h e   Co m-
m i s s i o n   i n   D e c e m b e r   2 0 1 0 .   Fu r t h e r m o r e , 
a c t i o n s   h a v e   b e e n   l a u n c h e d   s i n c e   2 0 0 7 
w i t h i n   t h e   c o m p e t i t i v e n e s s   a n d   i n n o v a -
t i o n   p r o g r a m m e   ( C I P   P S P )   s p e c i f i c a l l y   t o 
a d d r e s s   i n t e r o p e r a b i l i t y   b e t w e e n   M e m -
b e r   S t a t e s .  T h e   E I F   p r i n c i p l e s   w e r e   r a t h e r 
w e l l   r e s p e c t e d   i n   p r o j e c t s   d e v e l o p e d 
af ter 200 5.   

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

INTRODUCTION

1.
T h e   d e f i n i t i o n   o f   e - G o v e r n m e n t   h a s 
e vo l ve d   i n   re ce nt   ye a r s.  Wh i l e   i n   t h e   e a r l y 
2 0 0 0 s ,   e - G o v e r n m e n t   w a s   m a i n l y   a b o u t 
b a c k   o f f i c e   a u t o m a t i o n   i n   t r a n s a c t i o n a l 
s e r v i c e s ,   t o d a y,   i t   e n c o m p a s s e s   a   w i d e r 
s p e c t r u m   o f   a c t i v i t i e s   a n d   s e r v i c e s .   I t 
inclu des  u ser- dr iven  pub l ic   s er v i ce s  wh i c h 
e n h a n c e   t r a n s p a r e n c y,   p a r t i c i p a t i o n   a n d 
accountabilit y, relates also to cross-border 
s e r v i c e s   a n d   a i m s   a t   i m p ro v i n g   e f f i c i e n c y 
and  effec t iven ess in p ub l ic s er v i ce s.

At EU level the e - G overnment polic y devel -
o p m e nt   h a d   t h re e   m i l e s to n e s :   i n   2 0 0 3   t h e 
f i r s t   co m m u n i c a t i o n   o n   t h e   ro l e   o f   e - G ov -
ernment was produced; in 2005 the first EU 
e - G over nment Ac tion Plan was adopted for 
t h e   p e r i o d   2 0 0 6 – 1 0 ;   i n   2 0 1 0   a   n e w   E u r o -
p e a n   e - G o ve r n m e n t   Ac t i o n   P l a n   h a s   b e e n 
adopted for t he  p er iod  2 01 1–15 .

2.
I m p l e m e n t i n g   t h e   M i n i s t e r i a l   D e c l a r a t i o n 
o n   e - G o v e r n m e n t   ( M a l m ö   D e c l a r a t i o n ) 
a d o p t e d   u n a n i m o u s l y   i n   N o v e m b e r   2 0 0 9 
b y   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s ,   t h e   E U   e - G o v e r n -
m e n t   A c t i o n   P l a n   2 0 1 1 – 2 0 1 5   i n c l u d e s   i n 
o n e   o f   i t s   p r i o r i t i e s  ‘ E f f i c i e n c y   a n d   e f fe c t -
i v e n e s s   o f   g o v e r n m e n t s   a n d   a d m i n i s t r a -
t i o n s’  a n d   r e l a t e d   a c t i o n s   n o t a b l y   o n   t h e 
re d u c t i o n   o f   a d m i n i s t rat i ve   b u rd e n s.  Th i s, 
h owe ve r,   i s   o n l y   o n e   o f   t h e   a c t i o n   l i n e s   i n 
o n e   o f   t h e   fo u r   p r i o r i t i e s.  Th e   o t h e r   t h re e 
p r i o r i t i e s   i n c l u d e :   u s e r   e m p o w e r m e n t , 
i n t e r n a l   m a r k e t   a n d   p r e c o n d i t i o n s   f o r 
developing  e - G over nment. 

44

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

3 .
I n   2 0 0 4 ,   w h e n   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   p u b l i s h e d 
t h e   E u r o p e a n   i n t e r o p e r a b i l i t y   f r a m e w o r k 
(EIF), M ember States could follow the pr in-
c i p l e s   i n c l u d e d   t h e r e i n ,   b u t   t h e r e   w a s   n o 
l e g a l   o b l i g at i o n .   I n   a d d i t i o n ,   i n   D e ce m b e r 
2 0 1 0 ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   c o m m u n i c a t i o n   o n 
t h e   E I S   ( E u r o p e a n   i n t e r o p e r a b i l i t y   s t r a t -
e g y )   w a s   a d o p t e d,   i n c l u d i n g   t h e   E I F   a s   a n 
an nex. 

M a ny   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   c o n t i n u e   t o   d e ve l o p 
n a t i o n a l   f r a m e w o r k s   f o r   i m p r o v i n g   i n t e r -
o p e r a b i l i t y   a n d   a r e   a l s o   e n c o u r a g e d 
t o   a l i g n   t h e i r   n a t i o n a l   i n t e r o p e r a b i l i t y  
f r a m e w o r k s   b y   t h e   c u r r e n t   E U   e - G o v e r n -
ment Ac tion  Plan  2 0 11– 15.

4 -5 .
T h e   E U   d e v e l o p e d   b o t h   t h e   F P 6   p r o -
gramme and the e -TEN programme in order 
t o   a c h i e v e   t h e   L i s b o n   o b j e c t i v e s   i n   t h e 
field of e - G over nment, among other fields.  

For a complete view of developments as of 
to d ay,   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   d raws   at te nt i o n   to 
t h e   2 0 1 0   D i gi t a l   Ag e n d a   fo r   Eu ro p e,   w h i c h 
p r o v i d e s   f o r   n i n e   a c t i o n s   w i t h   r e s p e c t 
t o   e - G o v e r n m e n t ,   a   M i n i s t e r i a l   D e c l a r -
at i o n   o n   e - G ove r n m e nt   a d o p te d   i n   M a l m ö 
i n   N o v e m b e r   2 0 0 9 ,   a n d   a n   a c t i o n   p l a n 
a d o p t e d   b y   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i n   D e c e m b e r 
2 01 0 an d by  th e  Coun cil on  M ay  2 01 1 .

7 .
S i n c e   2 0 0 0 ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a n d   t h e 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   h a ve   i n d e e d   m a d e   s i g n i f i -
c a n t   p r o g r e s s   i n   c o o r d i n a t i n g   a c t i o n   a n d 
e x c h a n g i n g   g o o d   p r a c t i c e .   B e n c h m a r k -
i n g   re p o r t s   ava i l a b l e   o n   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n’s 
I n t e r n e t   p o r t a l   s h o w   s i g n i f i c a n t   p r o g r e s s 
b y   a l l   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   i n   t h e   a d o p t i o n   o f 
n ew tec h nologies  at gover nment  le ve l.

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

4545

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

AUDIT	SCOPE	AND	APPROACH

1 3.
T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   c o n s i d e r s   e - G o v e r n m e n t 
i n   t h e   c o n t e x t   o f   E R D F   t o   c o v e r   a   w i d e 
r a n g e   o f   d i f f e r e n t   p u b l i c   a p p l i c a t i o n s   o f 
I C T,   i . e .   e - e d u c a t i o n ,   e - h e a l t h ,   e - i n c l u -
s i o n ,   e t c .   Fu r t h e r m o r e ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n 
would like to point out that e - G over nment 
a c t i o n s   r e c e i v e   f i n a n c i a l   s u p p o r t   f r o m 
o t h e r   E U   p ro g r a m m e s,   s u c h   a s   f r a m e wo r k 
p r o g r a m m e s   f o r   r e s e a r c h   a n d   d e v e l o p -
ment.

1 5.	(d )
The sample of projec ts visited by the Cour t 
r e p r e s e n t s   4 , 2  %   o f   a l l   I C T   a l l o c a t i o n s 
re p o r te d   i n   t h e s e   fo u r   M e m b e r   St ate s   a n d 
1 ,9 % of all repor ted E RDF IC T alloc ati on s.

B ox 	1
The Commission wor ked closely with M em-
b e r   S t a t e s   t o   s e e   e f f e c t i v e   i m p l e m e n t a -
t i o n   o f   t h e   p o i n t s   o f   s i n g l e   c o n t a c t .   T h i s 
implied wor k ing both at political level and 
t e c h n i c a l   l e v e l .   I n   p a r a l l e l ,   i n   2 0 0 8     t h e 
Co m m i s s i o n   l a u n c h e d   t h e   l a rg e   s c a l e   p i l o t 
p r o j e c t   S P O C S   ( h t t p : / / w w w. e u - s p o c s . e u ) 
within the competitiveness and innovation 
p r o g r a m m e   ( C I P   P S P )   w h i c h   h e l p s   t o   c r e -
ate  the  nex t  ge neratio n  o f  p o int s   o f   s i ng l e 
contac t.

8.
Th e   C I P   P S P   p ro gra m m e   i s   a l s o   a n   i m p o r t -
a n t   i n s t r u m e n t   t o   e n g a g e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s 
i n   w o r k i n g   c l o s e l y   t o g e t h e r   t o   d e p l o y 
i n t e r o p e r a b l e   s e r v i c e s   i n   E u r o p e .   e P r a c -
t i c e ,   t h e   p l a t f o r m   f o r   e - G o v e r n m e n t a l 
p r a c t i t i o n e r s ,   i s   a l s o   a   v i t a l   t o o l   f o r   t h e 
excha nge  of  go o d p rac t ice.   

9.
T h e   C o u r t   p o i n t s   o u t   t h a t   t h e r e   a r e   n o 
a g g r e g a t e   f i g u r e s   f o r   E U   i n v e s t m e n t   i n  
e - Government in the period 2000–06  across 
the different EU funded programmes.   

I n   t h e   c a s e   o f   t h e   E R D F,   6   7 2 8   m i l l i o n   e u ro 
w a s   re p o r te d   a s   a l l o c a te d   t h ro u g h   s h a re d 
mana gement p ro grammes to I C T  m e asures 
( i n f r a s t r u c t u re,   e - G ove r n m e n t   a n d   I C T   fo r 
b u s i n e s s e s ) .   W i t h i n   t h e   a g r e e d   i n f o r m a -
t i o n   s ys te m   t h e   I C T   h e a d i n g   i n c l u d e s   s e v -
e r a l   m o re   s p e c i f i c   c o d e s   w h e re   m a n a g i n g 
a u t h o r i t i e s   a r e   e n c o u r a g e d   t o   p r o v i d e 
m o re   p re c i s e   i n fo r m at i o n   o n   t h e   i nte n d e d 
o r   a c t u a l   u s e   o f   f u n d s .   H o w e v e r   t h e r e   i s 
n o   s p e c i f i c   co d e   l i m i te d   to   e - G ove r n m e n t 
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   p r o j e c t s   —   t h e   s u b j e c t   o f 
th e Cour t ’s audit.

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

OBSERVATIONS

20.
I n   m a n y   M e m b e r   S t a t e s ,   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n 
mostly occurred within the period 2005–09. 
A s   a   r e s u l t ,   t h e   m a j o r i t y   o f   p r o j e c t s   w e r e 
e x e c u t e d   i n   t h e   f r a m e w o r k   o f   b e t t e r 
planned strategies. 

Fur ther more, it is understandable to a cer-
t a i n   e x t e n t   t h a t   e a r l y   s t r a t e g i e s   w e r e   n o t 
f u l l y   d e t a i l e d   a n d   d e t e r m i n e d   o n l y   b ro a d 
l i n e s ,   a s   t h e   e x t e n t   o f   I C T   s e r v i c e s   f o r 
e - G o v e r n m e n t   c o u l d   n o t   b e   i m m e d i a t e l y 
ant icipate d.

21.
Po l i t i c a l   g u i d e l i n e s   a r e   n e e d e d   t o   a t t r a c t 
f u n d i n g .   N e v e r t h e l e s s   t h e   d e c l a r a t i o n s 
were tu r ne d into ef fec t ive ac t io n s  i n  2 0 0 6 . 
I n   s o m e   o t h e r   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   n o t   a u d i t e d 
t h e y   h a d   t h e i r   ow n   a c t i o n   p l a n s   a l re a d y   at 
th e beginning  o f th e p ro gramm i ng  per i od, 
f o c u s i n g   o n   t r a n s f o r m i n g   a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 
while at the same time deploying IC T infra-
struc ture.

22.
B y   w a y   o f   c o m p l e m e n t i n g   t h e   o b s e r v a -
t i o n s   o f   t h e   Co u r t   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   w i s h e s 
t o   d r a w   a t t e n t i o n   t o   t h e   b e n c h m a r k i n g 
r e p o r t s   o n   e - G o v e r n m e n t .   I n   p a r t i c u l a r 
t h e   r e p o r t s   o f   2 0 0 5   a n d   o f   2 0 0 6   p r o v i d e 
i n fo r m at i o n   a s   to   t h e   p ro gre s s   a l l   M e m b e r 
States have made in the implementation of 
e - G o ve r n m e n t   s e r v i c e s   ( h t t p : / / e c. e u ro p a .
e u / i n f o r m a t i o n _ s o c i e t y / e e u r o p e / i 2 0 1 0 /
benc hmar k ing /ind ex_ en. ht m).

46

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

2 2.	(a)
A t   t h e   b e g i n n i n g   o f   2 0 0 0 ,   t h e   p r i o r -
i t i e s   i n   a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s   we re   to   t r a n s fo r m 
p r a c t i c e s   a n d   t o   b e   o n l i n e .   T h e   a s s e s s e d 
n e e d s   w e r e   a b o u t   p r o v i d i n g   i n fo r m a t i o n . 
O n l y   a f t e r w a r d s   t h e   s e r v i c e s   t o   b e   d e v e l -
o p e d   e x p a n d e d   i n t o   o f f e r i n g   s e r v i c e s 
w h e re   t h e   u s e r s’  n e e d s   s t a r te d   to   b e co m e 
a more central fac tor. The Commission rec -
o gn i s e s   t h e   i n i t i a l   we a k n e s s e s   i n   n a t i o n a l 
s t r a t e g i e s .   I t   a l s o   p o i n t s   o u t   t h a t   u n c e r -
t a i nt i e s   i n   t h e   s e t t i n g   o f   p r i o r i t i e s   a re   n o t 
unusual in an area undergoing rapid devel -
opment.   

W h i l e   k e e p i n g   u p   w i t h   t e c h n o l o g i c a l 
c h a n g e s   w a s   a n d   c o n t i n u e s   t o   b e   a   m a j o r 
c h a l l e n g e   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   n o t e s   t h a t   s i g -
n i f i c a nt   p ro gre s s   h a s   b e e n   m a d e   to   d e f i n e 
E u r o p e a n   a n d   n a t i o n a l   s t r a t e g i e s .   S i n c e 
2 0 0 6 ,   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a n d   t h e   C o m m i s -
s i o n   h a v e   w o r k e d   t o g e t h e r   t o   c o o r d i n a t e 
ac tions better and to exchange good prac-
tice.

2 2.	(b)
I n   o r d e r   t o   e n s u r e   b e t t e r   c o o r d i n a t i o n   o f 
t h e   d i f fe re nt   m e a s u re s   re q u i re d   fo r   e f fe c t -
i v e   e - G o v e r n m e n t   s o m e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s 
h ave   n o m i n a te d   a   n a t i o n a l   C h i e f   I n fo r m a -
t i o n   O f f i c e r,   i n   c h a r g e   o f   c o o rd i n a t i n g   a l l 
a c t i o n s .   H o w e v e r,   n o t   a l l   M e m b e r   S t a t e s 
suppor t th is approac h. 

B ox	 3
F o r   t h e   p e r i o d   2 0 0 7 – 1 3 ,   e - G o v e r n m e n t 
a c t i o n s   a t   t h e   n a t i o n a l   l e v e l   a r e   c o n c e n -
t r a t e d   i n   t h e   M i n i s t r y   o f   I n t e r n a l   A f f a i r s , 
w h i c h   i s   r e s p o n s i b l e   f o r   t h e   I n f o r m a t i o n 
S o c i e t y   i n   Po l a n d.   Fu r t h e r   co o rd i n at i o n   o f 
t h e   d i f f e r e n t   e f f o r t s   t o   d e l i v e r   e - P o l a n d 
b e t w e e n   n a t i o n a l   a n d   r e g i o n a l   g o v e r n -
ments  nee ds to be made.

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

4747

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

3 0.
T h e   C o m m u n i t y   r u l e s   d i d   n o t   s p e c i f y   t h e 
t ype   of  selec tion   procedures,  n or   th e   le vel 
o f   d e t a i l   o f   p ro j e c t   o b j e c t i ve s   re q u i re d   i n 
o r d e r   t o   g i v e   a   g r a n t .   I n   t h e   f r a m e w o r k 
o f   s h a r e d   m a n a g e m e n t ,   i t   w a s   u p   t o   t h e 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o   s e t   t h e   d e t a i l e d   p r o v i -
sion s for  th e selec tion of proj ec t s.

3 1.
I n   t h e   f r a m e w o r k   o f   s h a r e d   m a n a g e m e n t , 
the national author ities are responsible for 
def inin g th e rules on docu me nt at ion . 

3 2.
E s t a b l i s h i n g   s u i t a b l e   o b j e c t i v e s ,   t a r g e t s 
a n d   r e s u l t   i n d i c a t o r s   i s   a   s o u n d   c o n d i -
t i o n   fo r   d e l i v e r i n g   e f fe c t i v e   a n d   e f f i c i e n t 
o u t c o m e s .     H o w e v e r,   e s t a b l i s h i n g   s u i t -
a b l e   o b j e c t i v e s ,   t a r g e t s   a n d   i n d i c a t o r s   a t 
p ro j e c t   l e ve l   d o e s   n o t   g u a r a n t e e   d e l i ve r y 
u n l e s s   t h e   p r o j e c t s   a r e   a c c o m p a n i e d   b y 
s o u n d   m a n a g e m e n t   c a p a c i t y   a n d   q u a l i t y 
control system for  mon itor ing.

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a l s o   m a k e s   r e f e r e n c e 
t o   t h e   a c h i e v e m e n t s   o f   b e n c h m a r k i n g 
i n   t h e s e   y e a r s .   E v e n   t o d a y   i n f o r m a t i o n 
o n   c o s t   s a v i n g s   i s   n o t   a b u n d a n t   a n d   t h e 
Co m m i s s i o n   w i l l   s h o r t l y   l a u n c h   a   s t u d y   to 
a n a l y s e   t h e   c o s t / b e n e f i t   o f   c r o s s - b o r d e r 
e - G ove r nment  se r vices ( amon g ot he r ) .

3 3.
T h i s   w a s   i n d e e d   o n e   o f   t h e   p r o b l e m s 
i d e n t i f i e d   i n   t h e   y e a r s   2 0 0 0 – 1 0 .   To d a y 
t h e   a p p ro a c h   o f   p u b l i c   a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s   i s 
m o re   fo c u s s e d   o n   re t h i n k i n g   p ro c e s s e s   i n 
view of re - engineer ing procedures to make 
b e t t e r   u s e   o f   t e c h n o l o g y.   T h e   E U   e - G o v -
e r n m e n t   Ac t i o n   P l a n   2 0 1 1 – 1 5   i n c l u d e s   a n 
a c t i o n   f o c u s s i n g   o n   t h e   n e e d   t o   a d d r e s s 
organ isat ion al processe s.

B ox 	4
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a l s o   d r a w s   a t t e n t i o n   t o 
ex a m p l e s   o f   m e t h o d o l o gi c a l   s u p p o r t,   ce n-
t r a l   c o o rd i n a t i o n   a n d   c o h e re n t   e - G o ve r n -
m e n t   p o l i c y   d e ve l o p m e n t s   i n   o t h e r   M e m -
b e r   S t a t e s ,   b e y o n d   I t a l y   a n d   C N I PA .   F o r 
e x a m p l e ,   i n   B e l g i u m   t h e r e   i s   F E D I C T,   i n 
E s t o n i a   t h e r e   i s   t h e   e - G o v e r n m e n t   A c a d -
emy, in Austr ia there is a Chief I nfor mation 
O f f i c e r   ( C I O )   w h o   s u p e r v i s e s   a n d   c o o r d -
i n a t e s   t h e   w h o l e   e - G o v e r n m e n t   d e v e l o p -
ment,  etc.

25.	(a)
N a t i o n a l   a n d   r e g i o n a l   m a n a g i n g   a u t h o r -
i t i e s   s o m e t i m e s   s e l e c t   ‘ s t r a t e g i c   p ro j e c t s ’ 
o n   t h e   b a s i s   t h a t   a   s p e c i f i c   p r o j e c t   i s 
d e e m e d   e s s e nt i a l   a n d / o r   c a n   o n l y   b e   co n -
d u c t e d   b y   t h e   r e s p o n s i b l e   p u b l i c   a u t h o r -
i t y   ( i . e .   a   l a n d   r e g i s t r y ) .     I n   t h e   a b s e n c e 
o f   c o m p e t i t i o n   t h e   c h a l l e n g e   i s   t o   e n s u re 
good prep aratio n and  t imel y de l i ve r y. 

25.	(b)
E f fe c t i ve l y,   t h i s   p ro c e d u re   a i m s   a t   s e l e c t-
i n g   t h e   b e t t e r   p r e p a r e d   p r o j e c t s   a n d   a t 
e n s u r i n g   t r a n s p a r e n c y   a n d   e q u a l   t r e a t -
ment. 

The selec tion of projec ts through this pro -
c e d u r e   c a n   l e a d   t o   d e l a y s ,   a s   i t   i n v o l v e s 
multiple steps  a nd p otential  ap p e al s.

26.
D e l a y s   i n   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   h a v e   b e e n   t h e 
m a i n   p ro b l e m   i n   t h i s   f i e l d   i n   Po l a n d   i n   t h e 
p e r i o d   2 0 0 7 – 1 3 .   T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   u n d e r -
s t a n d s   t h a t   t h e   Po l i s h   a u t h o r i t i e s   a re   c u r -
rently using a PRINCE method (a struc tured 
p ro j e c t   m a n a g e m e nt   m e t h o d   e n d o r s e d   by 
t h e   U K   g o v e r n m e n t   a s   t h e   p r o j e c t   m a n -
a g e m e n t   s t a n d a r d   f o r   p u b l i c   p r o j e c t s )   t o 
e n s u r e   t h e   a p p r o p r i a t e   p r o j e c t   m a n a g e -
ment  and t imel y imp l ement atio n .

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

34.
T h e   a v a i l a b i l i t y   o f   a p p r o p r i a t e   s k i l l s   a n d 
i n   s u f f i c i e n t   q u a n t i t i e s   i s   a n o t h e r   m a j o r 
f a c t o r   a f fe c t i n g   f i n a l   o u t c o m e s   o f   e - G o v -
e r n m e n t   p r o j e c t s   i n   t h e   p e r i o d   u n d e r 
e x a m i n a t i o n .   A n o t h e r   s u c c e s s   f a c t o r   i s 
t h e   q u a l i t at i ve   ( n o t   o n l y   t h e   q u a nt i t at i ve ) 
a s p e c t,   e. g.   i m p rove m e nt s   i n   t ra n s p a re n c y 
and accountabilit y in the public sec tor can 
be as impor tant as completing a projec t on 
time.

E - G o v e r n m e n t   s o l u t i o n s   o f t e n   r e q u i r e 
c l o s e   c o o p e r a t i o n   a m o n g   d e p a r t m e n t s 
a n d   f a i l u re   to   d o   s o   m ay   l e a d   to   t h e   i s s u e s 
n o t e d   by   t h e   Co u r t .   I n   a d d i t i o n ,   t h e   t e c h -
n o l o g y   av a i l a b l e   a t   t h e   t i m e   w a s   n o t   a b l e 
to   o f fe r   e f fe c t i ve,   f l ex i b l e   ways   to   a c h i e ve 
w o r k f l o w   b e t w e e n   d e p a r t m e n t s .   D a t a 
e x c h a n g e   a l s o   w a s   l i m i t e d   d u e   t o   u n c e r -
t a i n t y   a b o u t   ( o r   b a r r i e r s   l i n k e d   t o )   d a t a 
pr ivac y iss ues.

36.	(b)
E v e n   t o d a y ,   m u l t i l i n g u a l i s m   i s   n o t 
a d d r e s s e d   i n   a   s a t i s f a c t o r y   w a y   a n d   t h e 
Co m m i s s i o n   co n s i d e r s   t h at   f u r t h e r   e f fo r t s 
are neede d in t his area.

38.	
W h i l e   i n i t i a l   p ro j e c t   p l a n s   p rove d   t o   h ave 
d i f f e r e n t   w e a k n e s s e s ,   t h e   m a j o r i t y   o f 
d e l ay s   we re   o f   l e s s   t h a n   o n e   ye a r   a n d   d i d 
n o t   a f f e c t   p r o j e c t   d e l i v e r a b l e s   o r   m a r k -
edly increase overall costs. Therefore while 
p l a n n i n g   i n   t h e s e   n e w   a r e a s   o f   p u b l i c 
ac tivit y had weak nesses, the consequences 
i n   d e l a y s   a n d   c o s t s   a p p e a r   t o   h a v e   b e e n 
limited in mos t c as es. 

48

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

4 6.	
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   n o t e s   t h a t   m o r e   g e n e r -
a l l y   t h e   t a k e - u p   o f   e - G o v e r n m e n t   s e r -
v i ce s   d e p e n d s   p r i m a r i l y   o n   t h e i r   ava i l a b i l -
i t y   a n d   p r o g r e s s   i n   d i g i t a l   l i t e r a c y.   I n   t h e 
p e r i o d   2 0 0 1   to   2 0 0 6   t h e   ava i l a b i l i t y   o f   k e y 
e - G over nment ser vices more than doubled 
i n   Fra n ce   ( f ro m   2 5   to   6 5 % )   a n d   I t a l y   ( f ro m 
1 5   t o   5 8  % )   a n d   s i g n i f i c a n t l y   i n c r e a s e d   i n 
Spain (from 30 to 55 %). (see: Online Avail-
a b i l i t y   o f   P u b l i c   S e r v i c e s :   H o w   i s   E u r o p e 
P r o g r e s s i n g ?   2 0 0 6   R e p o r t ,   s t u d y   d o n e 
b y   C a p g e m i n i   f o r   t h e   E u r o p e a n   C o m m i s -
s i o n . )   R e a l   p r o g r e s s   i n   t a k e - u p   h a s   b e e n 
obser ved af te r 20 0 6.

4 6.	(a)
e I D   i s   o n e   o f   t h e   p re co n d i t i o n s   fo r   e - G ov -
e r n m e n t   s e r v i c e s   r e c o g n i s e d   i n   t h e   f i r s t 
e - G o v e r n m e n t   A c t i o n   P l a n   ( 2 0 0 6 – 1 0 ) . 
As an example, the Spanish eID (elec tronic 
I d e nt i t y )   wa s   l a u n c h e d   o n l y   i n   2 0 0 6 .  Th e re 
h a s   b e e n   s i g n i f i c a n t   p r o g r e s s   i n   t h e   f i e l d 
o f   e I D   s i n c e   t h e n .   e I D   i s   t o d a y   o n e   o f   t h e 
t o p   p r i o r i t i e s   o f   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n’s   w o r k 
w i t h   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s .   A   l a r g e   s c a l e 
p i l o t   p r o j e c t   ( C I P– I C T   P S P )   w a s   l a u n c h e d 
i n   2 0 0 8   ( S TO R K   —   h t t p s : / / w w w. e i d - s t o r k .
e u / )   s p e c i f i c a l l y   o n   c r o s s   b o r d e r   r e c o g n i -
tion  of eID.   

4 6.	(b)
A p a r t   f r o m   e I D ,   c o m m e n t e d   o n   a b o v e , 
t h e re   a re   s e ve r a l   o t h e r   k e y   p re c o n d i t i o n s 
for fully digital ser vices on which progress 
i s   m a d e   i n   p a r a l l e l,   e. g.   t h e   u p d a t e   o f   t h e 
p u b l i c   p ro c u re m e n t   d i re c t i ve   i n   2 0 1 1   w i l l 
addres s e -Procurement  issue s.

4 6.	(c )
I nclusive e - G overnment has been a priorit y 
s i n c e   2 0 0 5 .  Wi t h i n   t h e   F P 6   a n d   t h e   e -T E N 
programme many ac tions were launched in 
th is area. 

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

48.	
T h e   i m p o r t a n c e   o f   e x t e n d i n g   t h e   e l e c -
t r o n i c   s e r v i c e   t o   t h e   e n d - u s e r   w a s   a 
w e l l - k n o w n   i s s u e   a n d   h a s   b e e n   m o r e 
t h o r o u g h l y   a d d r e s s e d   i n   a l l   t h e   r e l e v a n t 
e - G ove r n m e n t   E U   p o l i c y   d o c u m e n t s   s i n ce 
th e ea r ly 2000s. 

49.	
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   d r a w s   a t t e n t i o n   t o   t h e 
e x t e n s i v e   w o r k   d o n e   o n   t h e   i s s u e   o f   e f f i -
c i e n c y   a n d   e f fe c t i ve n e s s   o f   e - G ove r n m e nt 
s e r v i c e s.  T h i s   i s s u e   h a s   b e e n   a   c o r e   fo c u s 
of  th e  e - G over nment   Ac tio n  Pl a n  2 0 0 6– 1 0 . 
A   s t u d y   w a s   l a u n c h e d   b y   D G   I N F S O   i n 
2 0 0 5   o n   a   m e a s u r e m e n t   f r a m e w o r k . 
A l s o ,   t h e r e   i s   a n   i n f o r m a t i v e   d e b a t e   o n 
t h i s   i n   t h e   E u r o p e a n   J o u r n a l   o f   e - P r a c t i c e  
( h t t p : / / w w w . e p r a c t i c e . e u / e n / j o u r n a l / 
volume/4).

4949

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

CONCLUSIONS	AND		
RECOMMENDATIONS

5 2.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   C o u r t ’s 
positive conclusion that the e - G over nment 
p ro j e c t s   s u p p o r te d   by   t h e   E R D F   h ave   co n-
t r i b u te d   to   t h e   d e ve l o p m e nt   o f   e l e c t ro n i c 
p u b l i c   s e r v i c e s   i n   t h e   fo u r   s e l e c t e d   M e m -
b e r   S t a te s.  Th e   d e ve l o p m e n t   o f   e - G ove r n-
m e n t   a p p l i c a t i o n s   f o l l o w e d   t h e   p r i v a t e 
s e c to r ’s   a p p l i c at i o n   o f   I C T   w i t h   a   t i m e   l a g. 
E a r l y   e f f o r t s   t o   u s e   I C T   b y   p r i v a t e   e n t e r -
p r i s e s   a l s o   s u f f e r e d   f r o m   d i f f i c u l t i e s   i n 
a c h i e v i n g   t h e   i n t e n d e d   b e n e f i t s .   S u c h 
s h o r t c o m i n g s   a r e   u n f o r t u n a t e l y   n o t   u n -
u s u a l   w h e n   m a j o r   i n n o v a t i o n s   a r e   b e i n g 
introduced.   

I n   t h e   ye a r s   2 0 0 0 – 0 5 ,   t h e   p r i o r i t y   fo r   m o s t 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s   w a s   t o   m o d e r n i s e   t h e 
b a c k   o f f i c e   a n d   t o   b e   o n l i n e.  To d ay,   w h i l e 
e - a d m i n i s t r a t i o n   i s   s t i l l   a b o u t   e f f i c i e n c y, 
a d m i n i s t rat i ve   b u rd e n   re d u c t i o n ,   a n d   b e t -
t e r   p u b l i c   s e r v i c e s ,   t h e   e m p h a s i s   i s   s h i f t -
i n g   t o w a r d s   u s e r - d r i v e n   p u b l i c   s e r v i c e s 
which enhance transparenc y, par ticipation 
and accountabilit y. M any of today ’s nor mal 
p r a c t i c e s   w e r e   n o t   m a t u r e   e n o u g h   a t   t h e 
time.

5 3.
T h e   m a i n   r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s   h a v e   a l r e a d y 
b e e n   a d d r e s s e d   i n   C o m m i s s i o n   p o l i c y 
d o c u m e n t s ,   e . g .   t h e   n e e d s   a s s e s s m e n t   i s 
a   c o r e   p r e r e q u i s i t e   f o r   u s e r - d r i v e n   s e r -
v i ce s,   t h e   m a n a g e r i a l   m at u r i t y   i n   t h e   p u b -
l i c   s e c to r   i n   t h e   f i e l d   o f   e - G ove r n m e nt   h a s 
i n c re a s e d   s i gn i f i c a n t l y   ( i n   s o m e   co u n t r i e s 
t h i s   i s   c o o r d i n a t e d   a t   t h e   P r i m e   M i n i s -
t e r ’s   o f f i c e ) ,   a n d   p r o j e c t   s u s t a i n a b i l i t y   i s 
i n c r e a s i n g l y   a n   i n t e r n a l   p r o j e c t   v a r i a b l e 
( not an  ex post  con sideration ).

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

50

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

Pr i o r i t y   s e t t i n g   h a s   i m p rove d   s i gn i f i c a nt l y 
in the inter im and today all M ember States 
have developed more sophisticated e - G ov-
er n ment s trate gies. 

5 6.	(c )
S u c h   s h o r t c o m i n g s   a r e   n o t   u n u s u a l   w h e n 
m a j o r   i n n o v a t i o n s   a r e   b e i n g   i n t r o d u c e d . 
T e c h n i c a l   c a p a c i t i e s   a r e   n o w   b e t t e r 
a d d re s s e d   t h ro u g h   i n i t i a t i ve s   s u c h   a s   t h e 
e -prac tice por t al.       

Recommendatio n	1 	(a)
S i n c e   2 0 0 6 ,   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a n d   t h e   C o m -
m i s s i o n   h a v e   w o r k e d   t o g e t h e r   t o   c o o r d -
inate ac tions better, and to exchange good 
p r a c t i c e .   To d a y,   a l l   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   h a v e 
d e v e l o p e d   m o r e   s o p h i s t i c a t e d   e - G o v e r n -
m e nt   s t rate gi e s,   a s   d e m o n s t rate d   t h ro u g h 
t h e i r   p a r t i c i p a t i o n   i n   t h e   e - G o v e r n m e n t 
G r o u p   j u s t   e s t a b l i s h e d   b y   t h e   E u r o p e a n 
C o m m i s s i o n   a s   a   m e a n s   o f   j o i n t   g o v e r n -
a n c e   ( E u r o p e a n   C o m m i s s i o n   w i t h   M e m -
b e r   S t a t e s )   o f   t h e   e - G o v e r n m e n t   A c t i o n 
P l a n   2 0 1 1 – 1 5 .   W h i l e   t h e   d o m i n a n t   p a r a -
d i g m   i n   e - G ove r n m e n t   s t r a t e g i e s   t o d ay   i s 
i n d e e d   t h e   d e s i gn   o f   u s e r- d r i ve n   s e r v i ce s, 
t h e   l e v e l   o f   d e t a i l   o f   t h e   n a t i o n a l   s t r a t -
egies is  de cided in  t he M e mbe r States.

55.
I t   i s   r e g r e t t a b l e ,   i f   u n d e r s t a n d a b l e   t o   a 
c e r t a i n   e x t e n t ,   t h a t   e a r l y   s t r a t e g i e s   w e r e 
n o t   f u l l y   d e t a i l e d   a n d   d e t e r m i n e d   o n l y 
broad objec tives of national e - G over nment 
p o l i c i e s .   T h e   e x t e n t   o f   I C T   s e r v i c e s   f o r 
e - G o v e r n m e n t   c o u l d   n o t   b e   i m m e d i a t e l y 
a n t i c i p a t e d   a n d   i n d e e d   u n d e r w e n t   m a j o r 
te c h n o l o gi c a l   e vo l u t i o n .   I t   m u s t   b e   n o te d 
t h at   t h e   m o re   d e t a i l e d   E U   g u i d e l i n e s   we re 
i s s u e d   towa rd s   t h e   e n d   o f   t h e   p e r i o d   cov -
ered by the  aud it.   

To d a y,   a l l   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   h a ve   d e ve l o p e d 
m o r e   s o p h i s t i c a t e d   e - G o v e r n m e n t   s t r a t -
e gi e s,   a s   d e m o n s t rate d   t h ro u g h   t h e i r   p a r-
t i c i p at i o n   i n   t h e   e - G ove r n m e nt   G ro u p   j u s t 
e s t a b l i s h e d   b y   t h e   E u r o p e a n   C o m m i s s i o n 
a s   a   m e a n s   o f   j o i nt   g ove r n a n ce   ( Eu ro p e a n 
C o m m i s s i o n   w i t h   M e m b e r   S t a t e s )   o f   t h e 
e - G over nm ent  Ac tio n Pl an 2011 – 1 5.

56.	(a)
T h e   c o s t   o f   m i g r a t i n g   t o   e - G o ve r n m e n t   i s 
v e r y   h i g h .   P r i o r i t i e s   a r e   n e e d e d   a n d   i t   i s 
reasonable that they are provided by polit-
i c a l   s t a t e m e n t s   a n d   d e c l a r a t i o n s ,   w h i c h 
s e r v e d   t o   r a i s e   a w a r e n e s s   a n d   a s   e a r l y 
s t r a t e g i e s .   P r i o r i t i e s   w e r e   b a s e d   o n   t h e 
k nowledge and available mature technolo -
g i e s   o f   t h e   t i m e.  T h i s   d o e s   n o t   m e a n   t h a t 
all  the  pro jec ts  did  n ot  address   an  im por t-
a n t   n e e d   b u t   r a t h e r   t h a t   t h e re   we re   we a k 
m e c h a n i s m s   t o   p r i o r i t i s e   p r o j e c t s   a n d 
therefore it is difficult to establish that the 
projec t s we re ind eed the mos t i mp o r t ant.

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

5151

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

Recommendatio n	2 	(b)
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   d r a w s   t h e   a t t e n t i o n   o f 
managing authorities to the fac t that a large 
a m o u nt   o f   ex p e r i e n ce   a n d   g o o d   p ra c t i ce   i s 
a v a i l a b l e   n o w a d a y s   v i a   e . g .   t h e   e P r a c t i c e 
communit y (http://w w w.eprac tice.eu) which 
h e l p s   t o   d e s i g n   s o u n d   p r o j e c t s   a n d   l e a r n 
from the experience of others across the EU. 
T h e   e P r a c t i c e   c o m m u n i t y   h a s   a b o u t 
1 5 0   0 0 0   m e m b e r s   w i t h   m o r e   t h a n 
1 500 projec t cases from 32 countries.

Recommendatio n	2 	(c )
I n   D e c e m b e r   2 0 1 0 ,   t h e   E u r o p e a n   i n t e r -
o p e ra b i l i t y   s t rate g y   a n d   E I F   we re   a d o p te d 
b y   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i n   a   c o m m u n i c a t i o n . 
N e ve r t h e l e s s,   t h e   E I F   h a s   b e e n   i nte n s i ve l y 
u s e d   b y   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a n d   t h e   C o m m i s -
s i o n   w h e n   l a u n c h i n g   a c t i o n s   ( e . g .   l a r g e -
s c a l e   p i l o t s   w i t h i n   t h e   c o m p e t i t i v e n e s s 
and innovation programme — CIP PSP). The 
Co m m i s s i o n   w i l l   co nt i n u e   to   e n co u ra g e   i t s 
application, also in ERDF-funded projec ts.

5 9.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h i s   p o s i -
t i v e   c o n c l u s i o n   t h a t   m o s t   o f   t h e   p r o j e c t s 
a u d i t e d   w e r e   t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y   s o u n d   a n d 
t h e   I T   a p p l i c a t i o n s   d e v e l o p e d   p r o v i d e d 
e l e c t r o n i c   s e r v i c e s   t o   p u b l i c   b o d i e s ,   c i t i -
zen s an d busin esses.   

6 0.	(a)
To d a y   t h e   a p p r o a c h   t o   e - G o v e r n m e n t 
i s   m o r e   e x p l i c i t   i n   r e t h i n k i n g   p r o c e s s e s 
i n   v i e w   o f   r e e n g i n e e r i n g   p r o c e d u r e s   t o 
m a k e   b e s t   u s e   o f   t e c h n o l o g i e s   a v a i l a b l e , 
a n d   s u c h   i n t e r n a l   p r a c t i s e s   c a n   o n l y   b e 
adapted progres sively.

Recomme ndat ion	1	(b)
T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   i s   s u p p o r t i ve   o f   t h i s   re c -
ommendation and will continue to encour-
a g e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o   a s s e s s   p r o j e c t s 
o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   l i k e l y   c o s t s   a n d   b e n e f i t s . 
B o t h   q u a l i t at i ve   a n d   q u a nt i t at i ve   b e n e f i t s 
s h o u l d   b e   c o n s i d e r e d   ( e . g .   t r a n s p a r e n c y 
a n d   a cco u nt a b i l i t y   i s   a   m a j o r   a c h i e ve m e nt 
of open g over nment p ro jec ts) .

57.	
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   p o s i t i v e 
co n c l u s i o n   t h at   p ro j e c t s   a u d i te d   a c h i e ve d 
results in the areas of increasing the avail-
a b i l i t y   o f   e l e c t r o n i c   p u b l i c   s e r v i c e s   a n d 
i n   t h e   d e v e l o p m e n t   o f   t e c h n i c a l   m e a n s 
wi thin  pub lic  aut hor ities.

58.	
Th e s e   we re   i n d e e d   we a k n e s s e s   re co gn i s e d 
by  the Com mis s ion  in the years  2 0 0 0 –0 5. 

H o w e v e r,   s u c h   s h o r t c o m i n g s   a r e   n o t   u n -
u s u a l   w h e n   m a j o r   i n n o v a t i o n s   a r e   b e i n g 
introduced. Keeping up with technological 
c h a n g e s   w a s   a n d   c o n t i n u e s   t o   b e   a   m a j o r 
c h a l l e n g e   i n   t e r m s   o f   a n t i c i p a t i n g   n e e d s 
and  maint aining s tab l e s er vices. 

Recomme ndat ion	2	(a )
T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   i s   s u p p o r t i ve   o f   t h i s   re c -
ommendation and will continue to encour-
a g e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o   a s s e s s   p ro j e c t s   n o t 
o n l y   o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   o u t p u t s   b u t   a l s o   o n 
t h e   b a s i s   o f   i m p r o v e m e n t s   t o   p r o c e s s e s 
and  organisat ion .

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

52

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

Recomme ndatio n	3	(a )
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   t h a t   t h i s   r e c o m -
m e n d a t i o n   r e p r e s e n t s   g o o d   p r a c t i c e   a n d 
wo u l d   c l e a r l y   s u p p o r t   t h e   d e ve l o p m e nt   o f 
sustainab l e p ro jec ts.   

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   r e c a l l s   t h a t ,   i n   g e n e r a l , 
E R D F   s u p p o r t   i s   u s e d   t o   f i n a n c e   d e s i g n , 
co n s t r u c t i o n   a n d   e s t a b l i s h m e n t   o f   e - G ov -
e r n m e n t   s y s t e m   a n d   d o e s   n o t   s u p p o r t 
operating co st s.

Recomme ndatio n	3	(b)
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   e n co u ra g e s   a n d   s u p p o r t s 
m a n a gi n g   a u t h o r i t i e s   i n   c a r r y i n g   o u t   t h e i r 
re s p o n s i b i l i t i e s   fo r   m o n i t o r i n g   a n d   c a r r y -
ing out ex ante and ongoing evaluations of 
operational p ro grammes.

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

53

European Court of Auditors

Special	Report	No	9/2011

Have	the	e-Government	projects	supported	by	ERDF	been	effective?

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

2011 — 52 pp. — 21 × 29.7 cm

ISBN 978-92-9237-245-3

doi:10.2865/61428

Special Report No 9/2011 — Have the e-Government projects supported by ERDF been effective?

How	to	obtain	EU	publications

Free	publications:

• 

• 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

at the European Union's representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details 
on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.

Priced	publications:

• 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced	subscriptions	(e.g.	annual	series	of	the	Official Journal of the European Union	and	reports	
of	cases	before	the	Court	of	Justice	of	the	European	Union):

• 

via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

 
 
Q
J
-
A
B
-
1
1
-
0
0
7
-
E
N

-
C

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS SAW E-GOVERNMENT AS A MEANS OF LESSEN-

ING THE  ADMINISTRATIVE  BURDEN  OF  CITIZENS,  BUSINESSES  AND  OTHER 

ADMINISTRATIONS. 

THE  COURT’S  AUDIT  FOCUSED  ON  PROJECTS  CO-FINANCED  BY THE  ERDF 

IN THE 2000–06 PERIOD, AIMED AT THE DEVELOPMENT OF e-GOVERNMENT 

SERVICES IN FOUR MEMBER STATES: FRANCE, ITALY, POLAND AND SPAIN. 

THE  COURT  CONCLUDED  THAT  OVERALL  THE  e-GOVERNMENT  PROJECTS 

CONTRIBUTED  TO  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  ELECTRONIC  PUBLIC  SERVICES. 

HOWEVER  EVEN  THOUGH  THE  MAJORITY  OF  THEM  WERE  TECHNICALLY 

OPERATIONAL,  THE BENEFITS OBTAINED WERE MUCH LOWER THAN COULD 

HAVE  BEEN  EXPECTED,  DUE  TO  FAILURE  TO  FOCUS  SUFFICIENTLY  ON 

PROJECT RESULTS.

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS