1. work in progress-do not quote eGovernment Impact on Service Delivery Subhash Bhatnagar Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (subhash@iimahd.ernet.in) and Advisor e-government, Information Solutions Group (Informatics Program) World Bank, Washinton DC sbhatnagar@worldbank.org

2. work in progress-do not quote Presentation Structure Methodology for Measuring Impact on Service Delivery Results from a Study of 5 projects –Study objectives –Projects covered in the study –Analysis of Results Are investments in eGovernment worthwhile? Lessons for future projects

3. Measurement Framework StakeholdersKey Dimension of Impact ClientEconomic (Direct & Indirect) Governance (Corruption, Accountability, Transparency, Participation) Quality of Service (Decency, Fairness, Convenience, etc.) Over all satisfaction Agency (Including Partners in Implementation) Economic (Direct & Indirect) Governance (Corruption, Accountability, Transparency, Participation) Performance on Key Non-economic Objectives Process Improvements Work life of employees Society Other Departments Government as a Whole Civil Society Desirability of investments in e-Government Impact on vulnerable groups Image of Government (Efficiency, Corruption, Accountability, Transparency, Participation, Responsiveness) Impact on development Goals

4. Methodology for Assessment Select mature, wide scope and scale projects of e-delivery of services. Collect data through structured survey from clients, employees, supervisors using counterfactuals ( for old non computerized delivery and new e-delivery system) Customize survey instrument to each project, adapt in local language Data can be collected through Internet survey, face to face interviews and focus groups Use professional market research agencies with trained investigators for face to face interviews Determine sample frame and size so that results can be extrapolated to the entire population (often 300 clients may be sufficient). Select respondents randomly from locations stratified by activity levels and remoteness Collect data on investments, operating costs, activity levels, revenues, employee strength from agencies. Develop a case study-organizational context, process reform, change management.

5. work in progress-do not quote Data be Collected to Evaluate Impact Project context: basic information on the project and its context Inputs (technology, human capital, financial resources); Process outcome (reengineered processes, shortened cycle time, improved access to data and analysis, flexibility in reports); Customer results (service coverage, timeliness and responsiveness, service quality and convenience of access); Agency outcomes (transparency and accountability, less corruption, administrative efficiency, revenue growth and cost reduction) and Strategic outcomes (economic growth, poverty reduction and achievement of MDGs). Organizational processes: institutional arrangements, organizational structure, and other reform initiatives of the Government that might have influenced the outcome for the ICT project.

6. Projects of e-delivery of Services Issue of land titles in Karnataka (Bhoomi): 180 Kiosks, Launched February 2001 Property registration in Karnataka (Kaveri): 230 offices Launched March 2003 Property Registration in Andhra Pradesh: AP 400 offices. Launched November 1998 eSeva center in Andhra Pradesh: 250 locations in 190 towns, Used monthly by 3.5 million citizens August 01 Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC): 16 Civic Service Centers September 2002 e-Procurement in Chile (Comprasnet) Income Tax on-line in Chile

7. work in progress-do not quote Analysis of Results Next 8 slides present average scores/values of the difference between computerized and manual systems as reported by 240 respondents per project 1.Difference between computerized and manual systems reported by users - costs, governance, service quality and overall preference 2.Estimated savings in costs (trips, travel cost, bribes, wait time) estimated for the entire population of users 3.Projects in descending order of improvement in Composite Scores based on a weighted score on 18 common attributes for each project 4.Descending order of post computerization composite score 5.Top four attributes desired in each application 6.Impact on agency: Investment, operating expenses, transaction volume, revenue collected 7.Economic viability from agency perspective 8.Attitude of 1200 respondents on the basis of their experience of using different eGovernment applications

8. work in progress-do not quote BHOOMIKAVER I CARDE- SEVA AMC Total Travel Cost per transactıon (Rs.) (81.381)116.6839.639.3421.85 Number of trips0.471.201.380.290.65 Wage Loss (Rs.)(39.22)120.5528.4615.6336.84 Waiting Time (Minutes)41.2162.9196.2418.5016.16 Governance Quality - 5 point scale 0.7640.210.1900.6080.794 Percentage paying bribes33.0912.714.310.402.51 Service Quality- 5 point scale 0.950.320.480.950.70 Error Rate0.773.800.861.580.42 Preference for Computerization (%) 79.3498.3196.9896.8497.49 Overall Improvements Reported by Users

9. work in progress-do not quote Savings in Cost to Customers Estimates for entire client population ProjectsMillion Transactions Travel Cost Saving (Rs. Million) Wage Loss (Rs. Million) Waiti ng Time (Hour s) Bribes (Rs. Million) BHOOMIRTC-11.97 Mutation-1.03 (1,041.24)(470.28)(0.26)305.18 KAVERI2.47220.48297.922.55(118.79) CARD1.0369.9129.391.67(96.27) e-SEVA37.02274.10578.5611.410.00 AMC0.7115.0326.270.183.45

10. work in progress-do not quote Projects: Descending Order Of Improvement in Composite Scores ProjectManualComputerDifferenc e Average Averag e S.E.AverageS.E. BHOOMI2.860.074.460.041.60 e-SEVA3.390.044.660.031.27 AMC3.370.044.120.060.75 KAVERI3.350.063.900.050.55 CARD3.780.033.930.030.15

11. work in progress-do not quote Descending Order Of Post Computerization Composite Score ProjectManualComputer Difference Average AverageS.E.AverageS.E. e-SEVA3.390.044.660.031.27 BHOOMI2.860.074.460.041.60 AMC3.370.044.120.060.75 CARD3.780.033.930.030.15 KAVERI3.350.063.900.050.55

12. work in progress-do not quote Top Four Attributes Desired in the Application BHOOMIError free transaction No delay in transaction Less waiting time Fewer visits KAVERILess corruption Greater transparency Error free transaction Less waiting time CARDLess time and effort required Less waiting time Less corruption Fair treatment e-SEVALess time and effort required Less waiting time Convenient time schedule Fair treatment AMCLess time and effort required Less corruption Greater transparency Less cost

13. work in progress-do not quote Impact on Agency BHOOMIKAVERICARDe-SEVAAMC CIVIC CENTER Total Project Investment (Rs. million) 216.35400.00300.00600.00250.00 Operating Expenses 159.32111.1364.50168.9019.20 Annual Transactions (million) 13.002.471.0337.020.71 Clients Served (million)7.62 1.330.3315.300.29 Tax Revenue in 2005-06 for Computerized (Rs. million) N.A.19,245.0717,282.68N.A.1,974.26 Tax Revenue in Last Year of Manual (Rs. million) N.A.9,033.164,765.27N.A.651.36 Growth Rate in Tax Revenue for Computerized N.A.28.6823.95N.A.44.72 Transaction Fees in 2005-06 for Computerized (Rs. million) 215.70 2,626.951,130.87203.5953.32 Transaction Fees in Last Year of Manual (Rs. million) 135.10 1,890.46300.1842.0132.86 Growth Rate in Transaction Fees for Computerized 26.36 11.5924.74120.1517.51

14. work in progress-do not quote Economic Viability of Projects Agency Perspective Yearly Operating Expense per Transaction Investment per Cumulative Transactions for 4 years AMC Civic Center12.255.61 CARD44.9745.18 e-Seva62.4795.94 Bhoomi1.561.61 KAVERI26.92109.42

15. work in progress-do not quote Attitude to e-Government The Knowledge SocietyMeanS.E. E gov makes an impact on the knowledge of society4.030.02 E gov makes an impact on the literacy level of society3.970.02 Improvement in Governance Enhances citizens convenience in availing government services4.140.02 Reduces corruption in delivery of public services3.980.03 Increases accountability & transparency of government4.030.02 E gov has helped to improve the image of government4.120.02 More investment in e-Governance Government should make more investment on E gov4.120.02 More govt department/ public agencies should be computerised4.130.02 Computerisation of government departments is a waste of resources3.850.03 Investments in Development Schemes versus e-Government Money spent in e gov should be used for other government activities2.960.03 Building schools, roads, dispensaries is more useful than e gov projects3.220.03 Digital Inclusion E gov services put the poor at disadvantage3.730.03 E gov services benefit only the rich and influential3.740.03 E gov services benefit only the urban people3.500.03 Rural citizens benefit greatly from e-Government services3.300.03 Rural and urban poverty level have changed3.220.03

16. Conclusions Overall Impact –Significant positive impact on cost of accessing service –Variability across different service centers of a project –Strong preference for e-Government over manual systems even though there is large variation across projects on composite scores. –Assessment of five projects define a useful BENCHMARK Reduced corruption-outcome is mixed and can be fragile –Any type of system break down leads to corruption –Private operators also exhibit rent seeking behavior given an opportunity For most projects economic viability can be ensured through acceptable service fees (costs are low and transaction volumes are high in India) Small improvements in efficiency can trigger major positive change in perception about quality of governance. Strong endorsement of e-Government but indirect preference for private participation