Scenario and Roadmap Development in SCOOP4C

Introduction

This section reflects the outcomes reported in Deliverbale 4.2. This deliverable documents the findings of tasks 4.3 and 4.4 that were carried out in work package 4. Task 4.3 aimed at developing a roadmap of future areas of actions to guide policy makers as well as implementers and funding bodies of the once-only principle. The main objective of this roadmap was to spread the maximum potential of the OOP4C vision. The roadmap was developed based on the results gathered in tasks 4.1 and 4.2 of the work package 4, which are documented in the gap analysis report (see deliverable D 4.1). Identified gaps in the previous deliverable were classified in various types such as political commitment, technical interoperability, and trust and transparency. The eleven most pressing among the identified gaps in the different domains were evaluated as the areas of actions. For each area, a number of actions and measures were suggested to overcome the existing gaps and to enhance the OOP implementation in the cross-border cooperation between citizens and public sector. The recommended actions were extracted from productive collaborations between the project partners, the SCOOP4C community, and a broad group of relevant stakeholders.  Namely, number of stakeholder workshops have been conducted to deliberate with the participants the entries in the roadmap as well as policy recommendations for effective OOP implementation in cross-border settings in the five domains selected in D 4.1. 

Methodology 

The work in Deliverable 4.2 was accomplished based on the identified gaps in D 4.1 and through intense interaction with the stakeholder community. An interactive methodology was applied to develop a comprehensive set of actions and measures with the aim to enhance the cross-border implementation of the OOP. The roadmapping methodologies used in previous EC projects, such as the eGovRTD2020 (Codagnone C. , 2007) (Ma & Wimmer, 2007), CROSSROAD (Lampathaki, et al., 2010) and eGovPoliNet (Wimmer & Majstorovic, 2015) as well as the methodology applied in A Digital Georgia project (Krabina, et al., 2013) were combined and customised according to the particular needs and requirements of the SCOOP4C project. This roadmapping methodology as customised for SCOOP4C is described in section 2.1. Subsequently, the interactive techniques that were applied to facilitate a fruitful contribution of relevant stakeholders are outlined in section 2.2. 
One of the main objectives of this method is to facilitate fruitful participation of a variety of stakeholders during the development of the roadmap. The methodologies applied in the roadmapping exercise are described in chapter 0. Moreover, responsible actors were defined for each suggested action. The specified actors are expected to support the successful implementation of the OOP by accomplishing the recommended actions. Furthermore, the suggested actions in each area were grouped by topical areas. The roadmap was verified by the steering board member of the SCOOP4C project on the 25th September 2018 in Vienna, Austria after the final stakeholder session in the scope of the second conference of the project, which was successfully accomplished on the 24th September, as well, in Vienna. Task 4.4 aimed to develop policy recommendations for policy makers in both, national and EU levels, targeting also OOP implementers, funding bodies, and other relevant actors with the aim of including the once-only principle in high-level policies and in modernisation of the public administration. The policy recommendations were finally designed in form of a policy brief toward policy makers and other relevant stakeholders to convert the services of the public sector into once-only and digital by default solutions (see deliverable D 4.3 of WP4). 

Additional information on methodology is described in Deliverable 4.2 (Section 2) available here.

Domains

For the identification of the OOP application domains the scenario development technique described throughout Deliverable 4.1 (Chapter 3),  was adjusted to the specific context of the project and the desired future cross-border OOP scenarios. The policy domains for the scenarios were chosen basing on the “information areas related to citizens“ suggested in Article 2(2)(a) of the Single Digital Gateway Regulation (SDGR). The SDGR proposes a European gateway to inform and assist citizens with services within the EU. From the eight areas of information, the following five were selected for the scenario development: 

  • Education domain: education or traineeship in another Member State, leading to the scenario 'education', which outlines the process of a student applying for a study in another Member State in order to take a semester abroad (cf. subsection 3.1).
     
  • Social protection domain: cross-border family rights, obligations and rules leading to the cross-border scenario called 'social protection', which addresses parental responsibilities in relation to registering the new-born citizen (cf. subsection 3.2).
     
  • Taxation domain: work and retirement within the Union leading to the cross-border scenario called 'taxation', which is related to a citizen temporarily working in another Member State while still handling his tax declaration in the home country (cf. subsection 3.3).
     
  • Moving domain: vehicles in the Union, in particular taking a motor vehicle temporarily or permanently to another Member State – leading to the scenario 'moving' (cf. subsection 3.4).
     
  • Heath domain: healthcare related to buying prescribed pharmaceutical products in a Member State other than the one where the prescription was issued, on-line or in person, leading to the scenario 'health' (cf. subsection 3.5).


As initial step in the scenario development, each partner selected a scenario domain and subsequently identified the main actors (e.g. citizens, public administrations and businesses – informed in part also by the stakeholder analysis carried out in work package 2, cf. Deliverable 2.1) as well as the main interactions and supporting building blocks, challenges, needs, and enablers of the scenario.

 

Analysis of gaps, benefits, and impacts

According to the definition of gaps and the gap analysis methodology introduced in D.4.1, different kinds of gaps were extracted from the future cross-border OOP scenarios. In this section, the identified gaps are synthesised and analysed. For the synthesis, the identified gaps from the future scenarios in education, social protection, taxation, moving, and health domains were extracted and summarised to create an overview. The same procedure was applied on the benefits for stakeholders in each domain. The gaps were structured and categorised along the different types of enablers introduced in deliverables D 1.1 and D 1.2. The benefits are organised by the domains and the stakeholder classifications from work package 2. All gaps, benefits, and impacts were identified and prioritised interactively with the SCOOP4C community, through intensive discussions with different groups of stakeholders in five workshops in different Member States. Moreover, the SCOOP4C community verified the final set of gaps, benefits, and impacts as well their prioritisations. The results are presented in the following table.

Nr. Area of Gap Scenario Domain Name of Gap Brief Description of Gap Related Barrier identified in WP1
E.4 Technical Interoperability Education E.4

eDelivery exists as a EU building block to facilitate secure data transaction in cross border as well as cross-domain matters; however, it has to be implemented in different sectors including education and taxation. EU-wide secure transport protocols are pre-requirement for secure data exchange that is fundamental base for OOP implementation.

E.11 Trust and Transparency Education E.11

Student as a data subject has to provide consent to host university for data sharing.

E.8 Trust and Transparency Education E.8

Transparency is an essential issue in order to accept a public service. This needs political commitments, and regulations to ensure legal interoperability as well as technical infrastructures that facilitate them.  At the end, data subject should be able to see whom, when, and why access their personal data.

E.14 Technical Interoperability Education E.14

Further development of eID to facilitate confirmation of students' educational status as well as educational data exchange, could leads to elimination of ESC and further simplification of the scenario. Then eID could be enough for identification and authentication of students as well as verification of their educational status.

E.16 Technical Interoperability Education E.16

Unique identification for subjects such as students is needed to facilitate efficient identification and authentication. While national eIDs implemented in most of the Member States, national eID Schemes are in developing phase in countries such as Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech republic, France, Greece, Italy, Poland, and Romania.

E.10 Technical Interoperability Education E.10

ESC supports the host university to check student's education status and ease student identification as well as transfer of students report. However, it is not implemented in all Member States.

E.7 Technical Interoperability Education E.7

According to eIDAS regulation (EU regulation 910-2014), cross-border recognition of national eIDs will be mandatory from September 2018. However, it was not mandatory at the time of scenario development.

E.6 Technical Interoperability Education E.6

National information systems are fundamental base for decentralised cross-border OOP implementations. Therefore, the information systems have to connect with existing modules that enable cross-border operation and data exchange (e.g. with mapping tools such as EMREX).

E.5 Technical Interoperability Education E.5

This mapping tool has to be connected as a module to the HEIs in all Member States to be used in a cross-border manner. Currently, HEIs in just six Member States have the possibility to connect.

E.1 Political Commitment Education E.1

There is already some existing political commitment at different levels supporting the OOP implementations in this scenario. However, the lack of sufficient political commitment on different levels (incl. European, national, local, or ministerial) could threat the seamless implementation of this scenario.

E.17 Semantic Interoperability Education E.17

ECTS enables student to mapping and transferring the credits that achieved in one university to other universities. However, matching the competency is challenging.

E.13 Semantic Interoperability Education E.13

Bilateral digital Learning Agreements between universities will facilitate mapping of courses and credits achieved by student in the host university to the education system of the home university. This agreement could overcome the lingual issue as well.

E.2 Semantic Interoperability Education E.2

An EU-wide multilingual code list of objects in education domain is necessary in order to facilitate effective data exchange between different countries. For instance, universities and courses would be easily identifiable by those code lists. This code list will provide a unique identification code for objects in education domain.

E.3 Semantic Interoperability Education E.3

Lack of common standard and framework for exchange of electronic educational information at Europe level can threat implementation of the scenario in this domain.

E.18 Legal Interoperability Education E.18

Some EU regulations are formulated in a way that could lead to diverse implementations among Member States. This could threat the essential harmonisation and interconnection of OOP implementations at EU-level.

E.12 Legal Interoperability Education E.12

Though there are a variety of national and European regulations to support this scenario, the absence of sufficient regulations, particularly on national level, could prevent the seamless implementation of the OOP in the education domain.

E.15 Political Commitment Education E.15

The incompatibility between the two concepts, of the freedom and flexibility of teaching in one hand, and EU-wide standardisation and harmonisation on the other hand, has been identified as a potential gap in the education domain. Consequently, an appropriate balance between them on the EU level is needed.

E.9 Data quality Education E.9

Manual approval of shared (mapped) data should be facilitated by an authorised position in each data environment. This will lead to higher trust and acceptance of the service by citizens.

Actions and measures in relevant areas

The following section synthesise the actions that are recommended by the SCOOP4C community and the project partners. The corresponding step in the development of the roadmap is the identification of appropriate sets of actions and measures in cooperation with a wide range of stakeholders from different sections to overcome shortages and barriers in the areas of actions. All areas were structured in a similar approach. The individual recommended actions are displayed in a tabular form. Besides a unique identifier, a short name and description of the action, the table shows the connection to the scenario domains and single gaps. Additionally, expected results formulate the tangible improvements through overcoming the corresponding gaps in each area. Nevertheless, a number of actions were recommended to generally enhance the cross-border implementation of the OOP rather than addressing a specific identified gap. Finally, appropriate stakeholders are assigned to each action, to display the responsibilities within each area. The table was initiated by the project partners and iteratively complemented with the inputs from the community. As there were basic and complex interconnections between the actions, the partners grouped the final set of actions to show the relations between them. At the end, the potential impacts of the implementation of the suggested actions were anticipated and documented for each area of actions in the table. Likewise, responsible actors for implementing the actions have been identified. 

Roadmap Area Nr. Scenario Domain Gap Reference Nr. Roadmap Action Description of Action Measures Expected Results Responsible Actors Roadmap
Data quality DQA.4 Education, Social Protection, Taxation E.9, SP.8, T.11 Establish data quality assurance procedures Ensure that data is recorded and maintained properly, through the implementation of system checks, scheduling data cleansing procedures and procedures for the manual approval of automatically mapped data. Definition of data quality procedures, Enforcement of data quality procedures Enhanced quality of OOP data EU policy makers, National policy makers, Data mapping experts, Database owners and data aggregators, OOP implementers
Data quality DQA.3 Education, Social Protection, Taxation, Moving, Health Ensure quality of new data Provide training courses, video tutorials and detailed how to deal with data-to-data recorders e.g. front-desk employees. Development of multilingual vocational training for data recorders Enhanced quality of new data, i.e. every piece of data is correctly recorded from the start. National policy makers, Public officials and employees, VET practitioners
Data quality DQA.2 Taxation, Social Protection, Education T.5, SP.9, E.2, E.3 Ensure data quality in cross-border data exchange Data exchanged for cross-border services have to be based on seamless mapping service, code lists, common standards etc. to assure data quality. (compare different data requirements) Research on standards and mapping services, Adoption of EU-wide data standards Assured quality of data exchanged across borders EU policy makers, National policy makers, Experts in domain
Citizen-centred design CCA.5 Education, Moving Engage citizens into further mature OOP implementation Organize a focus groups consisting of both end users and service providers, and involve them to requirements planning phase, to alpha or beta testing phase, etc. Active citizens engagement, Awareness raising to citizens, Promotion of co-creation with citizens Promotion of co-creation with citizens; Better understanding of the implementation processes, improvement of OOP services according to the citizens' feedback, higher acceptance levels of OOP implementations, more citizen oriented inputs. OOP implementers, Citizens
Citizen-centred design CCA.4 Education, Moving Engage citizens in OOP implementation process using different incentive approaches Offering of bonus programs and discounts for other public services (e.g. temporary free parking), pilots of OOP services, "best feedback" competitions, with prizes for most active participants, in order to entice willingness to be engaged in the process. Active citizens engagement, Awareness raising to citizens Improvement of OOP services since citizens’ feedback and ideas can improve the offering, higher acceptance levels of OOP implementations, higher level of citizen engagement. Promotion of co-creation with citizens OOP implementers, Citizens, NGOs
Citizen-centred design CCA.3 Social Protection, Health, Taxation, Moving, Education Develop OOP scenarios based on collected information on needs to create citizen centred solutions Regularly perform analysis of state of play in different OOP domains in order to be able to develop relevant citizen cantered OOP scenarios. Research on citizen's needs in OOP services, Design of future OOP scenarios, Implementation of enablers Elaborated scenarios in different OOP domains and applicable for different procedures. Higher level of acceptance by citizens, citizen centric aspects is more in focus. EU implementers, National implementers, Academia
Citizen-centred design CCA.2 Education, Moving M.13, M.15 Collect the information on citizen needs for OOP implementation beforehand Implementers should consider the experience of service providers in terms of requests and complaints of the citizens, regarding existing services, to develop a concept of citizen oriented OOP solution from the beginning Research on citizen's needs in OOP services, Active citizens engagement Higher level of citizen's reliability on services. Better and inclusive OOP services, higher acceptance levels of OOP implementations. OOP implementers, Service providers
Citizen-centred design CCA.1 Education, Moving M.13, M.15 Collect the information on citizen needs for OOP implementation beforehand Initially information about the needs of the end citizens should be collected by means of direct interaction between service providers and citizens, e.g. the specific needs of citizens with disabilities to use OOP solutions will be identified correctly. Research on citizen's needs in OOP services, Active citizens engagement More comprehensive and inclusive OOP services, higher acceptance levels of OOP implementations, a feeling of excitement and ownership in the society. OOP implementers, Citizens
Interoperability Governance IGA.5 Education, Moving E.10, E.13, E.17, E.2, E.3, M.16, M.17 Policy recommendations on the use of semantic assets to improve semantic interoperability and machine readability Policy makers on EU and national levels should make a decision on the use of cross-border semantic assets to make sure all documents are at a minimum level of machine-readability (no Word Excel, PDF, …). Policy Recommendation Messages, documents and data are machine readable and semantically enriched and linked. Consequently, information systems understand content of data from different Member States EU policy makers, National policy makers
Interoperability Governance IGA.4 Education, Health, Moving, Social Protection E.1, E.15, E.17, E.18, H.13, M.5, SP.5 Improve interoperability governance by legal EU acts The improvement should be achieved through the development of legal acts and corresponding guidelines according for clear organisational, legal, semantic, and technical decisions and solutions. Implementation of regulations Accurate legal EU acts will increase sufficient competencies and finances for realising governance processes according to EIF and EIRA. EU legislators
Interoperability Governance IGA.3 Education, Social Protection, Health, Moving, Taxation E.14, E.16, SP.8, H.8, M.10, T.8, T.9 Implement all components of eIDAS The eIDAS regulation covers various components including the eID for individuals, a digital seal for organisations, issuance of certificates, security tokens, digital signatures, timestamping, validation of certificates, and trust service list. However, s Implementation of regulations National implementers are responsible to make sure that all components of the eIDAS regulation are achieved. This will improve security and facilitate the cross-border authentication of individuals and the validation of communications and data exchange. National implementers
Interoperability Governance IGA.2 Education, Moving, Social Protection, Health, Taxation E.4, E.11, M.4, SP.13, H.7, H.8, T.2, T.3 Establish an eDelivery building block in specified domains in all Member States Seamless implementation of the eDelivery node at the identified domains on the national level according to the evaluated deficiency. Implementation of regulations Implementation of the eDelivery building blocks in all Member States will ease the implementation and execution of the cross-border OOP services. National implementers
Interoperability Governance IGA.1 Education, Moving, Social Protection, Health, Taxation E.4, E.11, M.4, SP.13, H.7, H.8, T.2, T.3 Investigate domains with lack of sufficient eDelivery nodes in all Member States An eDelivery node should be in place in each domain and all Member States in order to facilitate cross-border and cross-domain electronic data and document exchange. This action aims to investigate and point out any area where the eDelivery node is missin Research on successful diffusion of enablers Academia and EU policy makers should come together to investigate and specify all policy domains in the Member States, where the eDelivery is needed. The results will benefit to the implementation and interaction between Member States. Academia, EU policy makers
Data protection and privacy DPA.5 Education, Moving, Health, Social Protection, Taxation Harmonized implementation of GDPR GDPR is already in place, but rules are not harmonised and there is no clear understanding what has to be implemented in terms of data protection. Implementation of regulations Clear rules on data protection in the EU and all member states. EU policy makers, National policy makers
Data protection and privacy DPA.4 Education, Health, Taxation, Social Protection, Moving Control of the use of data by an independent institution An independent agency, like EU data protection officer should overlook the use of data for cross-border digital public services in order to avoid misuse of data Implementation of regulations More trust and transparency, control over the misuse of data EU policy makers, National policy makers
Data protection and privacy DPA.3 Health, Education, Taxation, Moving, Social Protection H.4 Right to withdraw consent for data sharing any time Citizens should have right to withdraw their consent for data sharing any time easily and transparently if they feel a misuse of data. This also means they need to have a transparent overview of the use of their data and to whom at which time they have gi Policy Recommendation, Implementation of regulations More control and transparency of the use of data for citizens. Consequently, more trust of citizens in the state and the use of data. EU policy makers, National policy makers, Service providers
Data protection and privacy DPA.2 Education, Social Protection, Health, Taxation, Moving Implement mandatory technical modules for citizens’ consent for data sharing Service providers should implement mandatory technical modules for any OOP service so that citizens can give or withdraw their consent for any OOP service according to Policy maker laws Implementation of enablers During the application for a cross-border service, citizens can choose if their data should be automatically exchanged between different member states or not EU policy makers, National policy makers, Service providers
Data protection and privacy DPA.1 Education, Social Protection, Taxation, Moving, Health Agree on and implement common data protection standards Making agreement on and implementation of the common data protection standards for cross-border data exchange Implementation of regulations, Agree on common technical solutions Data protection standards paves the way for coherent cross-border data exchange EU implementers, National implementers, EU policy makers, EU policy makers, Service providers
Motivators MA.6 Education, Health, Moving, Social Protection E.11, H.5, H.14, M.12, SP.2 Implement a comprehensive solution for sharing consent once Develop a comprehensive solution for requesting subject's data sharing consent in order to avoid redundancy in iterative steps of sharing consent. i.e. subject can share her/his consent once for different OOP services Implementation of enablers Increased motivation of citizens to use more accessible and unsophisticated services EU implementers, National implementers
Motivators MA.5 Social Protection, Health, Taxation, Moving, Education Develop a standardized business process in cross-border OOP services with equivalent purposes/functionalities EU-wide. Implementation of standard business processes to guarantee intuitiveness and user friendliness in OOP in equivalent/adjacent services offered cross-border, so that both service providers and end users could intuitively understand the purposes and logic of Design processes User-friendliness and acquaintance of solution, which leads to higher citizens' motivation to use the service. EU implementers, National implementers

Policy Recommendations

The results of tasks 4.1 - 4.3 finally fed into an activity to develop policy recommendations addressing policy makers at different levels, funding bodies and other relevant actors towards a necessary paradigm shift in the public sector and of citizens to implement the SCOOP4C. The policy recommendations are also formulated as policy brief and aim at motivating and advancing the transformation of the public sector towards once-only and digital by default solutions. The method for identifying and consolidating the policy recommendations were the same as for the roadmapping, i.e. discussions among project partners as well as with stakeholders and a validation workshop with the Steering board members (in combination with the verification workshop in task 4.3) in month 23 (Milestone 11). The policy recommendations are presented in the next table. 

Area of Policy Recommendation Responsible Actors Policy Recommendation Nr. of Roadmap Action Funding Requirements Leagal Requirements Research Requirements
Interoperability Governance EU policy makers, EU legislators Launch EU level projects and pilots for further establishment of eInteraction building blocks for secure cross-border data exchange IGA.1 Provide financial resources, in form of an EU-project and furthermore pilots, for building eInteraction building blocks Research and identify possible EU-wide enablers and infrastructures
Data quality EU policy makers, EU legislators Identification and implementation of measures for ensuring quality of (new) data in general and for crossborder data exchange DQA.1, DQA.2 Provide funding for multiple crossborder projects for ensuring data quality and developing mandatory digital registries Research in the direction to identify measures for ensuring quality of new data in order that cross-border data is correctly recorded in mandatory digital registries
Semantic Interoperability EU policy makers, EU legislators Entering and creating more bilateral digital learning agreements between EU universities OA.10 Provide financial resources, in form of an EU-project, in order to create further bilateral digital learning agreements Research and identify further bilateral digital learning agreements between EU universities with the participation of relevant actors
Interoperability Governance EU policy makers, EU legislators Implementation of EU-wide enablers and infrastructures on EU level (according to technical level) IGA.2, IGA.3 Provide financial support for the member states in order to fully implement eID on national level Support/coordination the research activities on national level in order that the member states implement all components of eID
Data protection and privacy EU policy makers, EU legislators Implementation of the common data protection standards for cross-border data exchange DPA.1 Financial support for the research activities to implement common data protection standards Research activities to identify national common data protection standards (in accordance with the GDPR) for coherent cross-border data exchange

Conclusion

Deliverable 4.2 documents the work performed under tasks 4.3 and 4.4 of work package 4 of the SCOOP4C project. The aming objective was to identify areas of action and to formulate a roadmap of such areas. The project team has engaged roadmapping methodology to develop, based on the gap analysis in D 4.1, a set of roadmap actions and to cluster them into eleven areas of action.
Along this work, the project conducted a total of eight workshops where stakeholders contributed with their view on roadmap actions and with policy recommendations. Furthermore, the roadmap actions and the policy recommendations were exposed to a validation with the steering board.  
For the validation of policy recommendations, a questionnaire was set up, which brought some further, though limited, insight into what are the most recommended directions of how to address the OOP implementation successfully, and by whom.
To sum up the major results reported in this deliverable:  

  • Identification of eleven areas of action, which are: motivation for OOP, political, legal, organisational, semantic, technical, interoperability governance, citizen-centred design, data quality, data protection, and trust and transparency.
  • For each area, definition of a set of action which should help overcome the gaps. The actions are described along with expected impacts and responsible actors.
  • Definition of policy recommendations, which are also raised along ten roadmap areas and which are formulated to target EU level and national policy and law makers.