08448380779 Call Girls In Civil Lines Women Seeking Men
IMTs testimonials: The case of IMAPS in the GR Public Sector
1. IMTs testimonials: The case of
IMAPS in the GR Public Sector
Yannis Charalabidis
Professor, University of the Aegean
Director, DGRC
yannisx@aegean.gr
2. The Digital Governance Research Centre
at the University of the Aegean
A collaborative, multi-disciplinary team (ICT, management, legal)
15 researchers, 30 international experts, 150 members
Conducting research and education in Digital Governance
The last years, we run:
• The Digital Government MSc programme (300+ alumni)
• The Samos Summit on ICT-enabled Governance (500+
participants)
• The OpenGov Summer School (300+ alumni)
3. Our experience with IMT
Participation in various phases of EIF / IMAPS / EIRA
implementation
Applying IMAPS – Case 1
– Electronic Governance οf Social Security (IDIKA) SA
– Evaluation of 10 services
– Master students of class 2021
Applying IMAPS – Case 2
– General Directorate of Fisheries, Ministry of Rural Development
– Evaluation of 10 services
– Master students of class 2023
Findings from our experience
4. CASE STUDY 1: IDIKA (SOCIAL
SECURITY SERVICE)
Coordinator: Yannis Charalabidis
Team Leader: Harris Alexopoulos
Team members: Aggeliki Demesticha, Nikos Vekris, Vogiatzakis, Papaioannou, Mastrokosta, Gkikas, Vardikos,
Fotiadou, Panou
5. IMAPS results for the 10 services
Total
Β. Service
provision
C. Service
consumption
D. Service
Management
IDIKA 2,96 4,06 2,32
50% 20% 30%
Very good Good Low
No
improvements
are needed
Some
improvements
are needed
Lots of
improvements
are needed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Social
Solidarity
Income
Social
Security
Registration
Number
(AMKA -
FKA)
Hospital,
Pharmaceutical
Overdue
Debts
Patient
Health
Recipes –
References
Unified
Social
Security
Agency
(EFKA)
E-
Appointment
Pensions
Insurance
Capacity
Β. Service
provision
3,2 2,3 2,4 2,4 3,6 3,75 3,3 3,15 2,2 3,15
C. Service
consumption
4,4 4 3,8 3,4 4 5 5 4,6 4,4 4
D. Service
Management
2,65 2,85 2,55 2,6 2,75 4,1 2,85 2,55 2,65 3
Total
3,41 2,81 2,73 2,66 3,43 4,11 3,51 3,24 2,78 3,28
6. Findings (Service Level)
Most of the services examined present a good or very good level of interoperability.
Multilingualism is not supported in any EFKA service.
Most services are not part of a service directory.
The services do not have feedback channels.
The services provided are – for the most part – not accessible to people with special needs.
Little to no use of BPM standards for service orchestration.
Minimal use of EIRA framework architecture in service design.
The use of codelists in service development should be increased. Some standard controlled
vocabularies as well as standard data structures are already in use (e.g., ISA Business Vocabulary).
7. Findings (System Level)
Most services have been developed using "proprietary" software (ASP.NET, IBM COGNOS,
ORACLE BL, etc.). There is a multitude of application servers (web servers) such as WEB Logic,
Tomcat, Apache, IBM Websphere, WILDFLY etc.
The newest services, such as that of electronic prescribing, has been developed in more open
software environments (JAVA, python, PHP, etc.)
About 45% of IDIKA's services, are also provided as web services, for external consumption by other
internal and external software and services.
55% of services have not provided for XML-standardized external data structures.
The use of codelists and core components for the description of the basic entities is at relevantly low
level, gradually rising.
8. CASE STUDY 2: DIGITAL SERVICES FOR
FISHERIES AND FISHΙNG PROFESSIONALS
Coordinator: Harris Alexopoulos
Team leader: Theoni Papadopoulou
Team members: Zapantiotis Giannis, Chatzivasili Niki, Lalakou Maria, Vasiliadou Maria, Ziogas
Giorgos, Karras Dimos, Panagiotaki Ioanna, Kritikou Maria, Vaggeli Antouela
9. IMAPS Statistics
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
INTERNATIONAL
LICENSE
SWORDFISH
LICENSE
TOOL
LOSS
REGISTRATION
OF 1ST BUYERS
DECLARATION
OF SALE
DECLARATION OF
SALE OF
ANOTHER MS
AQUACULTURE
CENSUS
DETERMINATION
OF PORTS
DEFINITION OF
COMMERCIAL
ITEMS
BCD
Β. Service
provision 2,90 3,20 2,90 2,70 3,10 3,20 3,20 2,90 2,90 3,60
C. Service
consumption 3,90 3,90 4,70 4,70 4,70 4,70 4,70 3,90 3,90 4,70
D. Service
Management 3,40 3,40 4,10 3,00 3,85 3,55 3,20 3,40 3,40 2,75
Total 3,25 3,40 3,62 3,19 3,65 3,61 3,50 3,25 3,25 3,57
Total
Β. Service
provision
C. Service
consumption
D. Service
Management
3,43 3,06 4,38 3,41
50% 20% 30%
Very good Good Low
No
improvements
are needed
Some
improvements
are needed
Lots of
improvements
are needed
10. Β2 4,40 Can the public service be accessible from multiple devices, platforms or browsers?
Β3 2,20 Does the public service provide pre-filled forms?
Β4 1,60 To what extent is multilingualism supported?
Β5 3,20 Does the public service promote the use of its own or other (public) services through the connection / interface with other websites?
Β6 2,00 Is the public service delivered as part of a directory service?
Β7 5,00 To what extent are semantic standards (xml) and specifications used for data exchange?
Β8 1,00 Has a certification procedure been followed?
Β9 3,00 Are the administrative rules for providing the service transparent to users?
Β10 3,00 Are the rules for the protection of personal data transparent to users?
Β11 4,00 Can users evaluate the quality of the service provided (user feedback)?
Β12 1,00 Is the service provided accessible to people with special needs?
Β13 5,00 Are there any restrictions on the use of the service by foreign citizens (non-residents of the country)?
C2 4,20 How is the service consumed today?
C3 3,00 How is the nested service call implemented?
C4 5,00
Sign up for automatic updates. Does the service receive automatic updates to automatically trigger its execution (from a life event) and/or
refresh the database?
D1 2,30
With how many of the following options does the public service share its components with the external environment for reuse? (a)
documenting the process (b) source code (c) providing a web-API (d) supporting organizations using the resources provided"
D2 5,00 Has the public service provided made use of the public procurement standard when procuring the components/software of the service?
D3 4,00 To what extent is topography automated?
D4 4,10 To what extent are business process management (BPM) standards applied to orchestrate the public service?
D5 1,00 Has the public service considered an architecture framework in its design (European, national, international (open) standard)?
D6 3,60 Has the public service established an (open) standard-setting process in which administrations and businesses can participate?
D7 4,20 To what extent are semantic standards (controlled vocabularies (e.g., code lists, thesauri)) used for data modeling?
D8 4,60 Has the public service been involved in drawing up specifications for the use of individual services (SLAs)?
Sum Results per Indicator
11. Findings (Service Level)
A high degree of
interoperability is
observed with
interconnection between
the individual applications
Multilingualism is not
supported
The services are part of a
directory, available to
limited users.
The services provided
are – for the most part –
not accessible to people
with special needs
Use of the public
procurement standard
when announcing the
implementation of
services
Satisfactory use of BPM
patterns and automated
choreography
Not use of an
architectural framework
in the design of services
Some standard,
controlled vocabularies
as well as standard data
structures are used
Unsatisfactory prefilling
of fields
Wide use of semantic
data exchange standards
The administrative and
personal data protection
rules for the provision of
the service are not visible
to users
Inadequate distribution of
services
12. Findings (System Level)
Use of “proprietary” software (off-the-shelf software or application development).
All applications are called from a website.
All applications provide services such as web services for external consumption
by other internal and external software and services.
There are external data structures standardized in XML.
Codelists are used to describe the basic entities.
Gradual transfer to cloud infrastructures.
13. Suggestions for IMAPS
Strong points
– An easy tool, taking in mind the depth of interoperability issues
– A step-by-step coverage of all main interoperability aspects, at technical, semantic
and organizational level, in accordance with EIF and EIRA
– When used by experts, the assessment creates a nice set of recommendations
Points for improvement
– Deepen the analysis aspects, especially around semantic interoperability
– Progress towards automated assessment, as there is still enough room for subjectivity
in the assessment
– The provision of “average” scoring (per domain, per type of service etc) would be a
valuable asset for assessed services
– Some differentiation of questions that can be filled without / with in-depth interview
with the service developers
– Provision in all EU languages
– The application of IMAPS to be a prerequisite for NIF’s maturity, measured by NIFO