Paper presented in ePart 2012 conference, IDHEAP, Switzerland. The paper is available from Springer (see http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-15158-3_5)

1. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab
eParticipation initiatives
in Europe:
Learning from Practitioners
Eleni Panopoulou, Efthimios Tambouris,
Konstantinos Tarabanis
University of Macedonia

2. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab2
Contents
 Objective
 Methodology
 Results
 Discussion
 Limitations
 Conclusion

3. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab3
Objective
 Objective
– to investigate the use of ICT and derive the success factors of
eParticipation initiatives according to the practitioners’ view
 By
– conducting a survey of eParticipation initiatives across Europe and at
different levels (from local to international)

4. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab4
Contents
 Objective
 Methodology
 Results
 Discussion
 Limitations
 Conclusion

5. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab5
Methodology - in a nutshell
1. Identification of eParticipation initiatives across Europe
2. Drafting suitable questionnaire
3. Contacting the owners
4. Processing of results

6. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab6
1st step – Initiatives identification
 Methods employed:
1. desktop research, i.e.
 initiatives mentioned in the literature
 initiatives identified through web surfing and the help of search engines
 for the European level, we searched within the numerous EU institutions, the College of
Commissioners, the EU policy documents as well as political parties and civil societies
2. databases of websites and award nominations, i.e.
 epractice.eu,
 e-participation.net,
 eEurope Awards for eGovernment,
 UK e-Government National Awards,
 Stockholm Challenge awards,
 etc.
3. through our network of experts and key actors in the field
 In overall:
– 255 initiatives from 23 European countries – collected contact data for 230 of them
An extensive analysis of the survey cases is presented at:
Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E. and Tarabanis, K.: eParticipation good practice cases and diffusion. European
eParticipation Study deliverable (2008), available at http://islab.uom.gr/eP/
Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E. and Tarabanis, K.: eParticipation initiatives: How is Europe progressing? European
Journal of ePractice (2008), available at http://www.epractice.eu

7. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab7
2nd step – Questionnaire drafting
 Based on:
1. a preliminary literature review of eParticipation evaluation frameworks, i.e.
– Rowe and Frewer (2000) Public Participation Methods: A Framework for
Evaluation
– Tambouris, Liotas, and Tarabanis (2007) A framework for Assessing
eParticipation Projects and Tools.
– Macintosh and Whyte (2008) Towards an Evaluation Framework for
eParticipation.
– DEMO-net Consortium (2008) D13.3 DEMO-net booklet: eParticipation
Evaluation and Impact
2. good practice criteria definitions in different contexts, mostly
– theory for eGovernment good practice
– awards for eGovernment initiatives
 Developed as an excel workbook with 3 sheets/sections:
1. Identification
2. Management and Operation
3. Results and Impact

8. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab8
2nd step - Questionnaire
SECTION A - IDENTIFICATION
1
2
3 Scope
4 Start date End date
5
6
7 Contact details Person 1
Name of the case in english
Name of the case in case's official language
Short title or acronym of the case in english
Short title or acronym of the case in case's official language
Web address of the case
Full address
Organisation
Email address
Role/position in project
Full name
Telephone and fax
Case abstract (max 1200 chars/~ 200 words)
Country /City /Region
Date on which the case became operational
Person 2
SECTION B - MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION
8
9
10
11
12
13
Participant
(user)
Project
owner /
initiator
Decision
maker
Moderator /
facilitator
Data /
results
processor
User of
results
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Check
24
What privacy/ security issues did you confront and how did you handle them? (max 700 chars/~100 words)
Description of the way you manage the participation process (max 2000 chars/~300 words)
Which is/are the operational language/s of your case? Additionally, have you considered the possibility to launch the
project in another language? (max 700 chars/~ 100 words)
Current case status
Streaming media Web 2.0 features
Ontologies Data mining
Geographical information systems Natural language processing
Mobile and wireless technologies Semantic web services
Check
Digital signature and security protocols Collaborative environments
Elected representatives
Government (executives and/or administration)
NGOs, CSOs, etc.
Technologies utilised Check
Participation focus Check
Consultation
Environment
Objective (max 1200 chars/~ 200 words)
Stakeholders / Roles
Local/Regional community development
Policy Context and Legal Framework (max 1200 chars/~ 200 words)
Check
Argumentation Support Systems
Consultation
Check
Discourse
CheckCheckSector
Mass communication media
Politics
Social Security
Health
If other, please explain:
Social Services
Spatial planning
Taxation
Travel, Transports and Motoring
Other
Culture and Media
Education, Science and Research
Employment
Crime, Justice and Law
Campaigning
Voting
Mediation
Electioneering
Deliberation
Political Parties and politicians
Other diverse stakeholders, other public sector partners,
quasi non-governmental organisations, etc
If other, please explain:
Other
Citizen Groups
Academia / Research
Industry (including IT and Consulting)
Description of target users or target groups (max 1200 chars/~ 200 words)
Individual citizens
ICT tools used Check Check
Access facilitated by an intermediary or proxy access
Non ‘e’ channels (only when these are used together with ‘e’ channels)
ePetition systems Webcasts
eVoting and eReferenda Podcasts
eConsultation systems Wikis
Virtual community systems Blogs
Online surgeries and chat rooms GIS and mapping tools
Decision-making games Search engines
Online newsletters / listservs
ePanels Alert services
Suggestion tools for planning procedures
eParticipation discussion forums
Other tools (not listed above):
Quick polls
Please describe which non 'e' channels you utilised and in what way:
Groupware tools
Web portals
FAQseDeliberative polling
Mobile channel supporting the use of the tool through mobile phones, palmtops, etc.
Public Kiosks
Digital TV
Funding source Please, provide more details here:
Public funding EU
Public funding national
Public funding regional
Public funding local
Private sector funding
Charity, voluntry contributions
Implementation cost Exact numerical value
Yearly cost Exact numerical value
Managing organisation
Information Provision
Community building / Collaborative Environments
Participation area
Communication
Owning organisation
Hosting organisation
Channels utilised
Conventional Internet channel for use by PC
Check
Spatial planning
Polling
Active Participation
Delegation of Power
Provision of Information
Knowledge Management
Surveys
SECTION C - RESULTS AND IMPACT
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 Project duration and sustainability
34
35
36
37
38
(Potential for) replication or implementation of a similar formula in other contexts (max 1200 chars/~ 200 words)
Visibility
Dissemination efforts and results (max 1200 chars/~ 200 words)
Functionality
Evaluation of usefulness and functionality (max 2000 chars/~ 300 words)
Transferability and sharing of practice
Please insert here any additional information that is not previously covered in this questionnaire (max 1200 chars/~ 200 words)
What problems did you encounter and which were the critical success factors of your project? (max 1200 chars/~ 200 words)
Will the project be able to continue in the future? What are the implications? (max 700 chars/~ 100 words)
Sustainability and future development
Innovation and novelty (max 2000 chars/~ 300 words)
Lessons learnt
Lessons learnt (max 1200 chars/~ 200 words)
What, in your project’s opinion, constitutes 'perfect participation’? (max 700 chars/~ 100 words)
What have you achieved in terms of improving participation? (max 700 chars/~ 100 words)
How would you rate the aforementioned achievements on a scale from 0-4 where 4 is perfect participation and 0 is none?
Results and achievements
Please provide an overall summary of real or expected achievements and results; if possible with figures (max 2700 chars/~ 300 words)
Innovation and novelty
Who benefits from your case and in what way? (max 2000 chars/~ 300 words)
Please provide a summary of the impact of your case from either a policy or a societal perspective (max 2000 chars/~ 300 words)
Societal impact

9. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab9
3rd and 4th step – Survey
1. Contacting initiative owners
 3 to 4 months
 allowing time to draft the answers, clarify questions, etc.
2. Processing of results

10. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab10
Contents
 Objective
 Methodology
 Results
 Discussion
 Limitations
 Conclusion

11. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab11
Initiatives’ profile
40 initiatives
 from 12 countries across Europe:
– Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany (6), Greece, Italy, The Netherlands,
Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (10).
 active at all different levels:
– 1 international
– 9 European
– 14 national
– 4 regional
– 12 local
 Ownership status:
– 80% initiated and owned by public authorities, bodies and organisations
– 20% owned by NGOs, private or independent institutions, Universities, or
political parties

12. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab12
Use of ICT
10%
100%
18%
8%
3%
30%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Internet
Mobiles
Kiosks
Digital TV
Intermediary
access
Other non "e"
channels
 Communication channels
Finding: A large number of initiatives use additional channels (usually
offline) in addition to the Internet

13. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab13
Use of ICT
 Tools
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Web portals
eParticipation discussion forums
Online new sletters / listservs
eConsultation systems
FAQs
Search engines
Alert services
Surveys
Virtual community systems
ePetition systems
Quick polls
Groupw are tools
eVoting and eReferenda
Chat rooms
eDeliberative polling
Webcasts
Blogs
GIS and mapping tools
Suggestion tools for planning procedures
Wikis
Decision-making Games
ePanels
Podcasts
Finding: The vast majority of initiatives use “general-purpose” ICT tools (such as
discussion forums, FAQs etc) and not tools specifically designed for eParticipation

14. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab14
Success factors
 Based on owners’ answers on questions related to:
– problems encountered
– critical success factors
– lessons learnt
 Analysis indicated 7 groups of factors:
1. Commitment by the government
2. Usability
3. Combining different channels, both online and offline ones
4. A thorough communication and promotion plan
5. Security and privacy
6. Organisational issues
7. Topics complexity and quality of participation

15. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab15
1 - Commitment by the government
 actual involvement of governmental bodies and agencies not only as owners
but throughout the whole participation process:
– Drive to set up and support the initiative.
– Need for champions from within the organisation to embrace and promote internally the
project backed up by an actual willingness of the organisation to hold a government-
citizen dialogue.
– Support of the participatory process.
– Throughout all phases (design-operation-evolvement)
– From all parts of the organisation (from officials and management down to the secretariat
of every operational unit)
– i.e. business integration of the relevant units/roles to the participatory process
– i.e. actual participation of officials/appointed civil servants in the initiative (virtual
presence) and physical presence in related events and meetings
– Feedback and integration of results.
– experience shows the involved government bodies did not provide feedback to the issues
and questions raised or that they provided answers either too generic or too selective
(probably only to the “easy” issues raised)
– participants fear that “the whole process might lead to nothing” and demand a clear
commitment, i.e.
– provide feedback on the overall results and explain how these will be used in the future
– integrate the results into the political process

16. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab16
2 - Usability
 should be really easy and intuitive for all kinds of users (independent
of age, educational level, ICT literacy, etc)
 special attention to user interface - dynamic development of technical
features whenever it is considered essential
 aims of the initiative & usage rules clearly defined and explicitly
described online
 provision of help-desk facilities was a positive lesson learnt
 the need for simplicity should not become a barrier for enhanced
functionality
 users expect to keep in pace with technological developments and
incorporate new features used in different settings, such as more
interactivity and social networking

17. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab17
3 - Combining different channels, online and offline
 eParticipation initiatives rely heavily on traditional internet access
through personal PCs and laptops
 43% utilise at least one additional online or offline channel
 30% combine online with offline channels
 channels mix facilitates inclusiveness - multiple channels increase the
participation figures, i.e.
– in consultation/deliberation initiatives: Combining online tools with offline
meetings and workshops contributes to enhanced inclusiveness and
satisfaction
– in initiatives performing any kind of voting (official national voting,
municipal, small scale voting): Citizens prefer different voting methods,
thus in order to raise the overall turnout a combination of channels is
needed

18. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab18
4 - A thorough communication and promotion plan
 Owners directly linked promotion with actual success
 absolute need for
– a detailed, professional and intensive communications strategy
– the will and the resources to back it up until the end
– develop appropriate branding
– distinct and easily recognised name and logo
– special attention to the key message that gets across to citizens
– one dedicated resource to promote the initiative, to be in constant
communication with all kinds of stakeholders and to engage in getting
users on board
 marketing mix is to be decided by each initiative after considering its
own specificities

19. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab19
5 - Security and privacy
 100% agree that it is extremely important, especially in initiatives that
implement any kind of voting
– all such initiatives have reported that they utilise security mechanisms of
different kinds and no security breaches were reported among these.
 No unanimity on the ideal degree of anonymity in
consultation/deliberation initiatives
– most owners design their initiatives to be anonymous in order not to
intimidate users who are concerned whether their personal information
will be available online to the rest of the participants
– others are against anonymity: contributing users posting under their full
name bring integrity to their opinion as well as an overall trust towards
the whole initiative and the produced outcomes
– the ideal approach depends on the actual circumstances of each
initiative, the kind of users it targets, the prestige the owner brings to the
effort, etc.

20. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab20
6 - Organisational issues
 Management
– strong project management is essential
– a senior person appointed as a dedicated resource responsible for the whole project
– establish an effective and sustainable management process with short tasks and checkpoints and defined
communication channels among the team members
– need for generous timescales and contingency planning
 Processes
– the initiative should offer an end-to-end effective, satisfying and timely experience
– start from the initial conceptualising phase
– take into consideration the particular needs and circumstances of the targeted audience
– devise a tailor-made participation methodology to fit the purposes of the initiative at hand
– active two-way communication between operators and users is a must
– keep the tools for users’ comments and contact as simple as possible
– get users involved in the development/enhancement process
– need for clear and realistic business processes
– ensure that all different roles/departments provide relevant content/feedback in due time and according to the promises made
 Moderation
– heavy, active and timely moderation needed
– moderators need adequate training
– to be able to support and promote open, serious, and high quality participation
– to be able to keep up the commitment and enthusiasm of users
– possess sufficient awareness of participation principles and practices in order to identify and tackle inevitable difficulties such
as the conscious or unconscious domination of the discussion by some extremely active users

21. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab21
7 - Topics complexity and quality of participation
 The technocratic and legislative complexity as well as the limited
knowledge and expertise of users prevented a deep deliberation on
the issues at hand limiting thus participation at a superficial and trivial
level
 The fact that many participants did not appear ready to be involved in
productive dialogue and they rather preferred to generally express
opinions, personal view points or convictions, which were rarely
supported by informed arguments, deteriorated the situation
 Need for a preliminary processing of the data under discussion to
make it understandable by non-experts

22. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab22
Contents
 Objective
 Methodology
 Results
 Discussion
 Limitations
 Conclusion

23. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab23
Relevant work in eGovernment
 Benefits include avoid personal interaction, control over service delivery,
convenience, cost, personalization and time; while barriers for adoption
include confidentiality, easy to use, enjoyable, reliable, safe and visual
appearance1
 Barriers include IT infrastructure, security and privacy, IT skills, organisational
(e.g. unclear vision, lack of communication between departments etc) and
operational cost2
 Our results vs relevant eGovernment work
– certain factors are common, such as usability, security and privacy
– certain factors deemed particularly important for eParticipation practitioners, do
not seem to deserve particular attention in eGovernment. (i.e. combining online
with offline channels, having a thorough communication and promotion plan,
topics complexity and quality of participation)
– organisational aspects in eParticipation have somehow a different orientation as
besides project management they also include participatory processes and
moderation which are unique to eParticipation
1. Gilbert, D., and Balestrini, P.: Barriers and benefits in the adoption of e-government. The International Journal of
Public Sector Management, 17(4), 286-301 (2004)
2. Ebrahim, Z., and Irani, Z.: E-government adoption: architecture and barriers. Business Process Management
Journal, 11(5), 589-611 (2005)

24. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab24
Contents
 Objective
 Methodology
 Results
 Discussion
 Limitations
 Conclusion

25. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab25
Study Limitations
 language of communication
– a large number of languages were employed for identifying eParticipation
initiatives
– the questionnaire was in English and all communication with initiatives’
owners was also performed in English
 low response rate of returned questionnaires
– some initiatives had officially ended
– the questionnaire had a significant length
– English was the only language of communication
– our team used different media (e.g. email, telephone, fax) for a long
period of time

26. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab26
Contents
 Objective
 Methodology
 Results
 Discussion
 Limitations
 Conclusion

27. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab27
Conclusion
 Interesting results for
– practitioners: as they distil others’ experience in a usable form
– researchers: as they enable validating theoretical models and academic
frameworks based on real data
 Future work
– in depth investigation of similarities and differences between
eGovernment and eParticipation success factors
– initial results indicate there might be considerable differences

28. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab28
Acknowledgments
 Part of this work was conducted within “The European eParticipation
Study (2007-2009)” project, funded by the European Union.
 The European eParticipation Study (2007-2009)
has been involved in, amongst others,
gathering eParticipation initiatives across
Europe and drafting recommendations for
the EU based on practitioners’ experience
 DTI, University of Leeds and UOM partnered in this study
http://www.european-eparticipation.eu/

29. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab29
Thank you for your attention!
For more information please contact:
Eleni Panopoulou epanopou@uom.gr
Efthimios Tambouris tambouris@uom.gr