Interoperability data for Czech Republic, 2011 Back to country selection

Options: Download PDF Download PDF

1. Interoperability as a strategic goal

This qualitative indicator examines whether Interoperability is recognized as a strategic priority, a fact which holds truth if the latter is explicitly mentioned in either one of the national e-Government, Interoperability, local e-Government, Digital Planning, IT or Information Society (etc.) strategies or other strategic framework of the country. In this case it is awarded the value “Yes”; otherwise the value “No”. In case there is no relevant information, the indicator is granted the value “Unknown”. A suitable justification is also provided depending on the case.

1.1. Strategic Priority on Interoperability Not available

There is no specific mention of interoperability in strategic materials of the Government, such as the Strategy for the implementation of Smart Administration (2007-2015) and the Strategy for the Development of Services for the Information Society [1].


This indicator investigates the status of a National Interoperability Strategy. The latter may be absent, and thus “Not planned”, “Planned”, “Under development” or already “Published”. In case no information is available, the National Interoperability Strategy Status is attributed the value “Unknown”.

1.2. National Interoperability Strategy Status Not planned
2. National Interoperability Frameworks

National Interoperability Frameworks prove that a country is interoperability-aware and pose as the cornerstone for the resolution of interoperability issues in the public sector and the provision of one-stop, fully electronic services to businesses and citizens. In this context, this indicator examines the status of a National Interoperability Framework by aggregating information on a series of relevant aspects, namely title, version, release date, focus/scope, audience, status and responsible agency.

2.1. National Interoperability Framework Status


2.1.1. Title Not applicable


2.1.2. Version Not applicable


2.1.3. Release Date Not applicable


2.1.4. Focus / Scope Not applicable


2.1.5. Audience Not applicable


2.1.6. Status Not planned

The Czech Republic currently does not have a single document providing a national interoperability framework, neither is working on the elaboration of such a document. Two projects have been initiated that can be regarded as a basis for a national interoperability framework as far as the provision of rules and means/tools for facilitating a data interchange within public administration are concerned, namely:

  • The Information System on Data Elements
  • The Information system on Public Administration Information Systems.

Both projects provide a platform for the introduction, description and provision of access to the public administration's data sources.



2.1.7. Responsible Agency Not applicable

This qualitative metric investigates whether a country’s National Interoperability Framework is harmonized with the European Interoperability Framework (EIF), that has been issued by the IDABC (“Interoperable Delivery of European e-Government Services to Public Administrations, Businesses and Citizens”) initiative, or not.
The indicator is applicable when a country’s NIF has already been published. In case the country’s NIF is in line with the European Interoperability Framework, the indicator is awarded the value ”Yes” ; otherwise the value “No”.  In case there is no relevant information, the indicator is granted the value “Unknown”. A suitable justification is also provided depending on the case.

2.2. Compatibility of National Interoperability Framework with the European Interoperability Framework Not applicable
3. Interoperability Projects and Activities

This indicator brings the evaluation of interoperability efforts down to the practical level and rates the National Interoperability-related Activity of a country by means of the number of relevant projects of national or local scope. These are mainly e-Government projects, where interconnection, integration or interoperability have a central role. Both ongoing and completed projects are taken into consideration. The indicator is measured in a qualitative four level scale including the levels “Non-existent”, “Low/limited”, “Moderate” and “High”. A quite descriptive but non-exhaustive list of national interoperability-related projects is also provided, in order to offer a more clear view on the relevant activities.Values:

  • Non-existent: no projects
  • Low: 1-5 projects
  • Moderate: 6-20 projects
  • High: over 20 projects
3.1. Number of interoperability-related projects of local or national scope Moderate
  • The Czech Republic Public Administration Portal (PAP), offering a directory of the various departments of the public administration, Acts – a section that contains all legislation from the Collection of Acts, the official journals of all the regions and links to EU directives, Public administration activity database, which contains detailed descriptions of the administration activities which may be carried out and On-line services ( [3].
  • ROWANet (Regional optical backbone telecommunication network) project, designed primarily for the needs of public administration, with the aim to build backbone optical routes between all major towns in the region using public, private and European financial funds ( [4].
  • Centre of timely intervention of the City of Ostrava pilot project aiming mainly at the fast exchange of information of delinquent children between police and social workers ( [5].
  • VSCR (Czech Prison Service information system) ( [6].
  • Czech Government Gateway - it is an integral part of the Public Administration Portal, enabling documents to be sent electronically between citizens/businesses (G2B) and public administration entities (G2G) ( [7].
  • MIS MZP (Czech Environmental Meta-portal) is a unique information system, based on the principle of sharing information, which is stored in different places using web based technologies ( [8].
  • CzechPOINT (CzechPOINT - eGovernment one-stop-shop for all) project to enable citizens and businesses to communicate with the government much more effectively than before ( [9].

This metric captures the degree of a country’s engagement with EU research and development (R&D) activities, and provides therefore an indication of the number of EU-funded interoperability-related projects in which the country participates. Both ongoing and completed research projects are taken into consideration. The same four level qualitative scale is used in this case as well, while an indicative list of EU-funded projects is also included. Values:

  • Non-existent: no projects
  • Low: 1-5 projects
  • Medium: 6-20 projects
  • High: over 20 projects
3.2. Number of EU-funded interoperability-related projects High
3.2.1. Indicative projects
  • CEMSDI (Civil-servants Empowerment for Multi-media Service Delivery ICT)  regarding the building of the capacities of civil servants and other practitioners that form part of the service delivery chain in five European territories focusing on local areas, so as to empower these practitioners to implement inclusive eGovernment action targeting socially disadvantaged groups, as well as to acquire new skills that improve their competence in the management and use of ICT as a tool for the modernization of their organisations and the delivery of public services ( [10].
  • eTENProcure, aiming to enable the dissemination of the e-tendering platform used in Burgundy in other European regions, to create a first interregional network of shared e-procurement platforms ( [11].
  • BHL-Europe (Biodiversity Heritage Library for Europe) with the objective to make available Europe’s biodiversity information to everyone by improving the interoperability of European biodiversity digital libraries ( [12, 13].
  • eMARKS project (Sep 2007 – Feb 2009), to optimize the protection of trademarks through image-based searches of trademarks or industrial designs kept by Industrial Property offices to provide among others a new interoperability standard for the harmonization of Intellectual Property Office data collections ( [14].
  • EPSOS (“European Patients Smart Open Services”) project aiming to build and evaluate a service infrastructure demonstrating cross-border interoperability between Electronic Health Record Systems in Europe ( [15].
  • CALLIOPE (“CALL for InterOPErability”) project, aiming to promote an effective uptake of and advance eHealth interoperability ( [16].
  • CHRONIOUS (Chronic disease management platform, Feb 2008 – Jan 2012), aimed at defining an open platform to manage and monitor patients with chronic diseases during their daily life with the help of wearable devices, simple, customized and adaptive interfaces and exploitation of HL7 standards to ensure interoperability with legacy healthcare systems ( [17, 18].
  • OGE (OneGeology-Europe, Sep 2008 – Aug 2010) on the development and deployment of a nascent international interchange standard for geology, GeoSciML, enabling the sharing of data within and beyond the geological community, and facilitating thus the re-use of geological data by a wide spectrum of public and private sector users, while addressing licensing and multilingual aspects of access, and moving geological knowledge closer to the end user where it has greater societal impact. The project has brought together a web-accessible, interoperable geological spatial dataset for the whole of Europe at 1:1 million scale based on existing data held by the pan-European Geological Surveys ( [19].
  • NATURE-SDIplus (Best Practice Network for SDI in Nature, Oct 2008 - July 2011), aiming to improve harmonization of national datasets on nature conservation and make them more interoperable, accessible and exploitable, by developing the NATURE-SDIplus geoportal, to permit recovery of metadata, data and services, and involving stakeholders, data and best practices sharing ( [20].
  • PICOS (Privacy and Identity Management for Community Services, Feb 2008 – Jan 2012) whose mission is to investigate mobile communities and their services, especially regarding aspects like privacy and identity management as well as technical and economical aspects ( [21].
  • Plan4all (Plan4all geoportal) focusing on the harmonization of spatial planning data and metadata according to the principles of the INSPIRE Directive ( [22].
  • CLARIN (Common language resources and technology infrastructure, Jan 2008 – June 2011), with the goal to develop and operate a shared distributed infrastructure, making available language resources and technology to the humanities and social sciences research communities, based on data and interoperability standards ( [23].
  • SMARTNETS (The Transformation from Collaborative Knowledge Exploration Networks into Cross Sectoral and Service Oriented Integrated Value Systems, April 2011 – March 2014) aiming to establish and to prove 'Smart Networks' as an holistic industrial model for sustainable and efficient production in cross-sectoral SME collaboration both in development and production of knowledge-intensive products and services ( [24].
  • DITSEF (Digital and innovative technologies for security and efficiency of first responders operation, Jan 2010 – Dec 2012) aiming to increase the effectiveness and safety of First Responders (fire fighters, police, etc.) by optimal information gathering and sharing with their higher command levels ( [25].
  • COIN (Collaboration and interoperability for networked enterprises, Jan 2008 – Dec 2011) aiming to study, design, develop and prototype an open, self-adaptive, generic ICT integrated solution to support the above 2020 vision, starting from notable existing research results in the field of Enterprise Interoperability and Enterprise Collaboration ( [26].
  • IDIRA (Interoperability of data and procedures in large-scale multinational disaster response actions, May 2011 – April 2015), to design and develop a set of tools, interfaces and procedures that can be configured, deployed and operated in a flexible manner, to provide interoperable services for data integration, information exchange, resource planning and decision support to local and international disaster response units and decision makers ( [27].
  • INTERESTED (Interoperable embedded systems Tool-chain for enhanced rapid design, prototyping and code generation, Jan 2008 – Dec 2010), built to exactly match the goals defined within the Objective ICT-2007-3.3b "Suites of Interoperable design tools for rapid design and prototyping", namely creating a reference interoperable embedded systems tool-chain, fulfilling the needs of the industry for designing and prototyping embedded systems ( [28].
  • AGRIXCHANGE (A common data exchange system for agricultural systems, Dec 2009 – Nov 2012) aiming to coordinate and support the setting up of sustainable network for developing a system for common data exchange in agriculture ( [29].
  • EMI (European Middleware Initiative, May 2010 – April 2013), to deliver a consolidated set of middleware components for deployment in EGI, PRACE and other DCIs, extend the interoperability between grids and other computing infrastructures, strengthen the reliability of the services, and establish a sustainable model to maintain and evolve the middleware, fulfilling the requirements of the user communities ( [30].
  • VIRTUOSO (Versatile InfoRmation Toolkit for end-Users oriented Open Sources exploitation, May 2010 – April 2013) aiming at providing European Security stakeholders with a toolkit that will allow building end-user oriented applications and that will increase user productivity by automating time consuming activities and eliminating current bottlenecks that will be accurately identified with a large panel of users, with the cooperation of various European agencies which will be addressed by proposing a standard, open and Interoperable toolkit, facilitating storage and sharing of information ( [31].
  • EGEE-III (Enabling grids for e-science III, May 2008 – April 2010) in order to expand, optimize and simplify the use of Europe's largest production Grid by continuous operation of the infrastructure, support for more user communities, and addition of further computational and data resources and to prepare the migration of the existing Grid from a project-based model to a sustainable federated infrastructure based on National Grid Initiatives ( [32].
  • GS Soil (Assessment and strategic development of INSPIRE compliant Geodata-Services for European Soil Data) aiming, through state-of-the-art methodologies and best practice examples, to improve harmonization of national datasets and make them more accessible and exploitable within Europe. Therefore, the consortium contributes to the INSPIRE implementation with specific reference to a cluster of data themes on nature conservation (as per the INSPIRE Annexes) ( [33].
4. National Interoperability Practices

This metric provides an indication of the number of interoperability cases with a good practice label that have been implemented by a country. These are projects and other activities that have resulted in the development of innovative, flexible and reconfigurable interoperability solutions with an appreciable impact in terms of users’ uptake, a series of articulated benefits (e.g. managerial, financial, cultural etc.), and a number of patterns and components that may be either reused in other activities within the country or in other countries, or that can be exploited for educational and/or benchmarking purposes. Values:

  • Non-existent: no cases
  • Low: 1-5 cases
  • Medium: 6-20 cases
  • High: over 20 cases
4.1. Number of Interoperability Cases with Good Practice Label No cases

In the frame of this indicator, one interoperability case with a good practice label is selected as the most important or indicative one and is described with regard to a series of aspects including title, status, interoperability aspects covered and impact.

4.2. Best Interoperability Practice


4.2.1. Title Not applicable


4.2.2. Description
Not applicable


4.2.3. Status
Not applicable


4.2.4. Indicative interoperability aspects covered
Not applicable

Brief description of benefits, reusable components, patterns and lessons learnt from the particular IOP case.

4.2.5. Impact
Not applicable
5. e-Government Interoperability

This indicator reveals the degree of interoperability that reaches the final recipients of public services, aka citizens and businesses, in terms of fully automated and proactive service delivery. The indicator is based on the “Full Online Availability” benchmark introduced by Capgmenini to assess the 20 basic services (12 services for citizens and 8 services for businesses) against the fourth and fifth stages of the 5-stage maturity model, where stage 4 (transaction) corresponds to full electronic case handling, requiring no other formal procedure from the applicant via “paperwork”, and stage 5 (targetisation) provides an indication of the extent, by which front- and back-offices are integrated, data is reused and services are delivered proactively. The reference year is also provided.

5.1. Interoperability Level of core e-Government services to citizens / businesses 74.0%

The term “Connected Government” is used in the e-Government Survey of the United Nations (2008) within the frame of the Web Measure Index in order to describe the situation in which governments transform themselves into a connected entity that responds to the needs of its citizens by developing an integrated back office infrastructure. In this context, the indicator “Connected Government Status” expresses the percentage of services, which are provided in Stage V “Connected”, based on the information on Service Delivery by Stages 2008, included in the e-Government Survey as well. The reference year is also provided.

5.2. Connected Government Status 3.62%
6. e-Business Interoperability

Focusing on a typical aspect of the enterprise sector’s operation i.e. information sharing, this metric provides an indication of the intra-organizational integration level that characterizes the latter in terms of the percentage of enterprises in which information on sales or on purchases is shared electronically among the different internal functions (e.g. management of inventory levels, accounting, production or services management, distribution management etc.). All enterprises which use a computer with 10 or more persons employed are included (without financial sector). The year of the data is also provided.

6.1. Intra-organizational Integration Level 49.0%

The cross-organization integration level of the enterprise sector is expressed as the percentage of enterprises that use automated data exchange between their own and other ICT systems outside the enterprise group. All enterprises which use a computer with 10 or more persons employed are included (without financial sector). The year of the data is also provided.

6.2. Cross-organization Integration Level 34.0%

This indicator goes beyond the aspect of information exchange and investigates the cross-organization application-to-application integration level in the enterprise sector, based on the percentage of enterprises, whose business processes are automatically linked to those of their suppliers and/or customers. All enterprises which use a computer with 10 or more persons employed are included (without financial sector). The year of the data is also provided.

6.3. Cross-organization Application-to-Application Integration Level 15.0%

Considering e-Invoicing as another aspect of e-Business Interoperability, this metric measures the percentage of enterprises that send and/or receive electronic invoices. All enterprises which use a computer with 10 or more persons employed are included (without financial sector). The year of the data is also provided.

6.4. e-Invoicing Status 17.0%

This indicator examines the B2B data standards usage measuring the percentage of companies that use EDI-based, XML-based, propietary or other technical standards. The year of the data is also provided.

6.5. B2B Data Standards Usage
6.5.1. EDI-based standards 2.0%
6.5.2. XML-based standards 2.0%
6.5.3. Proprietary standards 7.0%
6.5.4. other technical standards 1.0%

Interoperability awareness is examined in terms of the percentage of companies saying that interoperability is important for e-business within their sector, between sectors or for producing or providing products and services The year of the data is also provided.

6.6. Interoperability Awareness
6.6.1. Within their sector 22.0%
6.6.2. Between sectors 25.0%
6.6.3. For producing or providing products and services 22.0%