Interoperability data for FYROM, 2012 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 Yes

Interoperability is one of the principles that have guided the implementation of the National Strategy for e-Government 2010 – 2012, the goal of which is to transform public administration processes in a more integrated, efficient and modern approach, by providing services that are fully adapted to the needs of citizens and businesses [1], while it stands among the specifications to be met in order to reach several of the objectives of the National Strategy and Action Plan for Information Society Development [2]. Additionally, the Draft Public Administration Reform Strategy 2010-2015, published on 21 December 2010, foresees the development and implementation of an interoperability framework for Public Administration authorities, as well as an enlarged budget for the realization of projects on e-Government services, compatible with the European Interoperability Framework [3, 4].


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 Unknown


2.1.2. Version Not applicable


2.1.3. Release Date Not applicable


2.1.4. Focus / Scope Unknown


2.1.5. Audience Government sector


2.1.6. Status Under development

Information on the existence of a National Interoperability Framework in FYROM is not quite clear: It is claimed that an interoperability project, although initially not part of the governmental agenda, has been adopted in the context of the strategic plan of the Ministry of Information Society as an official guideline for future implementation [1]. The project’s initial plans have included legal reforms as a basis for further organizational and technical implementation, and have thus resulted in the introduction of the Law on Electronic Administration that regulates the work of the institutions when exchanging data and documents in electronic form, as well as when providing administrative services in electronic manner. The implementation of the project for interoperability of the state registries and databases will lead to building an infrastructure for e-Government solutions, higher efficiency of the public administration, better services to citizens and businesses, and reduction of administrative barriers.



2.1.7. Responsible Agency Ministry of Information Society and Administration

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 Yes

It is claimed that with the introduction of the Law on Electronic Administration, a national interoperability framework has been created, which is in accordance with the European Interoperability Framework for Pan-European e-Government Services.

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

National-Public Administration Portal: -

E-Government Backbone:

  • The eGov Project (2004 - 2011), a USAID-funded project, supporting the country’s e-Government policy, with the main goal of implementing modern e-government solutions of replicable models at national and local levels, to increase the efficiency and transparency of public sector management, open new channels for doing business in an open and secure manner, and enhance communication among government institutions and between government institutions and businesses/citizens ( [1]. E-government applications with a strong interoperability focus indicatively include:
    1. ESPP (Electronic System for Public Procurement), serving as an one-stop-shop for public procurement in the  FYROM that removes unnecessary paper work, enables secure data flow through the entire procurement process, and improves efficiency and transparency, by streamlining complex procedures (submission, storing, opening and evaluation of the bids) and facilitating interaction between businesses and government institutions ( [1, 2].
    2. EXIM (Single Window for Export/Import Licenses and Tariff Quotas), a 24/7 online application system enabling national companies involved in foreign trade to electronically apply and obtain import, export and transit licenses from fifteen government institutions involved in foreign trade regulation ( [1, 3].
    3. Online Registration of Employment, an application that aims at reducing the administrative burden on businesses when registering new or terminated employments, saving time for both employers and state institutions concerned [1].
    4. CEMT (Automated System for the Management of International Cargo Transport Licenses), a web-based solution for electronic application as well as automated data processing and issuance of international transport licenses, reducing the administrative burden on truckers and Ministry of Transport and Communication and increasing transparency ( [1, 4].
    5. e-Tax (Electronic Tax Service), enabling online submission of corporate tax, using digital signatures authentication, while reducing the administrative burden on the Public Revenue Office ( [1, 5].
    6. Electronic Health Registers, aiming to harmonize the previously inconsistent databases and registers of the Ministry of Health and the Health Insurance Fund and improve the accuracy of their data, and provide the necessary platform for further development of e-Health applications [1, 6].


Research & Education Network:

  • University IT – network project for connecting the Macedonian academic and research network MAPHnet with the regional SEEREN and with GEANT and with the view of connecting as well all state and private universities, primary and high schools [12].

Environmental Geoportal: -


Marine Data Management Infrastructure: -


Legislation & e-Justice System:

  • ORGM (Setting up XML standards in Legislative publishing) project, being the continuation of the Official Gazette’s effort in moving toward digital legislation, and aiming at establishing a “de-facto” standard in XML representation of official legislation in FYROM, to enable among others electronic preparation and classification of regulations, XML representation on all regulations, and compatibility of the XML schema with open standards adopted by the EU ( [7].
  • LDBIS (Legal DataBase Information System), aiming at creating one unified law database, accessible in the LAN of judiciary institutions in FYROM and offering access to existing legislation and precedent law ( [9].


e-Health System: Already Covered

e-Tax Portal & Infrastructure: Already Covered


Other projects:

  • Payment of administrative fees by mobile phone (5 July 2011), this new method of payment is quick and easy and can be used by any citizen or student for the charges made by public offices and universities for various services [1].
  • Project of the Ministry of Information Society and Administration on the development of an interoperable data exchange system, to connect the state institutions’ registries and databases and speed up and enhance the efficiency of the exchange of data among them, with a pilot implementation phase involving five state institutions, namely the Customs Administration, the Ministry of the Interior, the Central Registry, and the Tax Administration and with a view of being implemented in all government [1].
  • Katactap (the electronic land registry system), an initiative intended to provide access for citizens and investors to useful information for real estate properties throughout the entire territory of FYROM, and increase the transparency, safety and speed of real estate properties transactions ( [8].
  • e-Accounts project, with the goal to perform reengineering of the entire process of submission of annual accounts by companies and provide various e-mechanisms (error notification, status tracking, e-payment of processing fees, digital signing of submissions, integration with other registries etc.) for submission over the internet ( [10].
  • N-VIS (National Visa Management System) project, with the aim to modernize the administrative visa issuing process by developing an internet-based solution to connect the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with its diplomatic and consular offices and provide the necessary technical infrastructure ( [11].
  • Project on the development of an integrated system for personalization of documents, to deliver passport documents with integrated microchips, personal identity cards and driver’s licenses as well as equipment for data acquisition storage, processing and personalization [1].
  • National Certification Authority project, to develop the Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) required for digital certificate issuance and the implementation of advanced governmental services [12].

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 Low
3.2.1. Indicative projects
  • SWEB (“Secure, interoperable cross-border m-services towards a trustful European cooperation with the non-EU member Western Balkan countries”) project to develop a secure, interoperable, open, affordable platform upon which secure cross border government services will be built (
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 60.0%

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 0.0%
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 46.0%

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 35.0%

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 36.0%

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 10.0%

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 Not available
6.5.2. XML-based standards Not available
6.5.3. Proprietary standards Not available
6.5.4. other technical standards Not available

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 Not available
6.6.2. Between sectors Not available
6.6.3. For producing or providing products and services Not available