Interoperability data for Lithuania, 2011 Back to country selection

Options: Download PDF Download PDF

1. Interoperability as a strategic goal
(info)

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

An interoperability strategy is in progress and will be created by a working group under the Information Society Development Committee. However, due to political and reorganizational changes (affecting the way in which e-governance is organized), the process has been slowed down. The committee is under reconstruction and will fall not under the government but directly under a Ministry (probably Transport & Communication).

(info)

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 Under development
2. National Interoperability Frameworks
(info)

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
(info)

                             

2.1.1. Title Not applicable
(info)

  

2.1.2. Version Not applicable
(info)

   

2.1.3. Release Date Not applicable
(info)

  

2.1.4. Focus / Scope Unknown
(info)

  

2.1.5. Audience Unknown
(info)

  

2.1.6. Status Under development

Currently, there is no interoperability framework available in Lithuania. The Lithuanian new Government formed after Parliament election at the end of 2008 included into its work programme the creation of a national interoperability strategy.

(info)

  

2.1.7. Responsible Agency Ministry of the Interior (http://www.vrm.lt/index.php?id=528), Information Society Development Committee under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (http://www.ivpk.lt/)
(info)

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

The NIF currently under development has been Influenced by the IDABC programme outcomes (preparation of EIF version 2, outcomes of CIO meetings and EIS), as well as the study on Lithuania’s Strategic goals of national interoperability framework inspirited by the Ministry of the Interior.

3. Interoperability Projects and Activities
(info)

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 Low
  • VAIISIS (Interoperability Infrastructure for Information Systems of Public Administrations), aiming to develop a system for data exchange among public institutions when providing complex online public services for citizens, and to update the existing Lithuanian e-government portal with new functionality and qualitative features (http://www.epaslaugos.lt/egovportal/appmanager/main/public) [3].
(info)

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 Moderate
3.2.1. Indicative projects
  • Innovall (Innovall, search of patent databases), aiming to provide cost-effective search of patent databases through a user- friendly web site. It will allow the search of patents, trademarks, and designs rights in a simple and affordable manner, providing an alternative for organizations - especially SMEs - that need to consult such information but often have few effective ways to do so (http://www.innovall.eu/) [4, 5].
  • CrossBorderDS (Cross-border digital signature in company registration portal) aiming to make establishing a company in a foreign country an easier process (especially for SMEs), and allow to overcome at least some of the obstacles on the way (https://ettevotjaportaal.rik.ee) [6].
  • EULIS (European Land Information Service) access to land and property information across Europe to meet the needs of professional users - lenders, conveyancers and other professional groups (http://eulis.eu/service/) [7].
  • 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 (http://www.nature-sdi.eu/) [8].
  • NET-EUCEN (European Network for Enhanced User Centricity in eGovernment, April 2010 - ) to create, animate and manage a working network of stakeholders in the Governance, User Centricity and Policy Modelling domains belonging to all European countries, and covering the whole range of Services for Users (S4U), and with the aim, among others, to identify opportunities for interoperability and standardization in the aforementioned domains, raise awareness, and provide guidelines and recommendations (http://www.net-eucen.org/) [9].
  • eRepresentative (A virtual desktop for the mobile European elected officials, Feb 2006 – May 2008), for creating a virtual desktop for mobile devices, to support elected representatives in the legislative process, and mainly the scrutiny of legislation through relevant committees, by enabling seamless use of desktop with Parliaments' current systems, personalised interaction with, and integration of, relevant information, and collaboration on legislative documents while meeting needs for integrity, authenticity and privacy (http://www.erepresentative.org/) [10].
  • SeaDataNet (Pan-European Infrastructure for Ocean and Marine Data Management, April 2006 – March 2011), aiming to develop an efficient distributed Pan-European Marine Data Management Infrastructure for managing large and diverse marine research data sets, and to network the existing professional data centers of 35 countries, active in data collection, and provide integrated databases of standardized quality on-line (http://www.seadatanet.org/) [11].
  • SeaDataNet II ( Pan-European infrastructure for ocean and marine data management, Oct 2011- Sept 2015) aiming to upgrade the present SeaDataNet infrastructure into an operationally robust and state-of-the-art Pan-European infrastructure for providing up-to-date and high quality access to ocean and marine metadata, data and data products originating from data acquisition activities by all engaged coastal states, by setting, adopting and promoting common data management standards and by realising technical and semantic interoperability with other relevant data management systems and initiatives on behalf of science, environmental management, policy making, and economy (http://www.seadatanet.org/) [12].
  • GEO-SEAS (Pan-european infrastructure for management of marine and ocean geological and geophysical data, May 2009 – Oct 2012), to effect a major and significant improvement in the overview and access to marine geological and geophysical data and data-products from national geological surveys and research institutes in Europe by upgrading and interconnecting their present infrastructures, and adopting the SeaDataNet interoperability principles, architecture and components wherever possible to avoid duplicative effort (http://www.geo-seas.eu/) [13].
  • PROTECTRAIL (The Railway-Industry Partnership for Integrated Security of Rail Transport, Sep 2010 – Feb 2014), aiming to make single asset-specific solutions for railway security interoperable and to conceive and design a modular architectural framework, where each one of the latter can be plugged (http://www.protectrail.eu/About-Protectrail) [14].
  • 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 of Enterprise collaboration and Interoperability services becoming an invisible, pervasive and self-adaptive knowledge and business utility at disposal of the European networked enterprises from any industrial sector and domain in order to rapidly set-up, efficiently manage and effectively operate different forms of business collaborations, from the most traditional supply chains to the most advanced and dynamic business ecosystems (http://www.coin-ip.eu/) [15].
  • 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 (http://www.clarin.eu/external/) [16].
  • BALTICGRID-II (Baltic Grid second phase, May 2008 – April 2010), aiming to increase the impact, adoption and reach, and to further improve the support of services and users of the recently created e-Infrastructure in the Baltic States (http://www.balticgrid.org/) [17].
  • CHINA EU STANDARDS (China EU information technology standards research partnership, March 2008 – Feb 2010), aiming to develop a knowledge network of top researchers in the field in Europe, China and beyond, examine the new ICT standardisation activity emerging in China, apparently linked to its goals to promote indigenous technology, and compare these emerging standardisation processes with the more established approaches that have evolved at a European level (http://www.china-eu-standards.org/) [18].
  • eRepresentative (A virtual desktop for the mobile European elected officials, Feb 2006 – May 2008), for creating a virtual desktop for mobile devices, to support elected representatives in the legislative process, and mainly the scrutiny of legislation through relevant committees, by enabling seamless use of desktop with Parliaments' current systems, personalised interaction with, and integration of, relevant information, and collaboration on legislative documents while meeting needs for integrity, authenticity and privacy (http://www.erepresentative.org/) [19].
  • GENESIS (Generic European sustainable information space for environment) aiming to provide Environment management and Health actors with an innovative solution based on advanced ICT. Relying on interoperability standards and harmonization process, GENESIS helps to constitute complex information networks, by combining benefits of various information systems with a collaborative systems approach [20].
4. National Interoperability Practices
(info)

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
(info)

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
(info)

  

4.2.1. Title Not applicable
(info)

  

4.2.2. Description
Not applicable
(info)

         

4.2.3. Status
Not applicable
(info)

   

4.2.4. Indicative interoperability aspects covered
Not applicable
(info)

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
(info)

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 72.0%
(info)

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 5.49%
6. e-Business Interoperability
(info)

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 24.0%
(info)

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 55.0%
(info)

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 35.0%
(info)

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 53.0%
(info)

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
(info)

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