Interoperability data for Poland, 2012 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

The Government of the Republic of Poland has not published a National Interoperability Strategy, but considers Interoperability as a matter of great importance [1].
A key component of the eGovernment Strategy in Poland is the National Computerization Plan for the period 2007-2010, a plan that covers the realization of public eServices, and recommends the use of open, publicly available IT standards, while calling for technological neutrality in all Government-led IT projects. It also introduces the ePUAP (Electronic Platform of Public Administration Services) project, which is a key river for interoperability efforts [2].
An important enabler for Polish interoperability activities has been the Law on Informatisation of Entities Performing Public Services (2005), which laid down the National Computerization Plan and initiated  various other (law-enforced) guidelines, such as the Regulation Concerning Minimal Requirements for ICT Systems  [1].

(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 Not available
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 Polish National Interoperability Framework (Krajowe Ramy Interoperacyjnosci)
(info)

  

2.1.2. Version Unknown
(info)

   

2.1.3. Release Date May 2007
(info)

  

2.1.4. Focus / Scope Unknown
(info)

  

2.1.5. Audience Unknown
(info)

  

2.1.6. Status Published
(info)

  

2.1.7. Responsible Agency Department of Information Technology of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration (http://bip.mswia.gov.pl/portal/bip/)
(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 Not available
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 Moderate

National-Public Administration Portal: 

  • ePUAP (Electronic Platform of Public Administration Services), the one-stop shop that facilitates e-Government services in Poland [2].

 

E-Government Backbone:

  • SEKAP (System Elektronicznej Komunikacji Administracji Publicznej – Electronic System of Public Administration Communication) is an innovative and strategic project, aiming to create the organizational and technical conditions for online public services delivery, as well as increase the efficiency of public administration in Silesia region, Poland (http://www.sekap.pl) [4].

Research & Education Network: EU-Funded


Environmental Geoportal: EU-Funded


Marine Data Management Infrastructure: EU-Funded


Legislation & e-Justice System: EU-Funded


e-Health System: EU-Funded


e-Tax Portal & Infrastructure: -


Other projects:

  • FLOSS (Free and Open Source Software) [2].
  • Central Register and Information on Business Activity, where business activities in Poland are registered through the Internet provided that the entrepreneur has a trusted profile or electronic signature [2].
  • 'Polska Cyfrowa' programme (Digital Poland) with the objective to popularise broadband services in Poland by 2012, by, inter alia, removing obstacles that hinder investments in ICT and promoting such investments [2].
  • PaybyNet service allowing Polish citizens to pay for public services via the Internet handling many official matters without leaving the comfort of their home.
  • PESEL2 project, aimed at streamlining the provision of eServices to citizens [2].
  • ECS (Export Control System), allowing the electronic handling of export customs declarations [2].
  • KSI ZUS (Complex Computer System for the Polish Social Insurance Institution) which manages effectively social security contributions, pensions, documents relative to the entire employment history, etc. through an individual account for ongoing collection of information on social security contributions made on behalf of the insured (http://www.zus.pl/) [5].
  • BACHUS (eSystem for monitoring Excise Goods in Poland) - an electronic processing system addressed to businesses trading in excise goods and to the excise officers working directly with businesses. It replaces the paper declarations with electronic messages reflecting the state of the movement. The applied solution makes the system accessible by excise officers for operational data input from virtually any location, including remotely situated small manufacturers supporting local economies. BACHUS supports the operations of the traders dealing with excise goods in Poland, and also those who sell abroad and purchase from the community states and third countries, by offering the following sets of functionalities: national movements; export; import. In the future BACHUS will also support: intra-community delivery and intra-community acquisition (http://www.mf.gov.pl/) [6].
  • SWOI is the 'Implementation strategy for the use of open and free software as an innovative model for supporting the development of pupils and students' key competences in the field of ICT' [2].
  • Websites poszukiwani.policja.pl and zaginieni.policja.pl, providing free access to databases containing information on wanted and missing persons, aiming to improve the quality of investigations and assist in the identification of people escaping justice [2].
(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 High
3.2.1. Indicative projects
  • 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 (http://www.bhl-europe.eu/en) [7, 8].
  • SEMIRAMIS defines a Pilot infrastructure which provides e-services in line with the required underlying secure authentication and management approach and tests it on the basis of two scenarios representing a large number of options related to ID Management and Secure Data Transfer (http://www.semiramis-cip.eu/) [9, 10].
  • 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/) [11].
  • 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/) [12].
  • Access-eGov (“Access to e-Government Services Employing Semantic Technologies”) project to develop and validate a platform for composition of government services into complex process definitions (covering life events/business episodes) enabling semantic interoperability of particular e-Government services (http://www.access-egov.org/acegov/web/uk/index.jsp) [13].
  • SPOCS (“Simple Procedures Online for Cross-border Services”) project to build the next generation of online portals (Point of Single Contact or PSC), which every European country now has in place, through the availability of high impact cross- border electronic procedures, in order to remove the administrative barriers that European businesses face before offering their services abroad, and ensure service and system interoperability (http://www.eu-spocs.eu/) [14].
  • 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 (http://onegeology-europe.org/home) [15].
  • 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 (http://www.epsos.eu/) [16].
  • Plan4all (Plan4all geoportal) focusing on the harmonization of spatial planning data and metadata according to the principles of the INSPIRE Directive (http://www.plan4all.eu/) [17].
  • SAKE (“Semantic-enabled Agile Knowledge-based eGovernment”, April 2006 – March 2009) project to facilitate knowledge management (knowledge personalization, proactivity and transferring as well as integration of structured and unstructured data) in the public sector (http://www.sake-project.org/) [18].
  • JUMAS (Judicial management by digital libraries semantics, Feb 2008 – Jan 2011), with the aim to automate the transcription process and provide effective information retrieval tools on multimedia libraries in the judicial sector, through the development of an advanced knowledge management system, enabling collection, enrichment and sharing of multimedia documents annotated with embedded semantics, and based on SOA to allow scalability, interoperability and modularity (http://www.jumasproject.eu/) [19].
  • SECRICOM (Seamless communication for crisis management, Sep 2008 – April 2012),  targeting the development of a reference security platform for EU crisis management operations with the ambition to solve or mitigate problems of contemporary crisis communication infrastructures, such as poor interoperability of specialized communication means, vulnerability against tapping and misuse, lack of possibilities to recover from failures, inability to use alternative data carrier and high deployment and operational costs, and to add new smart functions to existing services which will make the communication more effective and helpful for users, based four technological pillars, namely i. secure encrypted mobile communication on existing infrastructures, ii. Improved interoperability among various existing communicating systems, iii. introduction of distributed systems and the agent paradigm forming a smart negotiating system for parameterization and independent handling of requests suitable for rapid reaction use, and iv. security based on trusted hardware enhancing the confidentiality of data and the privacy of users (http://www.secricom.eu/) [20].
  • 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/) [21].
  • 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/) [22].
  • 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 (http://www.genesis-fp7.eu/) [23].
  • 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) [24].
  • AGRIXCHANGE (A common data exchange system for agricultural systems, Dec 2009 – Nov 2011) aiming to coordinate and support the setting up of sustainable network for developing a system for common data exchange in agriculture (http://agrixchange.eu/) [25].
  • 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 (http://www.eu-emi.eu/) [26].
  • 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/) [27].
  • EGEE-III (Enabling grids for e-science III, May 2008 – April 2010), 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 prepare the migration of the existing Grid from a project-based model to a sustainable federated infrastructure based on National Grid Initiatives. By strengthening interoperable, open source middleware, EGEE-III will actively contribute to Grid standards and will ensure that the European Grid does not fragment into incompatible infrastructures of varying maturity, but constitutes a world class, coherent and reliable infrastructure (http://www.eu-egee.org/) [28].
  • INSPIRE (Increasing security and protection through infrastructure resilience, Nov 2008 – Jan 2011) aiming to enhance the European potential in the field of security by assuring the protection of critical information infrastructures through the identification of their vulnerabilities and the development of innovative techniques for securing networked process control systems (http://www.inspire-strep.eu/) [29].
  • MONDILEX (Conceptual modeling of networking of centers for high-quality research in Slavic Lexicography and their digital resources, April 2008 - March 2010), aiming to design the conceptual scheme of a research infrastructure supporting the networking of centers for high-quality research in Slavic lexicography, fostering their scientific capacity, integrating their digital resources and opening them up to the European academic community (http://www.mondilex.org/) [30].
  • W2E (WEB to Energy, Jan 2010 – Dec 2012) to develop this open, universally accessible and standardized ICT communication infrastructure which is necessary in order to realize the Europe-wide electricity network of the future.  The key idea is the consistent, homogeneous and uniform application of globally accepted IEC standards, specifically for Communication protocols (IEC 61850), ICT network security (IEC TS 62351) and Database management using CIM (IEC 61968). The W2E project develops the interfaces between all three levels and in this way opens “plug and play” and interoperability capabilities. W2E thus provides a seamless approach to standardisation from the process level, through the ICT infrastructure up to the control centre level (http://www.web2energy.com/) [31].
  • ROSATTE (Road safety attributes exchange infrastructure in Europe, Jan 2008 – June 2010) aims at establishing an efficient and quality ensured data supply chain from public authorities to commercial map providers with regards to safety related road content. It will consider national organisational issues and technical interoperability issues and include a substantial number of road authorities and motorways operators, both with and without national road databases (http://www.ertico.com/rosatte) [32].
  • GRIFS (Global RFID interoperability forum for standards) aiming to improve collaboration between Europe, China, Japan, Korea and USA and thereby to maximize the global consistency of RFID standards (http://www.grifs-project.eu/) [33].
  • ARGUS 3D (AiR Guidance and Surveillance 3D,Dec 2009 – Nov 2012), aiming to improve the detection of manned and unmanned platforms by exploiting the treatment of more accurate information of cooperative as well as non-cooperative flying objects, in order to identify potential threats while the final objective of the research consists of study, design and realization of a simple demonstrator of a low cost, interoperable, radar based, system able to identify, all kinds of non-cooperative threat with the contribution of data coming from: - an innovative three-dimensional PSR - conventional sensors (Primary radar, Secondary radar, ADBS, etc ) - a network composed by a multitude of multi-operational passive, bistatic and high resolution radar (http://www.argus3d.eu/project) [34].
  • 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/) [35].
  • EURIDICE (European inter-disciplinary research on intelligent cargo for efficient, safe and environment-friendly logistics, Feb 2008 – Oct 2011), to improve the logistics, business processes and public policy aspects of freight transportation through the establishment of an information services platform that will support “on the fly” combination of services between user, context and cargo utilizing a number of advanced features and technologies, e.g. SOA architectures incorporating mobile technologies, interoperability between heterogeneous environments, advanced security features, semantic web and domain ontologies, advanced context technologies, distributed intelligent agencies etc. (http://www.euridice-project.eu/) [36].
  • 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/) [37].
  • COMCIS (Collaborative Information Services for Container Management, Sep 2011 – Aug 2013), a project about interoperability between e-freight systems that have been developed in previous EU projects as well as in commercial undertakings (http://www.green-cars-initiative.eu/projects/projects/comcis) [38].
  • INFINITY (INfrastructure support and capacity building for the Future INternet community, April 2011 – March 2014), aiming at capturing and communicating information about available infrastructures and any interoperability requirements and issues. INFINITY will also document any usage-related operational constraints and seek to identify and foster federation opportunities that could facilitate large scale experimentation and testing. (http://www.fi-infinity.eu/portal) [39].
  • EECS (European education connectivity solution, June 2009 – May 2011) project bringing together three European SMEs and three academic researchers, in order to develop a prototype campus card management system that will serve the unique needs and requirements of European Higher Education Institutions. EECS will recommend standards for campus card systems to the ISO and will build the prototype to the recommended standards in order to facilitate interoperability between campus card management systems across Europe. The EECS project will give the participating SMEs access to trans-European research and development, which will deliver an interoperable card management system (http://www.eecscard.eu/) [40].
  • JUDAICA Europeana (Jewish Urban Digital European Integrated Cultural Archive, Jan 2010 – Dec 2011), a project and a growing network of heritage institutions, which will bring Jewish collections to Europeana - a portal of Europe's museums, archives and libraries, by identifying, digitizing and aggregating content documenting the Jewish presence and heritage in the cities of Europe, while ensuring conformance with the interoperability requirements of Europeana, and developing knowledge management tools to allow indexing, retrieval and re-use of the aggregated content  (http://www.judaica-europeana.eu/) [41].
  • 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) (http://www.gssoil.eu/) [42].
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 79.0%
(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 3.1%
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 30.0%
(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 78.0%
(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 26.0%
(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 17.0%
(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 5.0%
6.5.2. XML-based standards 10.0%
6.5.3. Proprietary standards 27.0%
6.5.4. other technical standards 2.0%
(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 32.0%
6.6.2. Between sectors 35.0%
6.6.3. For producing or providing products and services 36.0%