Interoperability data for Serbia, 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 No

Not Explicitly
As eGovernment is currently generally underdeveloped in Serbia, the Strategy and Action Plan for eGovernment Development until 2013, does not refer explicitly to interoperability, yet it covers in its three main pillars i) the development and standardization of ICT infrastructure, including eIDs, electronic signatures and official eRecords, ii) the reform and modernization of essential procedures as a lever for intra- and inter-sectoral process automation and automated structured document exchange and iii) the establishment of electronic public services [1]. The importance of interoperability is also implicitly mentioned in a former strategic document, the Strategy for Information Society Development (October 2006), where open systems’ deployment, coherence and functional unity stand as principles for the implementation of the e-Government concept, within which e-Government is viewed as one coherent system, where unity and interoperability among its heterogeneous parts is achieved through standardization and coordinated development [2, 3]; yet no further directions are provided. It is also remarkable that as a consequence of the participation in several EU projects, some institutions (e.g. Custom Administration, Serbian Business Register Agency, Ministry of Finance) have their own strategies, interoperability frameworks and standards and are better linked with the appropriate EU agencies than institutions in the own country; however, there are no common standards for exchanging data at national level [2, 4].

(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 planned
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 Unknown
(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

The Interoperability Framework project is covered by the NITIA (Serbian National Information Technology and Internet Agency) implementation plan. In cooperation with INA, NITIA has applied for the IPA (Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance) fund assets with the project proposal entitled “eGovernment Interoperability Framework“. The adoption of the National Interoperability Framework which takes into account the European administration interoperability framework has the goal of ensuring compatibility and cooperation between systems, processes and human resources, which would eventually result in the quality user oriented services.

(info)

  

2.1.7. Responsible Agency National Information Technology and Internet Agency (NITIA)
(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 applicable

(It is envisaged that the National Interoperability Framework will take into account the European administration interoperability framework.)

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:

  • eUPRAVA, the state portal, as the outcome of the National eGovernment Portal Project (Nov 2009 – Feb 2010) on the improvement of the already existing portal (initially launched in 2007), representing a unique access point for delivering electronic public services for citizens, businesses and officials, and planned to initially provide at least 10 electronic services to citizens and companies using qualified e-certificates. Over 40 services are to be implemented on the new portal with more than 10 of them on the level of on-line availability – the portal is intended to enable on-line submission of service requests, electronic identity management, electronic payments and digital time stamp (http://www.euprava.gov.rs/) [1].

 


E-Government Backbone:

  • eSerbia Project (2006), targeting the creation of a unique computer network of government institutions in the Republic of Serbia and institutions of special importance, to provide a secure and collaborative work environment, and to serve as the backbone for e-Government services [6, 7].

Research & Education Network:

  • SEE Light Project (construction 2009-2011, network provision until 2026), The SEE Light project tackles the development of the South-East European Lambda Network Facility for the regional research, academic and education communities. The network will enable the provision of end-to-end network services to meet user demands, serving as a test bed for development of new networks and services, and allowing the SEE research and education community to participate in international networking activities (http://www.grnet.gr) [12].

 


Environmental Geoportal: -


Marine Data Management Infrastructure: -


Legislation & e-Justice System:

  • “ePravda” (eJustice) project (2008 - 2011), to integrate all initiatives and projects carried out in the area of Justice [2, 3, 4].

e-Health System: -


e-Tax Portal & Infrastructure:

  • Fides (Fiscal Decentralization in Serbia) project, to create a system to support fiscal decentralization of the tax system on the level of local governments with direct exchange of data with the central tax administration and the Ministry of Finance [3, 4].
  • Single Electronic Window and Electronic Submission of Tax Declarations (2005) projects within the frame of updating the Serbian Custom Administration Information System [5, 6].

Other projects:

  • e-Procurement project (2007), enabling the entire procurement process to be carried out electronically, and increasing thereby effectiveness, efficiency and transparency (http://portal.ujn.gov.rs, http://www.ujn.gov.rs) [1].
  • REPS project to develop the Serbian Business Register, allowing within the context of business entities’ registration, electronic submission of requests, receiving of electronic slips, electronic payment and electronic data exchange of the Serbian Business Registers Agency (SBRA) with other public and private institutions, and enabling thereby simplification and speeding up of the registration process and decrease of administrative costs, and with the view of providing an one-stop-shop for company registration and being integrated with the European Business Register (until 2007) [3].
  • FMIS (Information System of the Treasury), to implement an integrated IT solution and enable electronic service access for improving the operation of the respective body [4].
  • e-Cards project, for issuing electronic IDs and passports to the citizens of Serbia [2].
  • Project on the “Development and Implementation of an Electronic System for Office Functioning and Documentation Management” [2].
  • Project for the Integration of the Computer and Telecommunications Network of Public Institutions (1998) [1].
  • Common Database for Public Information Systems (1997), containing data from the Citizens’ Registry, the Legal Entity Registry and the Land registry [1].
(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
  • 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 (http://www.sweb-project.org/) [5].
  • 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/) [6].
  • SYNERGY (Supporting highly adaptive Network enterprise collaboration through semantically enabled knowledge services, Feb 2008 – May 2011), envisaging the delivery of Collaboration Knowledge services through trusted third parties offering web-based, pay on demand services, exploitable through interoperability service utilities (ISUs) (http://synergy-foss.org/) [7].
  • VAMDC (Virtual Atomic and Molecular Data Center, July 2009 – Dec 2012), aiming to build a secure, documented, flexible and interoperable e-science environment-based interface to the existing atomic and molecular (AM) databases (http://synergy-foss.org/http://synergy-foss.org/) [8].
  • IOT-I (Internet of Things Initiative, Sep 2010 - Aug 2012), representing the first serious attempt in building a unified IoT community in Europe, going across boundaries of disparate technology sectors, in order to create a joint European strategic vision for an interoperable Internet of Things and aligning this vision with the current developments on the Future Internet (http://www.iot-i.eu/public) [9].
  • SMARTSANTANDER (Sep 2010, Aug 2013), proposing a unique in the world city-scale experimental research facility, secure, open and flexible to enable horizontal and vertical federation with other experimental facilities, stimulate development of new applications, and enable better understanding and insight into the issues of Future Internet required capacity, scalability, interoperability and architectural design (http://www.smartsantander.eu/) [10].
  • IOT6 (Universal Integration of the Internet of Things through an IPv6-based Service Oriented Architecture enabling heterogeneous components interoperability, Oct 2011 – Sept 2014) to research, design and develop a highly scalable IPv6-based Service-Oriented Architecture to achieve interoperability, mobility, cloud computing integration and intelligence distribution among heterogeneous smart things components, applications and services (http://www.iot6.eu/) [11].
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 Low
  • eUPRAVA, the state portal (as the outcome of the National eGovernment Portal Project to improve the already existing portal, Nov 2009 – Feb 2010), representing a unique access point for providing electronic public services for citizens, businesses and officials, and planned to initially provide at least 10 electronic services to citizens and companies using qualified e-certificates. Over 40 services are to be implemented on the new portal with more than 10 of them on the level of on-line availability – the portal is intended to enable on-line submission of service requests, electronic identity management, electronic payments and digital time stamp (http://www.euprava.gov.rs/).
(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 eUPRAVA, the state portal
(info)

  

4.2.2. Description

eUPRAVA, the state portal (as the outcome of the National eGovernment Portal Project to improve the already existing portal, Nov 2009 – Feb 2010), representing a unique access point for providing electronic public services for citizens, businesses and officials, and planned to initially provide at least 10 electronic services to citizens and companies using qualified e-certificates. Over 40 services are to be implemented on the new portal with more than 10 of them on the level of on-line availability – the portal is intended to enable on-line submission of service requests, electronic identity management, electronic payments and digital time stamp (http://www.euprava.gov.rs/).

(info)

         

4.2.3. Status

Project completed in February 2010.

(info)

   

4.2.4. Indicative interoperability aspects covered

Unknown – Implementation details are not available.

(info)

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

4.2.5. Impact

Benefits - Reusable Components – Patterns:

  • The implemented solution contains a service generator that enables new services to be added without additional programming. This ensures continuous improvement of the portal and expansion of the scope of its services.
  • All services are grouped according to areas of life (education, health, etc.), while it is possible to do a service search according to title, institution or life situations.
  • The portal also contains news, polls, RSS feeds, the option to present multimedia content and the option for eParticipation through a forum.

 

Lessons Learnt:

  • The main project challenge was how to overcome the practice of weak cooperation between institutions, since the National Information Technology and Internet Agency coordinated the activities but portal content was placed and updated exclusively by the institutions in charge of the specific services. This challenge was successfully overcome by involving the persons appointed by the institutions to work on the portal as early as in the software solution testing phase of the project.
  • The service generator was improved during service implementation. The implementation of electronic payments using DINA credit cards also represented one of the risky elements of the project. This was because it demanded well synchronised cooperation between the Treasury, the National Bank of Serbia, the Postanska Stedionica Bank, the Processor and the Payment Gateway.
  • The institutions with the most developed services initially expressed the highest degree of enthusiasm, but later it turned out that they were the most reluctant to implement their services on the central Portal. This was because it reduced their role in the implementation of sophisticated services. In the future, special effort should be made to involve all institutions with services on the portal more directly in the project and to properly promote their involvement.
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 50.0%
(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 0.0%
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 Not available
(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 Not available
(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 1.0%
(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 2.0%
(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