Interoperability data for Slovenia, 2011 Back to country selection

Options: Download PDF Download PDF

1. Interoperability as a strategic goal

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

1.1. Strategic Priority on Interoperability Yes

The strategy of Slovenia is to have an interoperability governance and methodology to guide product developments and propagate the use of horizontal services. Within horizontal projects, data is stored in registers and the exact specifications are defined by the owners of the registers, which publish their own ‘standard’. Sectorial projects are the consumers of those horizontal services. The application of this strategic objective is essential to ensure interoperability between all the institutions of public administration. An action plan was ready by the end of January 2010 and has an activity scope until 2015, but will be continued after this period. The European interoperability framework (EIF) is seen as an important input.
Interoperability is on the agenda and is included in one of the strategic goals of the SREP. There is enough political support for awareness and enforcement [1].


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

1.2. National Interoperability Strategy Status Not available
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 SIO (Slovenian Interoperability Framework)


2.1.2. Version Not applicable


2.1.3. Release Date Not applicable


2.1.4. Focus / Scope Governance, Conception, Implementation, Operation


2.1.5. Audience Government sector


2.1.6. Status Under development


2.1.7. Responsible Agency Ministry of Public 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

(The Slovenian Interoperability Framework is still under development, the European interoperability framework (EIF) is seen though as an important input.)

3. Interoperability Projects and Activities

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

  • Non-existent: no projects
  • Low: 1-5 projects
  • Moderate: 6-20 projects
  • High: over 20 projects
3.1. Number of interoperability-related projects of local or national scope Moderate
  • The human resource interface ( on e-VEM portal - the one-stop shop (OSS) for businesses in Slovenia, through which  business entities and public bodies can perform online the compulsory registration of the newly hired staff with the social insurance authority, directly through their respective human resource systems [3].
  • Online registration for certain small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) [3].
  • eNotifications of birth service, as part of a new pilot system which will be rolled out to more maternity wards in the future [3].
  • The State Portal of the Republic of Slovenia ( which is the entry point for some sub-portals, such as:
    1. e-VEM (Slovenia's one-stop-shop state portal for business) aiming to provide a suitable information support for the future entrepreneur and enable him/her to start with business operations in the shortest time possible [4].
    2. Employment on the state eGov portal of the Republic of Slovenia which publishes available jobs and student work and enables collecting employment offers and search in the database with the help of different communication channels (internet, wap) [5].
  • Prostor (Real Estate Market Register), that demonstrates the possibility of connecting the private and the public sector and the benefits of such a connection, as well as the IT supported solution, which enables real estate agencies dealing with real estate transactions to use the state information infrastructure and at the same time enables the state to acquire data it requires for the decision-making procedures in preparing different strategic policies in the areas of information society, spatial planning, agricultural and land policy and tax reform ( [6].
  • eCRP flags (eCRP flags - Massive data exchange between public institutions), enabling high-volume exchange of personal data from the Central Register of Population to the different institutions of public administration ( [7].

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
  • STORK (Secure identity acrOss boRders linKed) whose aim is to ensure the cross-border recognition of national electronic identity (eID) systems in 13 Member States (Slovenia included), so as to enable the cross-border provision of online services. The project will establish a number of trans-border pilot projects based on existing national eID systems and will allow citizens to identify themselves electronically in a secure manner using their national electronic identity (eID via electronic cards or other means), and deal with foreign public administrations either from public offices, from their PC, or ideally, from any other mobile device ( [3].
  • CALLIOPE (CALL for InterOPErability) project, aiming to promote an effective uptake of and advance eHealth interoperability ( [8].
  • OGE (OneGeology-Europe) accelerating the development and deployment of a nascent international interchange standard for geology, GeoSciML, enabling the sharing of data within and beyond the geological community. It facilitates the re-use of geological data by a wide spectrum of public and private sector users. It addresses the licensing and multilingual aspects of access and move geological knowledge closer to the end user where it will have greater societal impact. The project provides examples of best practice in the delivery of high resolution digital geological spatial data to users, e.g. in the insurance, property, engineering, mineral resource and environmental sectors (  [9].
  • ECRN (European Civil Registry Network) offering an innovative solution to run the first secure electronic exchange of acts (birth, marriage, divorce, death) that complies with the Wien Convention 1976 on Multilingual Documents and representing the interoperability layer among the national systems ( [10].
  • GMOS (Global Mercury Observation System, Nov 2010 – Oct 2015) aiming to develop a coordinated global observation system for mercury able to provide temporal and spatial distributions of mercury concentrations in ambient air and precipitation over land and over surface waters at different altitudes and latitudes around the world. ( [11].
  • 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 (  [12].
  • 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 ( [13].
  • 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 ( [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 ( [15].
  • 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 ( [16].
  • ODYSSEY (Strategic pan-European ballistics intelligence platform for combating organised crime and terrorism, Nov 2008 – April 2011), aiming to create and develop secure interoperable situation awareness platform for the EU to combat organised crime and terrorism ([17].
  • 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. ( [18].
  • 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) ( [19].
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 Low
  • e-VEM (Slovenia's one-stop-shop state portal for business), aiming to provide suitable information support for the future entrepreneur and enable him/her to start with business operations in the shortest time possible [4, 20, 21].
    (Capgemini Good Practice Label 2009, 2010)
  • eCRP flags (eCRP flags - Massive data exchange between public institutions), enabling high-volume exchange of personal data from the Central Register of Population to the different institutions of public administration ( [7, 20, 21].
    (Capgemini Good Practice Label 2009, 2010)

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 e-VEM (Slovenia's one-stop-shop state portal for business)


4.2.2. Description

The basic purpose of the e-VEM project is to provide a suitable information support for the future entrepreneur and enable him/her to start with business operations in the shortest time possible. The information support would provide a unified support regardless of the type of entrance into the system. The support will be the same for the submission of electronic application for registration of a future entrepreneur via internet as well as for the submission of application, which has been made for the entrepreneur by an advisor (person) that is offering support and help to the entrepreneur on one of the local entry points. The entry points can be virtual, telephone or physical. The e-VEM Project offers information support to all enumerated entry points. This way the unification of the procedures is achieved and all information is gathered in one spot. In addition, excellent information support is provided for the advisors at all local entry points. Besides that, realization can be carried out in the shortest time possible (



4.2.3. Status

Ongoing since January 2005. Operational since July 2005.



4.2.4. Indicative interoperability aspects covered
  • Technical
  • Semantic
  • Organizational
  • Legal
  • Standardization
  • Assessment

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

4.2.5. Impact


  • Direct access to data without middlemen, higher accuracy at filling in the forms, complete automatization of business.
  • Links to e-CRP and other register with a goal of data exchange (Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Affairs, Pension and Disability Insurance Institute, Administrative units, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food, Clearing and Depositary Company, Health Insurance Institute, Alimony Fund, Ministry of Justice, Supreme Court, Maternity hospitals, etc.). Higher accuracy of decisions, quicker matter solving, elimination of delays, less indirect contacts, bigger transparency of procedures, etc.
  • e-VEM (s.e. registration): 400.000 euros (8.000 changes/year x 1 day = 8.000 working days, without considering expenses for collecting confirmations, applications, removal of application of an employee, notaries, etc.) The calculation was made on the assumption that for each confirmation 2 hours are necessary, which was multiplied with the price of an hour. The source for the calculation was average salary in Slovenia, stated by SURS (Statistical Office of the RS).
  • All further effects will be measured, mostly satisfaction of the users, which is our number one priority. After that the effects will be measured that occur within the bodies of the public administration, and which must not be neglected. Positive effects from the G2G relationships have an indirect influence on the use of the budget and consequently on the taxation of the citizens and business subjects. This way the well being of the citizens and economic development can be improved, which is the main drive of each state.


Lessons Learnt:

  • Problematic is the coordination of various institutions of the public administration, which must be actively included in the project.
  • Problematic is also implementation of a public tender for selecting external implementer of information solutions since other implementation deadlines depend on them. Clear division of VEM and e-VEM project is important in order to avoid double carrying out activities and unnecessary clarifications and loss of time. Each project manager and competent ministry must competently do their part of work and be responsible for not carrying out the project.
  • Problematic is non-up-to-date reporting of an individual group about the progress in carrying out the activity on the project. Keeping the deadlines represents a high risk level, mostly due to impacts on which the project management has no influence (e.g.: carrying out of the public order) or identification of additional problems regarding connecting subsystems of the institutions of the public administration, which are not possible to discover at the preparation of the VDP (Project Concept Document). Providing financial means for achieving goals represents a lower risk level since the estimations for the implementation of Phase 1 are quite clear.
  • The following project phases are confirmed with additional VDPs; the risk level is estimated at that specific point. Specific risk level may represent unknown expenses when discovering additional problem regarding connection of central e-VEM modules with subsystems for the needs of data exchange and consequently bigger expenses imposed by subsystems. Regarding the fact that data exchange procedures are extremely standardized, it is estimated that there should be no bigger problems regarding data exchange. In subsystems where the level of informatization is low, the procedures must be adjusted to their level of development; the procedures are automatized gradually.
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 95.0%

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 1.33%
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 74.0%

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 19.0%

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