COLLOQUIUM Impact Assessment of e-Governance …workspace.unpan.org/sites/internet/Documents/UNPAN043967.pdf · National e-Governance Plan (NeGP) Bhoomi Project Computerization of

VIKALPA • VOLUME 33 • NO 4 • OCTOBER – DECEMBER 2008 69

KEY WORDS

e-Enabled Service Delivery

National e-GovernancePlan (NeGP)

Bhoomi Project

Computerization ofLand Records

Property Registration

Transport

Corruption

Training Programmes

includes debate bypractitioners and

academicians on acontemporary topic

C O L L O Q U I U M Impact Assessment of e-GovernanceProjects: A Benchmark for the Future

R Chandrashekhar, Sanjay Dubey, Rajeev Chawla,Prakash Kumar, Nitin Kareer, Sanjay Verma, V Venkata Rao,and Subhash Bhatnagar (Coordinator)

INTRODUCTION

Subhash BhatnagarAdjunct ProfessorIndian Institute of Management, Ahmedabade-mail: [email protected]

In recent years, a large number of countries have launched “e-government” pro-grammes, and several development agencies and governments have identifiede-government implementation as a key policy priority. So, when the Centre for

Electronic Governance at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA)announced a joint workshop with the Department of IT, Government of India, onImpact Assessment of e-Governance Projects, Vikalpa seized the opportunity to or-ganize a colloquium on the topic based on the proceedings of the workshop.

During the workshop held at IIMA on 19-20th November, 2008, results from an im-pact assessment study of three state-level e-government projects – vehicle registra-tion, property registration, and land records across twelve states, and three national-level projects implemented by the Income Tax Department, the Ministry of Corpo-rate Affairs, and Regional Passport Offices were shared. An overall report draftedby IIMA for all state and national projects covered in the study was released in theworkshop. The study indicated that although almost all the projects had deliveredsome benefits to citizens, there were large variations in the performance of compu-terized systems across states. One of the key purposes of the workshop was to dis-cuss how future projects can be designed to harness the full potential of technology,process reform, and integration of data across the concerned agencies.

The workshop was attended by senior officials from state and central governmentagencies. This colloquium highlights the key issues discussed during the workshopand presents the viewpoints of experts who have either championed e-governmentprojects or researched extensively in this area.

Genesis of the Study

In view of the proposed roll-out of the ambitious National e-Governance Programme(NeGP), the Government of India was keen to understand the nature and quantumof the impact created by the e-government projects that had already been imple-

70

Results of Client Impact Assessment

A comparative analysis of the three state and three na-tional projects from the perspective of their impacts onclients in terms of the key dimensions of cost, quality,governance, and overall satisfaction reveals the follow-ing:

State Projects

Results indicate an abysmal state of delivery of servicesin the existing manual system in all the three types ofprojects. Users need to make 3-4 trips to governmentoffices on an average (up to eight trips in some cases),wait two hours or more (up to 6 hours in some cases) ineach trip, and pay frequent bribes (20 to 50% of all trans-actions) to get services. Even in a simple service such asissue of a copy of land record, the elapsed time (submis-sion of application to receipt of document) averaged fivedays. For property registration and drivers’ license, the

average elapsed time was 32 and 23days respectively. In some states,the elapsed time was as high as 2-3months.

Citizens indicated an overwhelmingpreference for computerized systems(91% in land records; 96% in propertyregistration; and 88% in transport)when asked to choose between com-puterized and manual modes of de-livery. Only in case of land recordsin Delhi and transport in case of WestBengal, an overwhelming majoritypreferred the manual system. Prefer-

ence for computerized service delivery was supportedby specific areas where concrete benefits have accruedto them. Overall, in all the three types of services, thenumber of trips to offices reduced significantly (by 1-2trips) after computerization. Waiting time has been re-duced by 20-40 per cent by computerization. Direct costsavings to citizens averaged around Rs 60-Rs 110 in thethree projects across all states. Impact on bribes is un-even as can be seen in Figure I. In land record compu-terization, reduction in the payment of bribes is signi-ficant. In property registration and transport, there ishardly any impact on bribery and a large number ofusers continue to go through agents to get the service.

Amongst the three projects, land record computeriza-tion seems to have resulted in the most positive impact

mented by the state and national agencies. The Depart-ment of IT as the nodal agency for the NeGP thereforedecided to carry out an impact assessment study of themature state and national projects that have been im-plemented in India. The study was carried out underthe overall guidance of a team from IIMA. The DIT em-panelled eleven agencies to undertake field research in-volving user surveys using professional staff, andanalyse the data to report on impacts. The purpose forwhich DIT commissioned these studies was:

• To ensure that funds/efforts deployed in e-govern-ment projects provide commensurate value to citi-zens

• To use the results of the study to create a benchmarkfor service delivery for future projects to target

• To use the results to make mid-course correction forprojects under implementation

• To carry out follow-up studies of successful and not-so-successful projects that couldhelp enhance understanding ofthe key determinants of the im-pact on citizens.

As a part of the first phase of theNeGP’s three-phase impact assess-ment schedule, the impact of elec-tronically-enabled (e-enabled) servicedelivery by the following three de-partments was studied:

• Issue of an RTC (among otheruses, this document is required foravailing crop loans from banksand as surety for bail) and filing of a request formutation for affecting changes in land record.

• Three key services delivered by the Sub-Registrars’offices: online registration of property sale/purchasedeeds; issue of non-encumbrance certificate; and is-sue of copies of previously registered deeds.

• Two key services delivered by transport offices: is-sue of driver’s license on plastic cards with data andphotograph captured on magnetic strip/chip andphoto captured digitally; and on-line registration ofvehicles with a plastic card registration book.

Assessment studies of impact on citizens/businesses ofthree national projects focused on collection and process-ing of income tax, registration of new companies, andissue of passport.

Citizens indicated an

overwhelming preference

for computerized systems.

Only in case of land

records in Delhi and

transport in case of West

Bengal, an overwhelming

majority preferred the

manual system.

COLLOQUIUM


on citizens. Computerization reduced the number oftrips in almost all the states by one. In the manual mode,average number of trips of all users in all the ten stateswas 3.2 which reduced to 2 in the computerized mode.Waiting time reduced by 30 per cent from an average of130 minutes in the manual mode. Bribes, which had tobe earlier paid in nine out of the ten states, were eithereliminated or significantly reduced in five states. How-ever, in most states, users reported an increase in travelcosts (in spite of a reduction in number of trips) becauseof the centralization of the delivery of RTCs to the taluka(sub-district) level from the village level in the manualmode.

In the case of property registration, computerizationreduced the number of trips from an average of 4.0 to2.3. Elapsed time and waiting time was also reduced sig-nificantly as nearly one hour has been shaved off from a2-hour wait in the manual system. Significant gains werealso reported in the elapsed time (days elapsed fromapplication to final registration). However, the impactof computerization on payment of bribes was very mar-ginal.

In transport agencies, computerization reduced thenumber of trips by 1.0 on an average across 12 states.There was a marginal impact on waiting time. Half anhour was reduced from a 2-hour wait in the manual sys-tem. Only one of the 12 states reported a significantimpact on bribes. Impact on elapsed time was also mar-ginal.

In overall citizens’ perception, Himachal Pradesh (HP),Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, and Tamil Nadu (TN) rankedhigh whereas Orissa, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh (MP),and West Bengal (WB) ranked low based on a compo-site score (that rated improvement on 20 dimensions ofservice delivery) in all the three types of projects.

National Projects

Among the three national projects, MCA21 (imple-mented by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs) appearsto have had the most positive impact on users on thekey dimensions covered in this study. The passportproject has had virtually no impact. Results of the In-come Tax survey indicate that while corporate users havebenefited on some aspects, individual filers have notbenefited significantly. In the case of MCA21, even us-ers accessing the services from a public access point re-

Figure 1: Proportion Paying Bribes (Percentage)

DL: Delhi; GJ: Gujarat; HR: Haryana; HP: Himachal Pradesh;KL: Kerala; MP: Madhya Pradesh; OR: Orissa; PB: Punjab;RJ: Rajasthan; TN: Tamil Nadu; UA: Uttarakhand; WB: West Bengal

LAND RECORDS

PROPERTY REGISTRATION

TRANSPORT

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

–

Manual Reduction38.80 15.84

Avg. Bribe 89.03

DL GJ HR HP OR RJ TN UA WB MP

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

–

DL GJ HR HP OR RJ TN UA WB KL PB


Avg. Bribe 1081.97

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

–


Avg. Bribe 183.45

DL GJ HR HP OR RJ TN UA WB KL MP PB

Manual Computerized

72

ported a saving of nearly one trip. Thewaiting time at the service deliverycentre during each trip was reducedto 25 minutes in comparison to 75minutes in the manual system. Theproject had a significant positive im-pact on corruption with the propor-tion of bribes having reduced from20 per cent to less than 5 per cent inthe case of the virtual front office(VFO) and citizen facilitation centre(CFC) users. Users reported a signifi-cant improvement in both the qual-ity of service and the quality ofgovernance.

Users of the Income Tax portal havereportedly had to make multiple vis-its to the Income Tax Office to filetheir returns. Waiting time reducedby about one-thirds (from 38 minutesto 27 minutes in the case of individualfilers and from 26 minutes to 17 min-utes in the case of corporate users)besides a significant reduction in to-tal elapsed time for corporate users from 10 to 6 days.Chartered Accountants (CAs) filing on behalf of corpo-rations failed to report data on corruption. Individualfilers reported a marginal reduction in bribes. Although

individual filers perceived very littleimprovement in the quality of serv-ice and the quality of governance, cor-porate users experienced a significantimprovement in both.

In the case of passport, the reductionin number of trips and waiting timewas marginal as only submission ofapplication was partially computer-ized, leaving most of the back-endprocesses in their old inefficient form.Incidence of bribery was high forpolice verification (as much as 44 %)and small (a little over 4 %) in the caseof passport office, but the impact inboth the cases was not significant.Very little or no improvement in serv-ice quality or quality of governancewas perceived by respondents.

An overall assessment based on acomposite rating suggests that MCA21has been significantly more success-ful in terms of the value delivered

to the users. In all the three projects, users preferredthe online service, even though composite scoresshow hardly any improvement in income tax andpassport.

Implementing NeGP: Importance of Impact Assessment

R ChandrashekharSpecial SecretaryDepartment of Information TechnologyMinistry of Communications & Information TechnologyGovernment of Indiae-mail: [email protected]

e-governance opens up the door to a vast opportu-nity for transforming governance. It goes beyondthe computerization of government processes

and into the realms of good governance which includeissues of efficiency of service delivery, empowermentof citizens, transparency, and accountability. Individuale-governance efforts at district, state, and individualministry level have been going on for many years. How-ever, the National e-Governance Plan (NeGP) in India

has provided an important platform to upscale and in-tegrate various initiatives and to aid large scale roll-outprojects.

I would like to first talk about the genesis—thebackground and the context in which the study was un-dertaken. For a long time, people thought that in e-gov-ernance, there was only one stakeholder, that is, thegovernment itself. It was the government which decided

In the case of passport, the

reduction in number of

trips and waiting time was

marginal as only

submission of application

was partially

computerized, leaving

most of the back-end

processes in their old

inefficient form. Incidence

of bribery was high for

police verification (as

much as 44%) and small

(a little over 4%) in the

case of passport office, but

the impact in both the

cases was not significant.

COLLOQUIUM


what was to be done, what neededto be the outcome of the project andso on. But over a period of time, it isnow very clearly understood that alarge number of people are impactedby these projects. It is not just the gov-ernment or the citizens. There are in-stitutions, organizations, financialinstitutions, and a whole spectrum ofpeople who are getting the impact.Whether we like it or not, each ofthem has certain expectations andneeds. Again, whether intended orunintended, planned or not planned,each of them is feeling the impact toa significant extent. Finally, we nowhave a clear understanding—withinthe country as a whole and across thegovernment—of the scale of the pos-sible impact of e-governance. Per-haps the time has come to make a proper assessment ofprojects which have been undertaken and also to createa virtual feedback cycle by which the findings are loopedback into project conceptualization so that we do nothave to follow trial and error to see what has workedand what has not and then try and keep improving it.Once we know what the trick is, theidea is to plug it into the winningproject formulation and conceptuali-zation process. A lot of times, in thegovernment, ‘assessment’ is adreaded word. It is a bit like the com-mission of enquiry—usually alongthe broad ‘find a fault and fix some-body’ concept. Very rarely is an as-sessment made on an ongoing,constructive basis and looked at sim-ply as a way of describing a glass thatis neither completely full nor com-pletely empty—just stating some-thing that exists. One thing that theNeGP has changed substantially is toconvey clearly that while there maybe many impacts, there may be manygoals as well for implementing an e-governance project. Some organiza-tions look at revenue maximizationas one of the goals; some might look

at optimization in terms of reducingthe overheads on managing that par-ticular department; others may lookat efficiency. But what the NeGP haslaid out clearly is that every depart-ment is certainly entitled to lay downwhatever goals they feel are neces-sary.

The key mantra of e-governace is ‘citi-zens first.’ It was therefore vital thatthe existing projects are assessed withthe focus on the nature and quantumof impact on users. Whatever else wedo, what the citizens, in this context,also the businesses, or the end cus-tomers are looking for, is central tothe whole conceptualization. Oncethat is done, obviously, the processof measurement does become very

important because in the past what we have seen is thatmost of the documentation related to assessment ofprojects was impressionistic or based on papers, quiteoften written either by the implementer of the schemeor by an agency which is involved in implementationand not based on any rigorous study and much less

based on a statistically validatedmodel. So, again there was really adearth of reliable information, onwhat was succeeding and what wasnot. But what was known was thatmost projects did not succeed andmany projects which succeeded didnot last. And, therefore, again the bot-tom line is that we do need to figureout some way of understanding ex-actly what is happening and exactlyhow to do things right at least as bestas we can. The assessment exercise isnot to be seen as a one off exercise.Every project, once it reaches a ma-ture stage of service delivery, will beconstantly monitored and subjected toassessment such that it can be furtherimproved and evolved to delivergreater benefit.

At the programme level, the appre-

e-governance opens up

the door to a vast

opportunity for

transforming governance.

It goes beyond the

computerization of

government processes and

into the realms of good

governance which include

issues of efficiency of

service delivery,

empowerment of citizens,

transparency, and

accountability.

Perhaps the time has come

to make a proper

assessment of projects

which have been

undertaken and also to

create a virtual feedback

cycle by which the

findings are looped back

into project

conceptualization so that

we do not have to follow

trial and error to see what

has worked and what has

not and then try and keep

improving it.

74

hension that the government has isthat of the multiplicity of objectives—the moment there are four-five dif-ferent objectives, there is a possibilityof a little dilution of focus on theseservices to the end user. Even if otherobjectives are to be added, theyshould be incorporated as a part ofthe supplementary report and givenin a direct feedback to the depart-ment, and not as a part of the pro-gramme level feedback. Distinctionneeds to be maintained to preservethe programmatic orientation of theNeGP.

There are two kinds of assessment. From a purist pointof view, there are many aspects of an e-governanceproject which need to be assessed in a technical or pro-fessional sense. The technology choices and the processchanges that are made, their legal sustainability, and thechange management practices that have been adoptedetc. are largely an assessment in an internal sense — aself-assessment by the management of the implementa-tion of e-governance projects. But what is now beingtalked about is an entirely different kind of assessment.It does not matter how you have gone about it, whatmethods you have used, how professional or unprofes-sional you have been, what matters is what finally cameout of it from the perspective of the beholder, in thiscase, the citizen. That is the empirical way of looking atthe same thing. Both are important. It provides a verygood cross-check to the other kind of assessment, thekind of assessment which is made by organizations likeSTQC — see whether it is scalable, or is meeting the func-tional requirements or not and maybe certify if the ap-plication is well designed. So, there are a whole lot ofdimensions which are tested. But, inthe empirical test, again we are get-ting feedback from a large number ofpeople. One way of looking at theseassessments is to see it as a way ofunderstanding what people are try-ing to tell us. It does not matter whatwe had in mind. And, if somewherewe have not factored in somethingthat needed a serious attention, itmay well be argued that the assess-

ment is unfair. It is unfair becauseprojects are being tested on param-eters which they may never havebeen designed for. It is quite true and,I think, it is a valid point of view.However, the fact of the matter is thatit is being assessed against factorswhich people consider important.Maybe it was not a part of the origi-nal calculus. Even if we did not in-tend some of those benefits and hadnot planned for them, those benefitswould have occurred. In some of thecases, for instance, reduction in thenumber of trips or reduction in cor-

ruption may not have been very explicit project objec-tives when the project was designed. But they havehappened. So, the fact again is that whether it was in-tended or not, this feedback would be extremely usefulto all the people who are involved in the implementa-tion.

I would strongly urge that these assessments should belooked at more like a thermometer which tells you thetemperature; that is the fact of life. The participants fromthe government may say it is viral, typhoid, or some-thing else—they understand their domain much betterthan anybody else. Therefore, they can probably makemuch more sense out of these reports than maybe eventhe people who have prepared them. They are intendedto provide that kind of feedback to people who are in-volved in the implementation. I would also like to men-tion that it has been decided at the Apex Committee andCabinet Secretary levels that such assessments are notgoing to be a one time affair. So, the project may be meas-ured again and again, probably at an interval of one ortwo years. It is not necessary that a project which is do-

ing well will continue to do well. So,that is another element of this proc-ess which we intend to put in place.

Finally, in the conclusion, I would liketo mention that there are three keyparticipants in making this assess-ment move forward and, of course,most of the government departmentswhich have very happily come for-ward to have their projects assessed.

Very rarely is an

assessment made on an

ongoing, constructive

basis and looked at simply

as a way of describing a

glass that is neither

completely full nor

completely empty—just

stating something that

exists.

The key mantra of

e-governace is ‘citizens

first.’ It was therefore vital

that the existing projects

are assessed with a focus

on the nature and quantum

of impact on users.

COLLOQUIUM


Initially, there was an apprehension that people wouldnot like to be assessed. On the contrary, we found quitea lot of eagerness in the various projects to be assessed.The professional market research agencies did providetheir own expertise. It is not easy toget feedback from the field and in-puts from thousands of people onvery sensitive kinds of questions likebribery. Trying to compare the pastand the present across a different setof clientele may add to the complex-ity. Market research agencies beingprofessional organizations, perhapshad a sense about how to deal withthis complexity. From the DIT, wehave tried our best not to influencethe outcome in any way so that it canbe seen as a government funded as-sessment that is completely independent and impartial.I must also mention that there have been a few assess-ments that have come up with some astonishing con-clusions. For example, some of them said that the whole

of e-governance is a complex plot by the multinationalfinancial institutions and vested interests in the countryto weaken those who have no power and capacity andthat it strengthens the hold of vested interests on such a

system. That is one point of view. Ac-cording to that study, it was usingsome well-established methodolo-gies, not necessarily a statistical one.There are other points of view, but Ithink, having a proper study with aproper methodology has no substi-tute. The question is: What are the is-sues that we are going to measure?What would be the challenges inmeasuring them? What are the limi-tations of the current measurementand how can we overcome those limi-tations in the next round? What are

the challenges in designing a survey for the projects tobe taken up for assessment in the future? All these needproper answers as a result of these deliberations.

What Drives e-Governance Projects?Sanjay DubeySecretary, HomeGovernment of Madhya Pradeshe-mail: [email protected]

Good governance is critical for development. e-governance has the potential to address someof the ills plaguing the governance in our coun-

try. But agonizing wait in the queues to make paymentsof utilities or just getting the information on the pend-ing issues has left citizens baffled and scornful. Attemptshave been made through e-governance initiatives bygovernments, individuals, and offi-cials to give succor to citizens. Despitethe promised ease and help at thedoorstep of the user, most of themstopped short of it. They, in morethan one occasion, were mere tinker-ing with the existing system and werelimited in scope. Of late, we have alsowitnessed a mad scramble for com-puterization of front-end operations

of governments and categorizing them as e-governmentprojects. Despite several of such failed efforts, there aresome shining examples that have survived the test oftime and captured the imagination of citizens. In thesecircumstances, it has become imperative to developtouch stones to assess, analyse, and segregate theseprojects. What then could be the distinguishing feature

of all such initiatives, to categorizethem into successful and not so suc-cessful projects? Can there be someyardstick or index to help us evalu-ate? Unfortunately, so far, we havefailed to evolve a consensus on themechanism and mode of evaluationof these e-governance initiatives soas to ensure that only those proje-ctsthat have the potential of benefiting

These assessments should

be looked at more like a

thermometer which tells

you the temperature; that

is the fact of life. The

participants from the

government may say it is

viral, typhoid, or

something else.

The major challenge is to

provide a citizen-centric

solution by offering hassle-

free, easy-to-use, round–

the-clock services to the

consumers.

76

the masses get to see the light of theday. Prime reason for such a conun-drum is that each of these indices hasits shortcomings and their measure-ment is fraught with difficulties,when faced with the inconsistency ofdata across different agencies for thesame variable. Thus, one cannot zeroin on any single ‘gold standard’ thatcan help us differentiate betweenprojects.

Despite the insurmountable difficul-ties, one needs to try and evolve aconsensus on whether an e-govern-ance project is driven by the individu-al’s zeal or is more systemic innature? More often than not, we haveseen the projects run on the individu-al’s energy and commitment andonce the officer is changed, theproject dies its natural death. Thiscould be either because of reluctance on the part of thesuccessor and subordinate officials to own up theprojects, or because little or no attention is paid to in-volve officials. While the first situation is inherent in thegovernment system as no premium is placed on the suc-cessful and continued running of the programme by thesuccessor, the second situation is more to do with theimplementer himself, as without preparing the mindsetand capacity building of one’s team, one tends to jumpon the bandwagon of being christened as an innovator.

In my opinion, the second test of usefulness of the projectis whether the system so developed is for the enhance-ment of internal efficiency or is it for the benefit of themasses? The major challenge is to provide a citizen-cen-tric solution by offering hassle-free, easy-to-use, round-the-clock services to the consumers.However, on several occasions, it iswitnessed that, one tends to forget theactual users’ requirements. This sim-ple mistake costs us all our efforts andtime, because, however well-de-signed a system may be, if there areno takers, it is not worth the effort.The reasons for committing this er-ror may be more than one, yet theforemost being the brief tenures of of-

ficials and hurry to do ‘something’during one’s tenure.

“Technology for the masses” is theconstant endeavour and commitmentof the government. Technologyshould not only have to be provenand easy to maintain, but also be lowon initial cost and resource require-ment. Thus, the third test for projectscould be the resource requirement. Ingovernment, we tend to assume man-power availability as given, whoserequirement at times is so heavy thatthe project becomes unsustainablesince its inception. In the zeal to de-velop the ‘mother of all programmes,’we tend to increase its scope mani-fold, forgetting that e-governanceprojects should be the force multi-plier, rather than a drain on resource.This tendency on the part of imple-

menter makes projects demanding and unsustainableand ensures that the programme falls into early disuse.In addition to this, at times our failure to assess memoryand space requirement for our project and a lack ofproper advice on the application software and platformreduces the probability of its acceptance.

At times we tend to lay too much stress on electronicpresentation of contents rather than on solving the gov-ernance issues by the application of information tech-nology. Mere presentation of information on electronicmedium while keeping the cumbersome and compli-cated procedures unchanged, increases citizen’s depend-ence on yet another type of intermediary, i.e., computerliterate person. Thus, the fourth test could be to seewhether the project has reduced the number of inter-

mediaries and middlemen orwhether it had any impact on mini-mizing the face-to-face interaction ofgovernment functionaries with citi-zens. Has it in any way reduced thedrudgery of citizens and their multi-ple rounds to the corridors of power?Development of e-governanceprojects should be taken as an oppor-tunity to minimize procedural delays,simplify forms, and reduce the

Development of

e-governance projects

should be taken as an

opportunity to minimize

procedural delays,

simplify forms, and reduce

the chances of corruption.

In the zeal to develop

the ‘mother of all

programmes,’ we tend to

increase its scope

manifold, forgetting that


should be the force

multiplier, rather than the

drain on resource. This

tendency on the part of

implementer makes

projects demanding and

unsustainable and ensures

that the programme falls

into early disuse.

COLLOQUIUM


chances of corruption.

In essence, the indicators forcategorizing the e-governanceprojects should include boththe subjective (qualitative) andobjective (quantitative) criteria.Since the e-governance initia-tives are still at the nascentstage, the indicators developed

for the categorization of the pro-jects should also capture boththe ‘efforts made’ and the ‘re-sults’ achieved. Thus even if ourprogress is tardy and slow, weneed not worry as much as whenwe are not in the right direction.Derailment from the right trackshould call for immediate stepsfor mid-term corrections.

Computerization of Land Records: The Karnataka Experience

Rajeev ChawlaCommissionerLand Records & Survey DepartmentGovernment of Karnatakae-mail: [email protected]

Maintenance of land records is one of the keyissues facing governance today. In Karna-taka, land records were earlier maintained

through a manual system involving 9,000 village ac-countants, each serving a cluster of three-four villages.Eight registers were maintained to record the informa-tion on (a) current ownership ofeach parcel of land, its area andcropping pattern, dispute, muta-tions and (b) village maps that re-flected the boundaries of eachparcel.

Computerization of land records inKarnataka goes back to 1991 whenthe 1st pilot study was initiatedunder the Ministry of Rural Devel-opment’s Computerization of LandRecords (CoLR) Project, fullyfunded by the Government of In-dia. By 1996, projects for computeri-zation of land records weresanctioned for all districts in thestate of Karnataka. However, noprovision was made to install com-puters at the taluka level wheremanual records were actually up-dated. The breakthrough came

when the state government mandated the project,Bhoomi, in which computerization of land records wasundertaken and completed in all sub-districts by March2002.

The major objectives of the Bhoomi project were to:

• facilitate easy maintenance andprompt updating of land records

• make land records tamper-proof• allow farmers easy access to their

records• collate the information to con-

struct database regarding landrevenue, cropping pattern, landuse, etc.

• utilize data for planning and for-mulating development pro-grammes.

The Karnataka Government’s De-partment of Revenue set up com-puterized land record kiosks(Bhoomi centres) across 177 talukaoffices. These kiosks providedfarmers with the Record of Rights,Tenancy, and Cultivation (RTC)—a document needed for obtaining

The Karnataka Government’s

Department of Revenue set up

computerized land record

kiosks (Bhoomi centres)

across 177 taluka offices.

These kiosks provided farmers

with the Record of Rights,

Tenancy, and Cultivation

(RTC)—a document needed

for obtaining bank loans as a

proof of ownership. The

Bhoomi project was expected

to speed up the delivery of

RTCs and reduce harassment

and bribery.

Even if our progress is tardy and

slow, we need not worry as much as

when we are not in the right

direction. Derailment from the right

track should call for immediate

steps for mid-term corrections.

78

bank loans as a proof of ownership. The Bhoomi projectwas expected to speed up the delivery of RTCs and re-duce harassment and bribery.

The first and foremost step in kick-starting the Bhoomisystem was to capture legacy data records in the pos-session of village accountants, numbering about 20 mil-lion.

The manual and computerized sets of records on thestarting day now serves as the original record and arekept in the safe custody of the taluka office. When achange of ownership takes placethrough sale or inheritance, farmerscan file an application for a mutationof the land record at the Bhoomi cen-tre at a separate operator-assistedcounter that handles mutation.

The unamended Kanataka Land Rev-enue Act did not provide for a com-puterized system. Therefore, the Acthad to be amended. Maintenance ofequipment at 177 centres, many ofwhich are located in far-flung ruralareas, dealing with isolatedincidences of fraudulent certificatesbeing presented at banks, mitigatingproblems of farmers who have totravel long distances to reach Bhoomikiosks, lack of currency and poorquality of crop survey data, and prob-lems of illiterate farmers in filingmutation forms are some of the chal-lenges that the project team has grap-pled with.

An evaluation conducted by the Pub-lic Affairs Council, Bangalore, 2002,showed significant impact on efficiency in delivery andcorruption:

• Ease in use of Bhoomi kiosks—79 per cent users coulduse Bhoomi without having to meet any official ex-cept the counter staff.

• Bhoomi kiosks provided error-free documents to 74per cent users vis-à-vis 63 per cent in the case of manualsystem. In case of error, Bhoomi users could com-plain and seek rectification—58 per cent got timelyresponse against 4 per cent in the manual system.

• Hard copy of RTC and receipt could be obtained atRs 15.

• Hidden costs of time and effort for securing thesecertificates were eliminated.

• 79 per cent of the Bhoomi users reported a minimalwaiting time of 10 minutes or less in the queue. 27per cent could meet the concerned official in such ashort time. While 72 per cent got RTC after one visitto Bhoomi-kiosk, only 5 per cent got it that fast in themanual system.

• Corruption was the most serious issue—66 per centof the users of manual system paid abribe against 3 per cent in the case ofBhoomi users.

The Bhoomi project of online deliv-ery of land records demonstrated thebenefits of making governmentrecords more open so as to empowerthe citizens to challenge arbitrary ac-tion. The assessment of land recordcomputerization done by the recentDIT/IIMA study also showed simi-lar improvements in half of the 10states that were studied. However, itis very important for the nodal agen-cies to understand why there are dif-ferences in the performance levels ofdifferent states after computerization.For this, it would be necessary to sendappropriate persons to closely exam-ine the different projects, identify thegood points, and then have a coupleof sessions for disseminating the in-formation collected and discuss indetail the problems of the projectsand see how they can be mitigated.

For example, the study indicates thatin the land records project of Gujarat, the corruptionlevel is zero and the elapsed time is less than one daycompared to some other states where elapsed time isthree to four days. It is very important for us to under-stand as to what those features are which are makingGujarat so efficient. This obviously cannot be done un-less and until we get into details. Consultants who aregood in land records can be engaged. They can studyand make a very critical report and somehow or the otherimpress upon the state governments that there is scope

Maintenance of equipment

at 177 centres, many of

which are located in far-

flung rural areas, dealing

with isolated incidences of

fraudulent certificates being

presented at banks,

mitigating problems of

farmers who have to travel

long distances to reach

Bhoomi kiosks, lack of

currency and poor quality

of crop survey data, and

problems of illiterate

farmers in filing mutation

forms are some of the

challenges that the project

team has grappled with.

COLLOQUIUM


for improvement. Similarly, in other projects, we haveto analyse, for example, why, on an average, individu-als spend about 25 minutes waiting in queues to submitthe acknowledged receipts of their Income Tax. But therehas to be further investigation to understand as to howthe waiting time can be reduced. Otherwise the studywill end up being like the thermometer which just showsthe temperature. For analysing why the temperature ishigh, it would obviously require further enquiry.

Secondly, in the case of mutation system, even after 10years of computerization in land records and registra-tion, mutation is still not achieved. What is more dis-turbing is that even in places where mutation has beenachieved, corruption is still high. How do we makemutation simpler? I am told that Tamil Nadu has a pre-sumptive system. Can our IT-enabled system have pre-sumption that if no objection comes in 15 days then themutation shall be self-certified? In Bhoomi, a ‘first in firstout’ (FIFO) system has been imple-mented. Now people need not paybribes because they know their workwill anyway be done. Other states canimplement similar mechanisms.

One drawback of the computerizedsystem is that people are now forcedto go to Tehsil for availing the serv-ices. We should therefore focus on de-centralized delivery systems throughthe rural telecentres which have been set up and some-how convince the Ministry of Land Resources to ensuretheir complete roll-out. In Karnataka, there are now 800centres, and out of a total of 2 crore existing records, 1.2crore are going through the decentralized system. Ini-tially, there was an opposition to the levy of a user feefor obtaining RTC. Now, nobody, including the seniorpolitical leaders who were vehement about the fees be-ing too high, are talking about it. In order to make thesystem effective, public access to ICT infrastructure isbecoming very important and the Department of Infor-mation technology (DIT) will have to help the depart-ments in this respect.

One of the central ministers said, “Bhoomi is garbage inand garbage out.” I am sure he was pointing at the in-consistencies and defects in the manual land records datawhich was digitized to create Bhoomi database. We, asadministrators, should have the courage to take such

criticisms in the right spirit and take corrective actions.

The time has now come when we should talk about con-sistency of land records with respect to spatial data. Ihave no hesitation in saying that the land records in Kar-nataka do have errors. Now that we are digitizing bothland records and spatial data, on comparing the two,we find that initial data itself had defects. We have tosee that this data, i.e., spatial data and non-spatial data,are consistent and the IT tools will help achieve this to avery large extent. Quality of data is very important forland records. The first important point is to see if thedata is correct.

What is also important is to see not just that mutation ishandled online but also that spatial data is updated.While all land records across the country talk about non-spatial data, can we be assured that spatial data wouldautomatically get updated? Hence the importance of the

concept of pre-mutation system(PMS) in which one could measurethe land before the land is registered.PMS is prevalent in many countriesand it is necessary that we graduateto that level where the land is meas-ured before it is sold, and then, bothspatial and non-spatial data are up-dated together. We should also en-sure that registration and landrecords systems should be fully inte-

grated. There is no justification why our citizens have toregister their land and still keep on running to the landrecords system for mutation. Both being electronic sys-tems, why can’t we exchange data? Why can’t registra-tion trigger our requests on land records and startmutation? I am sure it is prevalent in many states. Need-less to say, if it has to happen very effectively, the regis-tration system should start using the land recordssystem’s electronic data records to ensure a 100 per centcomputerized and automated system. I believe, theseare some of the small intermediations which would helpthe system improve in the coming days.

I will explain the approach taken by Karnataka. TheGovernment of Karnataka amended the Land RevenueAct. Measurement of land was made mandatory beforeit was sold—If a particular piece of land was not meas-ured, it shall not be registered. We brought an amend-ment to the Karnataka Land Revenue Act which stated

While all land records

across the country talk

about non-spatial data,

can we be assured that

spatial data would

automatically get updated?

80

that if any registration was to be re-ported by the Sub-Registrar or aninheritance case was to be reportedby a family, a sketch shall be ob-tained and given for the purpose ofmutation. We also issued a circularnotifying that it is the responsibilityof all the government officers to fol-low the amendments carried out inthe Karnataka Land Revenue Act.This circular and the amendmentwent to the Division bench of theHigh Court which held that the stategovernment has the right to amendthe Karnataka Land Revenue Act and that it is also theresponsibility of all the government officials to followthe regulations of the State Act which is required for aproper maintenance of the land records.

The next obvious question would be: How to make thesketches? Who has the power to make the sketches? TheKarnataka Land Revenue Act brought the concept of li-censed surveyors. The idea was to use the private sec-tor, let them go to the field on a user charge (Rs 600 percopy), measure the property, and then give the meas-ured property record to the government surveyor whowould authenticate the data mathematically that thesketches and polygons reflected the right area. Thissketch would then become one of the documents to begiven to the Sub-Registrar before he registers. Once thissketch is formed, administrative guidelines are issued.One of the guidelines says that if the 11-E sketch (pre-mutation sketch) has to be made, the one who is request-ing this should be the owner as per the Bhoomi database.If he is not the owner, 11-E sketch shall not be made. Onthe pre-mutation sketch, both the owner and the seller

sign and it becomes an annexure tothe sale deal. After getting regis-tered, this sketch comes back toBhoomi and is electronically con-verted at the centralized data centre.After every registration, the Sub-Registrar sends the data electroni-cally to the Bhoomi database, andmutation starts.

One more thing that happens is anIntegrated Bhoomi Mutation processwhere Bhoomi generates both thenon-spatial and spatial updated

records. The spatial updated record is generated fromthe pre-possession sketch that already has the requireddata. Thanks to the 3,500 licensed surveyors that we cancarry out 5 lakh mutations per year generating Rs. 30crore. This 30 crore goes to the 3,500 licensed surveyors.Appropriate software is now used to exploit the powerof technology; exchange of data between the Sub-Regis-trars and Bhoomi now creates synchronization betweenthe spatial and non-spatial data.

Are there any challenges to the system of the licensedsurveyor scheme? The answer is certainly, ‘Yes’. Thechallenge now requires to generate a human resourceof 4,000-5,000 and train them over a period of time be-cause if they create inaccurate spatial data, it could re-sult in legal problems, increasing with time.

Every land record including all the 5-10 lakh sketcheswhich have been created is available on the internet andcan be accessed through the 1,000 telecentres in Karna-taka. There are certain small law changes which can stillbe brought about to help reasonably achieve a nearlyideal system.

Designing e-Governance Applications

Prakash KumarDirectorPublic Sector, Internet Business Solutions GroupCisco Systems Indiae-mail: [email protected]

Technology has the great potential to make inter-action between governments and citizens a muchmore satisfying experience by drastically im-

proving the service delivery of government agencies.However, this improvement is dependent on how wellthe e-governance system is designed. Design of a new

We should also ensure that

registration and land records

systems should be fully

integrated. There is no

justification why our citizens

have to register their land

and still keep on running to

the land records system for

mutation.

COLLOQUIUM


The end objective in most

of the e-governance

projects are confined to

the well-known pain areas

of government service

delivery, i.e., reduction in

processing time, waiting

time at the counter,

number of trips to be

made to the government

office, and the bribe to be

paid to avail the service.

product or service is greatly influ-enced by the user requirements anduser feedback as these determine itsacceptability. The feedback of theconsumer, in turn, is based on his/her experience of using the same orsimilar product in the past.

Since e-governance services are be-ing implemented for the first time inIndia, and the end-users have had noprevious experience of the same orsimilarly provided services, the ex-pectation levels or users’ require-ments are not known. This becomesthe biggest handicap for the design-ers/planners of e-governance serv-ices. Today, there is no methodologyavailable for conducting stakeholders’ consultation onthe requirements or priority of e-governance services.Thus, the end objective in most of the e-governanceprojects are confined to the well-known pain areas ofgovernment service delivery, i.e., reduction in process-ing time, waiting time at the counter, number of trips tobe made to the government office, and the bribe to bepaid to avail the service.

At the same time, it would not be right to conclude thatthe people do not have any clarity on what type of e-governance services they want and what should be thefeatures of the same. The clue comes from extensive useof ICT by private sector organizations which have notonly reduced the cost of business but have also giventhe end users a better experience. For example, peopletoday can access their bank accounts 24x7. The process-ing time on the counters has come down drasticallywherever it is not possible to providethe service remotely. Today, consum-ers can pay bills through ATM orInternet-based system or throughpre-paid cards, apart from conven-tional office counters. The innovativeuse of ICT by private sector for serv-ice delivery has put pressure on thegovernment and public sector agen-cies to provide similar experience topeople.

Measuring the success of a project

requires setting up of quantifiableobjectives and milestones before thestart of a project. These are based onpast experience and new user re-quirements. The absence of mecha-nism for conducting stakeholder’sconsultation while designing an e-governance project has been the mainfactor for not setting the objectives inquantifiable terms. Most of the e-gov-ernance projects, including MMPs, donot have quantifiable objectives setbefore implementation of the project,which could be used to measure therelative success of the project. Thus,the impact assessments have beenconfined to ‘then’ and ‘now’ compari-son on selected cost and quality pa-

rameters such as:

• Cost of availing services (number of trips, cost of trips,wage loss, service charges, cost of documentation,bribes paid, waiting time, total processing time, etc.)

• Quality of service (location of centres, working hours,attitude of functionaries, problem resolution andcomplaint handling, confidentiality of data, etc.)

• Quality of governance (awareness of citizen charter,delivery time vis-à-vis time frame mentioned in thecitizen charter, level of corruption, accountability ofofficials, percentage of error in services provided, etc.)

• Comparison with manual system.

Such impact assessments conducted on a large samplein a scientific manner do provide invaluable result forfurther refining the design of the subsequent e-govern-ance projects. Thus, the question which arises next is

about how to improve the frameworkof assessment and how to improvethe experience of the service seekerin terms of mode of interaction, easeof interaction, total time of process-ing, wait time at the counter, ease oftracking the status of request, deliv-ery of services, awareness of peopleabout the project, etc.

Ease of online operation and modesused to provide this experience topeople are two critical success factors.

The absence of

mechanism for conducting

stakeholder’s consultation

while designing an

e-governance project has

been the main factor for

not setting the objectives

in quantifiable terms.

82

Many users have experienced diffi-culty in dealing with online systemsand that has led to increase in use ofintermediaries as has been reportedin some of the projects. This bringsin focus the need of user friendlinessof the application software. Intelli-gence built in the application form todo logic check, calculations, autopopulate data, etc., reduces thechance of error and consequent de-lays involved in referring back thematter to the applicant. This also en-hances the experience of the applicantleading to higher acceptability.

Many services require submission ofsupporting documents along withthe application. For instance, pass-port application needs to be sup-ported with residence proof – Elec-tion Photo Identity Card (EPIC) or ration card. The pre-scribed supporting documents are issued by governmentagencies like election department (EPIC), food and sup-plies department (ration card), etc. With large scaleautomation of various departments, should we not putin place a mechanism for auto-check-ing the data from the issuing authori-ty’s database? For instance, theapplicant can provide the ration cardnumber and the application softwarewill check the name, address, etc.,from the database of the Food & Sup-plies Department. This can happenonly when data exchange is allowedbetween various databases or datafrom various databases is compiledat one place for each individual.

Automation of the back-end processplays a crucial role in monitoringapplication processing and relatedmatters like dissemination of status,maintenance of ‘first in first out’(FIFO), etc. If the process is not au-tomated at the back-end, then statusupdation becomes manual, whichthen becomes an additional job for of-ficials. This additional job is not a pri-

ority for anybody. That leads to in-correct dissemination of informationon the status of application, whichtakes away the transparency of thesystem as it forces people to physi-cally contact the departments thusproviding scope for malpractices.

Part-automation of the process at theback-end has not led to the desiredimprovement as has been seen in thecase of the Passport project. Peoplehave to go to the Passport Office evenif the application has been submittedelectronically as the processing isdone manually and only the applica-tion can be submitted online followedby a hard copy of the applicationalong with the supporting docu-ments. On the other hand, MCA21project has shown that full automa-

tion of back-end process reduces the contact betweenthe applicant and the government agency drastically.

Keeping the applicant informed of the status of his/herapplication is one of the important parameters of user

satisfaction. Application trackingshould be made possible using vari-ous means like Internet, landline tele-phone (IVRS), cellphone (SMS) or callcentre to ensure a wider reach. Thiscan be done by having numericunique acknowledgement numberfor the applications and by provid-ing computer-telephony interface tothe database, which in turn gets up-dated after completion of a milestoneby a process controlled applicationsoftware. This interface can also beused to proactively interact with ap-plicants using SMS to intimate thestatus of application, requirement ofadditional document, or readiness ofthe agency to deliver the service.

Delivery of service to the customer isthe final step which needs to be pro-vided at the right place in the short-est possible time. Most of the services

With increase in the

number of e-governance

services and increased

familiarity of people with

ICT-based service delivery,

both by government as

well as private sector, it

should be easier to

conduct stakeholders’

consultation while

designing new e-

government services. That

will not only bring out the

correct requirement but

also the priority of services

to be covered.

Automation of back-end

process plays a crucial

role in monitoring

application processing

and related matters like

dissemination of status,

maintenance of ‘first in

first out’ (FIFO), etc. If the

process is not automated

at the back-end, then

status updation becomes

manual which then

becomes an additional job

for officials.

COLLOQUIUM


required by people are in the form of paper-based prod-ucts like land records, birth certificate, etc. For all pa-per-based products, delivery at applicant’s home is thebest option to cut down the interface between the userand the government agency. This also helps in verify-ing the correctness of address shown in application.

Sustained awareness programme on new projects is veryimportant as has been shown by income tax application.A very good project may not take off well if users arenot made aware of the same. Also, accessibility to goodquality helpdesk makes it easier for people to avail thenew ICT-based services.

These are some of the factors which if taken care of, willlead to a higher satisfaction of end users and a higheracceptability of the new system. With increase in thenumber of e-governance services and increased famili-arity of people with ICT-based service delivery, both by

government as well as private sector, it should be easierto conduct stakeholders’ consultation while designingnew e-government services. That will not only bring outthe correct requirement but also the priority of servicesto be covered. Involvement of civil society and conduct-ing consultation in a scientific manner are important toget the best result.

Secondly, quantifiable objectives should be set beforethe project starts so that the achievements during im-plementation of the project could be measured againstthe same. In other words, targets should be set in termsof total processing time, waiting time at the counter,number of trips to be made, cost of transaction, numberof hours of availability of service, modes of service de-livery, and other such parameters. The final result shouldbe compared with the target set and satisfaction level ofusers measured on a year-to-year basis to maintain mini-mum service levels.

e-Registration and the Way Ahead:Work Done in Maharashtra

Nitin KareerDivisional CommissionerPuneGovernment of Maharashtrae-mail: [email protected]

This workshop seeks to discuss the systematic as-sessment studies of citizen impact of e-govern-ance projects relating to land records, registra-

tion, and transport across 10 states in the country. Thisis a wonderful exercise which brings forth the advan-tages accrued and the gaps that need to be attended to.The study concludes: “Computerized systems seem tohave benefited immensely – Number of trips reducedby 1-2 trips, waiting time cut by 20-40 per cent, directcosts cut by Rs. 60-110, reduction in corruption....” How-ever, the study also talks about two major areas of con-cern.

The first is the “stand-alone” nature of these projects.No state reports the integration of the Revenue Depart-ment where land records are maintained, the Survey De-partment where maps of land parcels are maintained,

and the Registration Department where deeds of sale/purchase of land are registered and maintained.

The second important gap highlighted is that these e-governance projects have not led to any significant trans-formation in the working of the government organiza-tions and processes, which should be the key objectiveof an e-governance project.

It is in the context of these two significant findings thatit is important to talk about the SARITA (e-Registration)project in Maharashtra, its impact on citizens, and thenext- generation reforms leading to automatic mutationsand cadastral measurements. SARITA worked on re-structuring agency processes significantly to give maxi-mum benefit to citizens. Further, the Revenue Depart-ment in Maharashtra is now working on the integrationof its three wings – records, survey, and registration – at

84

the field level. The documentation ofthis effort is also relevant becauseMaharashtra was not covered in thisimpact assessment study.

SARITA (e-REGISTRATION)

Governance : Governance seems to bethe real solution to the problems oflow credibility and poor performancein the government. Governance in-volves providing the most neededservices of a good quality at the leastcost, with these services being acces-sible to those who most need themand thereby tries to restore the trustof the citizens in the government. e-governance adds ICT to governance.It is a tool for good governance, and also an excuse for afull review of processes which is the essence of govern-ance. It is with this basic understanding that the Depart-ment of Stamps and Registration in Maharashtra wascomputerized in 2001.

The Department: The Stamps and Registration Depart-ment of Maharashtra is a small department with onlyabout 3,000 staff, but a very high citizen interface of 7-8million per year. It is an efficient department (less than1% is cost of recovery) and fetches good revenue to thegovernment (Rs. 8,000 crore in 2007-08). But it wasplagued with a poor image and extreme client dissatis-faction due to delays, discretion, harassment, and cor-ruption.

The Process of Reform

Problem identification was the crucial first step, carriedout by a series of intensive consultation with all thestakeholders. The problem statement that emerged wasthe foundation of all reforms. The objectives were to cre-ate a simple, uniform, consistent,high quality computerized system ofregistration working on predeter-mined time standards. What was im-portant was to develop a comprehen-sive change strategy and implement it.

Change Strategy

Cosmetics – The cosmetic changesincluded standard seating arrange-

ments across the state to have a cor-porate look, Sub-Registrars broughtto the forefront as team-leaders, anda neat-clean-green office look to sig-nify the beginning of change.

Government process reengineering(GPR) –Transformation of the way inwhich business was transacted forover 150 years in the Department wasthe most critical factor in the successof the project. This started with de-fining what constituted a documentthat was ready for registration to cutdiscretion, a limit of 24 hours to re-turn the registered document in themanual process, and a written expla-nation if the registration and return

were not done in time. Another important step was todevise a more transparent property valuation table forpublic usage.

Computerization through PPP –A comprehensive soft-ware to cover the entire process was made by C-DACwith a lot of domain input from the Department. Thekey challenges of cost to government and a low skill setin the departmental staff were met by bringing in a pri-vate partner. The partner installed the furniture andhardware in all the offices and provided manpower fordata-entry and scanning. The partner was paid out ofthe service fee charged to citizens and was appointedafter a very transparent bidding process. The processwas divided into six well-timed steps totaling 30 min-utes. If there was a delay in the steps to be carried outby the private partner, a proportionate penalty was auto-calculated and deducted from his payment. If the delaywas due to the government staff, the system generatednotices and ensured a follow-up action. The system was

implemented across all 400 offices inthe state in February, 2001, and con-tinues till date.

Impact Assessment

Internal Assessment

Increase in the number of documentsby over 20 per cent in the first yearsignifies the willingness of people tocome into the net of a system that de-

No state reports the

integration of the Revenue

Department where land

records are maintained,

the Survey Department

where maps of land

parcels are maintained,

and the Registration

Department where deeds

of sale/purchase of land

are registered and

maintained.

e-governance adds ICT to

governance. It is a tool for

good governance, and also

an excuse for a full review

of processes which is the

essence of governance.

COLLOQUIUM


livers on its promise of a “30 minute turnaround time.”

• Highly increased citizen satisfaction was noted in the“Remarks book (s)” kept in all offices, letters received,write-ups in newspapers, etc.

• Drastic drop in the number of anti-corruption caseswas seen in the Department from almost six everyyear to less than two.

• Single-trip mission with a 30-minute turnaroundguarantee was enforced. This is evident from the factthat delay penalty had to be levied in less than 2 percent of the documents being registered every year.The adherence to delivery time was the most signifi-cant issue in public perception.

ISO 9000:2001 audit: The entire Department was auditedand an ISO certificate obtained against the service stand-ards and processes set out in the citi-zens charter. Follow-up audits doneby the external auditor every sixmonths gave similar results.

External Assessment 1

A user perception survey was con-ducted by Jonathan Caseley for theIndia Service Delivery Report, WorldBank, 2005. His findings are reportedin Reinventing Service Delivery in anIndian State: Reforms at the Departmentof Registration and Stamps in Mahar-ashtra. The significant findings forMaharashtra are:

• The number of people who used help (touts) to reg-ister their documents dropped to 40 per cent.

• 75 per cent users classified the behaviour of the staffas “polite.”

• 93.5 per cent users stated that they did not have topay extra fees or bribes to register their documents.

• All users surveyed stated that it took under 30 min-utes to register and get their documents back, exclud-ing the document preparation time.

External Assessment 2

The report of the World Bank, Reforming Public Serv-ices in India, World Bank, 2006, prepared by Vikram KChand further looks at the SARITA project. Followingare the key findings:

• The SARITA project is much more than mere com-

puterization or simplifying transactions. It involvesa transformation of the way in which business wasbeing done in the Department with faster and moretransparent procedures and new systems of moni-toring.

• Clearly, Maharashtra’s Stamp & Registration Depart-ment has been turned around. The perception of cor-ruption is low; staff is mostly polite; most deeds areregistered within the time limit.

Reforms worked because of staff buy-in through con-sultation, business process changes before computeri-zation, an effective public-private partnership, and theright performance management.

The Next Steps: AutomaticMutations and Cadastral Surveys

Mandate

• One-stop shop for citizens to availservices of registration, landrecords, and survey departments

• Transparent and speedy processwith a service fee to introducevalue-for-money concept

• To ensure a ‘first in first out’ sys-tem to cut discretions

• Seamless integration of services toensure that deed registration isfollowed immediately and on thespot by recording of mutation andissue of notices for mutation andland measurement for updation ofcadastral maps.

Methodology

(a) Location: Registration office is used because buyersand sellers are both present and these offices are al-ready computerized.

(b) SETU centres (CFC) work as the public face of all thethree land departments as they are a functioning pub-lic-private partnership model.

(c) Software: Registration department database to beused. SARITA software is used with some modifica-tions.

(d) Hardware: One computer with peripherals is pro-vided extra at each Sub-Registrar’s office with onedata entry operator and a runner to facilitate themanual work between the three departments.


have not led to any

significant transformation

in the working of the

government organizations

and processes, which

should be the key

objective of an

e-governance project.

86

(e) The Process:• Extra scrutiny sheet is filled up at the time when

clients come for registration to capture extra de-tails like names of other stakeholders.

• Unique token number is generated.• ‘Party’ (buyer-seller) details are captured from

SARITA.• Fee calculation from SETU Computer goes back

to SARITA system for consolidated receipt gen-eration.

• Receipt for registration includes the standard gov-ernment fees for mutation and land measurementfees for sending mutation and measurement no-tices by registered post toother landowners and theservice fee (Rs. 50) for ex-tra services being pro-vided.

• At the end of registration,mutation notice is auto-generated along with thenotices for land measure-ment and demarcation.

• Since the mutations are re-corded on the computer-ized system, monitoringfor timely certification andrecord updation are en-sured.

Current Problems in the System

• Not a very sophisticated system.• Is an immediate mutation system and not on-line mu-

tation. On-line mutation can happen in the next threemonths with the new SARITA II being developed.

• Cannot generate mutation numbers for places cov-ered by concurrent jurisdiction of two or more sub-registrars.

• Has received some resistance from the Survey andRegistration Departments.

Citizen Benefits

• Mutation generated at the time of registration.• Mutation number given.• Notices issued immediately and served.• Notices issued to all other parties whose names are

in the Record of Right by Registered Post.• Date for land measurement and demarcation given

at that stage itself with notices issued to all the con-cerned persons.

• Record updation on land record as well as surveysite facilitated.

• No need for citizens to approach any other govern-ment office or functionary.

• FIFO ensured to cut down delay, harassment, andcorruption.

Impact Assessment

The system was tried out in one circle office comprisingeight villages for about three months for a proof of con-cept and to work out user charges as it had to be done

on a PPP model. Subsequently, the resultswere presented to the government and anapproval for charging a user fees of Rs.50 per transaction was taken. The systemwas then implemented in 38 Sub-Regis-trars’ offices in Pune division covering 190Circle offices (each covering 8-10 villages)and about 40,000 mutations were success-fully generated.

The third party impact assessment wascarried out through interviews and exitinterviews of all the stakeholders includ-ing the citizens.

Results

The results have been excellent with veryhigh citizen satisfaction, willingness to pay even higherfees, and the database being seen as benefit by all gov-ernment departments. Feedback has been received forfurther modifications that are being incorporated in thenext versions.

The Future

The future lies in a complete and seamless integrationof the land records, survey, and registration departmentsto move as close to the Torrens system as possible. Therecord of right documents must contain the map of theland in addition to area, crop, encumbrances, and own-ership details. Backward linkage on the registrationsystem would enable the RoR information of the land tobe displayed the moment the land number is enteredfor the registration process. This would act as a checkagainst fraudulent transactions. Forward linkages wouldensure online mutation recording the moment the docu-

The SARITA project is

much more than

computerization or

simplifying transactions. It

involves a transformation of

the way in which business

was being done in the

Department with faster and

more transparent

procedures and new

systems of monitoring.

COLLOQUIUM


ment is registered. On-the-spot initiation of the meas-urement process would ensure that the cadastral mapsare also always updated.

The Revenue Department in Maharashtra is currentlyworking in this direction. A committee has been consti-tuted for planning and implementation. The software

which is the new version of SARITA is being written bythe NIC. The Registration Department has initiated abidding process to get new partners with a new hard-ware and to work on the new software. Hardware isbeing provided to the Survey and Land Records Depart-ments so that all three are ready at the same time to takethe next step, TOGETHER.

e-Governance and Corruption: The RTO, Ahmedabad Story

Sanjay VermaAssociate ProfessorComputer and Information Systems GroupIndian Institute of Management, Ahmedabade-mail: [email protected]

A lot of discussion has taken place on e-govern-ance initiatives in various state governments.It is considered to be a panacea of all evils.

While many e-governance projectshave met with huge success and havechanged the experience of citizens, alarge number of projects are runningshort of expectation.

While the findings of the study on e-governance are very interesting andsignificant, I would like to throwsome more light on them, based onmy personal experience at RTOAhmedabad. The main learning frommy experience is as follows:

Computerization alone does notimprove services unless capacity is enhanced

• Between October 24, 2008 and November 25, 2008, Imade four visits to RTO Ahmedabad to get myselfphotographed for the issue of driving license. Out ofthem, two visits were made on November 25, 2008.Paperwork was complete and photography was theonly activity remaining. On each occasion, I found atleast 150-200 people in queue, waiting for their turnto be photographed and agents actively offering theirservices in lieu of a certain amount. Agents call it aVIP service wherein the citizen may get his/her workdone in 10-15 minutes on payment of certain (unoffi-cial) charges.

• The question then is: Why is there such a large queue

for photo-shoot? The answer is quite simple. Thereare two persons for taking photographs. If eachcamera takes three minutes per applicant, then the

total capacity of the system is 60 ap-plicants per hour. This results in a ca-pacity of 540 persons per day(assuming nine hours work per day).Allowing for the idle time, the capac-ity will get further reduced. Oneneeds to ask, ‘Is the capacity enoughto serve a large number of peoplewho visit RTO everyday?’ A compu-ter with web-camera costs not morethan Rs. 25,000. Why RTO does notopen eight to ten additional windowsto facilitate smooth photography ofthe applicants?

• A sample of observations made at the RTO officeshows that between 8.30 a.m. and 9.00 a.m., on anaverage, around 50 persons collect token numbersand stand in the queue. Similar arrival rate of 50 per-sons in half-an-hour was observed up to 11.00 a.m.After 11.00 a.m., the arrival rate drops to 50 personsper hour which goes on till the token window closesdown at 4.00 p.m. With a capacity of the RTO officeto handle 60 persons per hour, it is obvious thatthroughout the day, there would be long queues forobtaining smart card.

The available capacity can be managed betterAs RTO Ahmedabad works on first-come-first-serve

It is a popular belief that

government employees are

corrupt. The experience at

RTO Ahmedabad shows

that corruption is

employer-independent.

Given a chance,

employees in the private

sector are equally corrupt.

88

basis, applicants consider it worthwhile to arrive as earlyas possible to stand in the queue to get photographed.The queue starts building up by 08:30 in the morning.When the RTO officials are aware of the capacity ofthe system (say, 60 per hour), would it not be a betterproposition to give an approximate time to each appli-cant in advance (as it has been introduced by the Re-gional Passport Office)? This will save the valuable timeof so many applicants. Assuming thateach applicant earns at least a mini-mum wage per day, it would save atleast Rs. 50 per applicant which mayresult in a savings of Rs. 25,000 perday (assuming 500 applicants perday).

Anti-corruption drives may resultin more corruption

During my third visit, I found that theagents were a little more discrete inattracting customers and that their charges had increasedcompared to the previous visits. The reason given forthe increase was strange. As a result of a tiff betweenthe agents and the security guards, the latter were in-structed to strictly follow the rules. A new step was

added whereby each applicant was given a tokennumber. The same sequence was to be followed whilegetting oneself photographed. As it was more difficultnow to get it done out-of-turn, the agents increased theirfees accordingly. I should, however, give due credit tosuch drive due to which overall the number of appli-cants who jumped the queue by paying extra moneyhas reduced. Thus, although the overall performance has

improved, yet much better results canbe achieved.

Privatization is not the panacea forcorruption

Photo-smart card at RTO Ahmeda-bad is an outsourced service. It is apopular belief that government em-ployees are corrupt. The experienceat RTO Ahmedabad shows that cor-ruption is employer-independent.Given a chance, employees in private

sector are equally corrupt. Rent-seeking behaviour is aresult of lack of capacity and infrastructure, and there-fore, once the infrastructure is built, corruption will re-duce as a natural consequence.

Rent-seeking behaviour is

a result of lack of capacity

and infrastructure, and

therefore, once the

infrastructure is built,

corruption will reduce as a

natural consequence.

Issues in the Design of Training Programmes on e-GovernanceV Venkata RaoProfessorComputer and Information Systems GroupIndian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad.

The impact that an e-governance initiative canmake depends very much on not only the re-levance of the initiative, but also the capabilities

of the officers who are involved with the initiative dur-ing the various phases of its life cycle. While trainingprogrammes wholly devoted to e-governance, particu-larly aimed at the higher levels of government, are notvery common, exposure to e-governance concepts isgiven often as part of other government trainingprogrammes. While there have been some isolated ef-forts at offering programmes entirely devoted to train-ing top level government officials in the field of e-gover-nance, there is no systematic study related to their im-pact assessment and on how to improve and roll themout in different parts of the country.

I would highlight some drawbacks in the existing train-ing programmes on e-governance and derive conclu-sions for their improvement. The views expressed arebased on my experience in coordinating training progra-mmes on planning and implementation of e-governance,and in participating in workshops on capacity buildingfor the same. Some of the observations apply, not onlyto e-governance training, but to management trainingprogrammes in general.

Requirements Specification

In designing the syllabus of programmes on e-gover-nance, one of the following strategies is found to beadopted:

COLLOQUIUM


• The programme faculty, based on their experiencein conducting similar programmes in other domains,decide the objectives, topics to be covered, and thetarget audience.

• A representative of the government interacts withthe faculty to help them decide the content of the pro-gramme to suit the type of participants likely to besponsored for it.

• The group of faculty meets with a sample of the par-ticipants likely to attend the programme, and shareswith them its first cut design. The participants in turngive their feedback on the preliminary design, whichthe faculty take into account while finalizing the listof topics to be covered by the programme.

• A group of experts from variousorganizations offering trainingwork together to develop theoverall outline of such a pro-gramme in a workshop.

The above approaches are necessi-tated because of the following prac-tical limitations that the designers oftraining programmes in this area en-counter:

• The complete list of participantsis difficult to know much in ad-vance

• Even if a few participants areknown to have been nominatedwell in advance, the participants may not be able toarticulate their needs and translate them into a list oftopics to be covered during the training.

An ideal way of designing such a programme would beto base the design on a study of the skill sets needed bythe different levels of government officials working inplanning, implementing, and managing e-governancesystems. For this purpose, a sample of e-governanceprojects could be chosen, and the activities performedby the people involved with them at various levels andduring the different phases of their life cycle could bestudied. The study could be conducted through groupdiscussions, structured interviews, and direct observa-tion of operations. The activities performed by the offi-cials can then be mapped into skill sets, and the skillsets into training topics. The two main advantages ofthis method are: first, the approach is more objective and

rigorous than the other existing practices; second, sev-eral different programmes for different levels of man-agement could be simultaneously designed with theabove approach. The disadvantage is that the methodrequires more resources than the existing methods.

Selection of Participants

The method adopted in selecting participants in e-gov-ernance training programmes consists of announcing theprogramme objectives and outline of contents througha public advertisment, or through a notice circulated tothe various government departments. The applicantssend in their applications at their own initiative or basedon the advice of their respective heads of the depart-

ments. The programme participantsare short-listed from the applicantpool, based on an interview or a re-view of the applications submitted.Following are the major lacunae inthis process:

• The desired applicant profile isnot well-defined in the announce-ment inviting nominations/appli-cations. Phrases such as ‘seniorofficers with a strong interest ine-governance’ do not help muchin getting the right candidate fora programme.

• Even if the ‘who should apply’section in a programme brochure is well-defined, thenominating authorities may not take it seriously, andmight nominate a wrong candidate, simply becauseshe or he is ‘available.’ Sometimes, a department doesnot respond to such a notice either because its headdoes not see any immediate need for e-governmentskills for her/his department or because she/he lacksan adequate understanding or appreciation for suchtraining.

• Even the interviewing process for the final selectionmay not yield the desired results, because the officerin charge of selection might be governed by consid-erations like obtaining a certain targeted number ofparticipants, or achieving a balance between partici-pants belonging to different departments.

Such a process might end up selecting a participant mix,which is too heterogenous for effectively conducting theprogramme. Further, the objective of the seleced appli-

The impact that an

e-governance initiative

can make depends very

much on not only the

relevance of the initiative,

but also the capabilities of

the officers who are

involved with the initiative

during the various phases

of its life cycle.

90

cants might be totally incompatiblewith the objectives of the programme.

Some programmes admit a partici-pant only if she/he has a designatedrole in an ongoing e-governance ini-tiative. This practice certainly over-comes the problems mentioned above. However, in thegovernment sector, even if an officer is currently work-ing on an e-governance initiative, there is no guaranteethat she/he will not be transferred suddenly to somearea or project which does not have anything to do withe-governance. Thus, defining the desired participantprofile sharply and for the selectors to obtain the rightset of participants remain a challenge for the programmedesigners.

Lack of Trainers

It is far easier to teach structured topics than the un-structured ones. Further, it is easier to find trainers forstructured topics than for the unstructured ones. Forexample, there are more programmes available on top-ics like database management and HTML than on lead-ership and change management. This poses a specialproblem for e-governance programmes aimed at higherlevels of management such as secretaries of departments,because such high level officers are concerned with un-structured topics like identification of opportunities fore-governance, analysis of stakeholder needs, govern-ment process redesign, cost-benefit analysis of proposedcomputer applications, managerial communication,change management, and negotiation. It is often statedthat e-governance is more about gov-ernance than about ‘e’. If trainers forhigher levels of management in thisarea are not easily available, the or-ganizers can solve the problem byusing unconventional methods likeremote instruction with the help ofvideo-conferencing technology.

Commitment of Participants andtheir Sponsors

Lack of commitment to participate ina training programme on the part ofa participant or her/his departmentmanifests itself in several differentways:

• A participant is frequently dis-turbed during the programme byrequests from her/his departmentfor handling some urgent work,for which nobody else in the de-partment is considered suitable.

• A participant discontinues fromthe programme for a variety of reasons like findingan opportunity to go for an important conference orcoming across another rare and attractive prospectfor career advancement.

• The department does not supply the data that theparticipant wants for the course project.

• A participant takes interest only in the topics thatare directly relevant to his/her present work, and isindifferent to topics whose immediate relevance isnot apparent.

Such incidents and inconsistencies in priorities in thesame government arise because of the misalignmentamong the objectives of the different governmental hi-erarchies, multiple objectives governing their actions,diffused responsibilities, and the sheer enormity andcomplexity of the government itself. Institution of a re-ward and penalty system is not a satisfactory solutionfor the commitment problem mentioned above. The ob-jective behind a training programme and the serious-ness required to conduct it should be appropriatelycommunicated to all relevant levels in the government.A close monitoring of the programme to spot the prob-lem areas by the concerned officials also helps improvethe system significantly.

Involvement of Heads ofDepartments

A general complaint about e-gover-nance programmes is that a partici-pant, upon completion of the progra-mme, does not necessarily get towork on an e-governance project. Inseveral cases, the concerned head ofthe department does not have anyclue about the skills imparted to aparticipant of such a programme, andis therefore not clear as to what to ex-pect from her/him. A partial solutionto this problem would be to train alllevels of officers in a department, in-

It is often stated that

e-governance is more about

governance than about ‘e’.

When the participant

group does not have the

required homogeneity and

is not adequately

motivated, and when there

is a strong dissonance

between the objectives of

the programme and those

of the participants, the

delivery of the programme

loses its focus.

COLLOQUIUM


cluding the head of the department. The kind of progra-mme offered to a head of the department need not be asexhaustive as that offered to a junior officer at the nextlevel. Such programmes should be pitched at an appre-ciation level, and should not be of a very long duration.

Conclusion

If the above problems are not sorted out suitably, a train-ing programme on e-governance may tend to be sub-optimal in its effectiveness and impact. When theparticipant group does not have the required homoge-

neity and is not adequately motivated, and when thereis a strong dissonance between the objectives of theprogramme and those of the participants, the deliveryof the programme loses its focus. In trying to cater tothe needs of a diverse group of participants, theprogramme may not satisfy anybody, and might turnout to be superficial and ineffective. It is therefore im-perative for designers of such programmes to base theirdesign on a comprehensive understanding of the needsof the target group, and to choose other programme pa-rameters accordingly.

Learning for Future Implementation of e-governance

Subhash Bhatnagar

This study has several implications for future im-plementation of e-government initiatives in thecountry. Most projects covered in this study have

not led to any significant transformation in the workingof government organizations andprocesses which should be the keyobjective of an e-government project.In many of the projects, even simpleprocess reforms such as simplifica-tion and rationalization of forms,putting in place an appointment andqueue management system, post-in-spection instead of pre-inspection,automated workflow enforcing afirst-come first-serve discipline, anddocumenting the submission of anapplication and reasons in case theapplication is rejected, have not beenundertaken. The quality of designand process reform in these systemscan partly be attributed to the objec-tive and the approach underlying theinitiative—whether the focus is onback-end computerization or deliv-ery of value to citizens.

In order for a system to deliver significant value to allits stakeholders, it is important to involve stakeholdersin the design of the application. Data on attributes ofservice delivery that were considered important by the

users of each project indicates that users’ perception ofwhat is important varies with projects and states. Base-line surveys can help agencies understand such at-tributes. This can enable sharper targeting of benefits

that can be delivered, and the re-quired features or process reformscan then be incorporated in the de-sign of the e-government project.Computerized service delivery inIndia is in the early stages of evolu-tion. For example, in most states, landrecord computerization has been lim-ited to the issue of RTC. Mutation,which is a more complex process, hasbeen computerized in just five states.No state in India has integrated thefunctioning of three related agen-cies—revenue department whereland records are maintained, surveydepartment where maps of land par-cels are maintained, and registrationdepartment where deeds of sale/pur-chase of land are registered andmaintained. Similarly, though all thethree national projects provide ser-

vices through portals (unlike the state level projectswhere the mode of service delivery is mostly assistedservice centres), MCA21 is the only one that providesend-to-end online delivery of all its services.

In order for a system to

deliver significant value to

all its stakeholders, it is

important to involve

stakeholders in the design

of the application. Data on

attributes of service

delivery that were

considered important by

the users of each project

indicates that users’

perception of what is

important varies with

projects and states.

92

Even basic computerized deliveryhas not reached the entire populationin the twelve states covered by thestudy. In most of the states, compu-terized delivery has not reached be-yond the taluka level. In half thestates, half the districts still operatethe services in a manual mode. Thereis a long way to go even in the case ofthe three services covered by thisstudy – expanding e-services to 15other states where very little has hap-pened so far and covering all the dis-tricts and taking services to sub-taluka levels in the twelvestates chosen for the study. Despite the limited compu-terization that has been achieved, results show that per-ceptible benefits have been delivered to citizens. Thisindicates the need for expanding the coverage of com-puterized service delivery and expediting the implemen-tation of e-governance.

The number of trips required for availing service is ab-normally high in a few states. Often information aboutthe required documents is not publicized well. Usersneed to make a trip to the agency just to determine therequirements. In some states, the number of supportingdocuments that are required to avail a service has notbeen cut down after computerization. For example, inthe case of property registration in Orissa, several docu-ments are required as proof of ownership of a propertythat is being transferred whereas in other states this re-quirement has been trimmed. There has to be a balancebetween ensuring that a system prevents fraudulenttransactions and the burden that extensive checks cantake place on people who are honest. At times usersmake unnecessary trips as they are unable to get theirwork done on a given day because of long queues. When-ever there is a mismatch in demandfor service and capacity to handle theservice request, the system of orderlyqueues breaks down. This can alsohappen because of equipment break-down. Very often, there is no speci-fied order in which service requestsshould be processed. Such opportu-nities are used by touts to get workdone by paying speed money. Inother cases, functionaries have un-

necessary discretion to delay or denya service without assigning a reason.They abuse their discretion in allthese cases to seek rent.

One of the objectives of creating aportal (as has been done in the na-tional projects) is to simplify the pro-cess to an extent that individuals canaccess the service themselves withoutseeking assistance from intermediar-ies. In income tax and passport, us-ers have the choice to use the manual

channel or the portal. Both these agencies have not beenable to encourage a significant proportion of individualusers to use online services because the perceived ben-efits for individual users of online services are marginal.Greater efforts are needed to make large number of us-ers aware about the new mode of delivery and the man-ner in which it can be used. However, awareness canonly help to bring users to that service delivery channelonce. It cannot guarantee sustained use of the systemunless the system is also designed in such a way as todeliver satisfactory outcome. Procedures need to be sim-plified to deliver concrete benefits and clear guidelinesshould be provided to encourage their use by the actualend users and reduce users’ dependence on middlemen/intermediaries.

A large difference is seen in the performance of the bestand the worst state in case of each of the three compu-terized applications. A wide variation in the impact onusers is also seen across the three national projects. Inboth cases, variation is on account of differences in theextent of computerization and the process reform un-dertaken in implementing these systems. Given the factthat the processing steps in the delivery of the three serv-

ices can be very similar across states,it can be concluded that each state haschosen to design its application with-out learning from best practices else-where. Future projects need to beconceptualized and designed moreholistically, offering end-to-endonline services, duly emphasizingprocess reforms and incorporatinglearning from good practices else-where.

Even basic computerized

delivery has not reached

the entire population in

the twelve states covered

by the study. In most of

the states, computerized

delivery has not reached

beyond the taluka level.

There has to be a balance

between ensuring that a

system prevents fraudulent

transactions and the

burden that extensive

checks can take place on

people who are honest.

COLLOQUIUM


Awareness can only help to bring

users to that service delivery

channel once. It cannot guarantee

sustained use of the system unless

the system is also designed in such

a way as to deliver satisfactory

outcome. Procedures need to be

simplified to deliver concrete

benefits and clear guidelines

provided to encourage their use by

the actual end users and reduce

users’ dependence on middlemen/

intermediaries.

Future projects need to be

conceptualized and designed more

holistically, offering end-to-end

online services, duly emphasizing

process reforms and incorporating

learning from good practices

elsewhere.

None of the assessed projectshad made any kind of baselineassessment of the existingmanual system before replacingit with a computerized system.The study underscores the im-portance of conducting baselinesurveys of users of the existingsystem before conceptualizing anew system to replace it. Clientfocus can be sharpened by as-sessing the service delivery per-formance of an existing systemthrough dipstick surveys or as-sessment studies such as thisone. The format for a detailedproject report should specifi-cally contain a section on dis-cussing concrete value that isexpected to be delivered to dif-ferent types of users, based onthe framework used for the as-sessment reported here. The re-sults of this study can be usedas a benchmark for futureprojects to target benefits thatwill at least equal the bestamongst the surveyed projects.

The exercise of assessing impactshould not be seen as a one-time activity. Every projectthat has reached a mature state of service delivery must

constantly be monitored andsubjected to assessment suchthat it can be further improvedand evolved to deliver greaterbenefit. It must also be kept inmind that since national projectsare likely to be unique in termsof services delivered, geographi-cal scale and scope, targetedbeneficiaries etc., the attributesof a delivery system that are per-ceived to be important by the us-ers should be understood priorto the conduct of an assessment.

In the first phase of impact as-sessment, it was important tounderstand and establish theextent of impact of e-govern-ment projects. In the next stage,it is necessary to understand thereasons for impact or non-impactof these projects. Future assess-ments can attempt to do thisthrough follow-up studies ofsuccessful and not-so-successfulprojects. This understanding willhelp to conceptualize and designfuture projects in such a way asto harness the full potential of

technology, process reform, and integration of dataacross the concerned agencies.

Once a new technology rolls over you, if you’re not part of

the steamroller, you’re part of the road.

— Stewart Brand