digital citizen charter madrid outcomes - europa · the digital citizen charter project has a focus...
TRANSCRIPT
Digital Citizen Charter – Madrid Outcomes
Consultants: Saya Saulière – collaborator ParticipaLAB Medialab Prado [email protected] Rebeca Díez Escudero – Digital Researcher – [email protected]
June-July 2017 - #policyLAB4EU
2
Summary
I. Introduction .................................................................................................. 3
II. Scope ............................................................................................................ 3
III. Methodology ............................................................................................... 4
1. Mapping perception, uses and evaluation of digital services ...................................... 4
1.1 Semi-structured interviews ................................................................................... 4
1.2 Online Survey......................................................................................................... 4
2. Workshops .................................................................................................................... 5
3. Social Network Research .............................................................................................. 5
IV. Outcomes and results .................................................................................. 6
1. Results of the survey and interviews ............................................................................ 6
2. Workshops results ............................................................................................................ 8
2.1 Experiences with online procedure: negative and positive ....................................... 8
2.2 Recommendations to improve online procedures .................................................... 9
2.3 Rights, principles and actions for the Charter .......................................................... 11
2.4 Decide Madrid, a citizen participation portal........................................................... 13
IV. Analysis of social network ......................................................................... 15
1. Conversation with and communities around @lineamadrid ..................................... 15
Annex 1: profiles of persons that participated in the survey, interview and workshop. .. 17
198 persons ........................................................................................................................ 17
Annex 2: Workshops’ agenda ............................................................................................ 18
3
I. Introduction
The establishment of a fully connected Digital Single Market in the European Union will
require modern public administrations to use digital technologies in order to design and
deliver effective and satisfying public services. Citizens should be able to easily access the
services they need at any time, regardless of their geographic location.
A charter is required to outline the rights, principles and actions that would help citizens in
the European Digital Single Market save time, money and effort when dealing with future
administrative matters. A digital charter would benefit citizens by providing guiding
principles on the quality of digital public services in the EU. In this document, we describe
the Madrid outcomes for the charter, as well as the methodology implemented.
II. Scope
The Digital Citizen Charter project has a focus on Administrative Public Services. In Madrid,
we focused on the digital administrative services of the City Hall of Madrid but we also
dedicated time on Decide Madrid, a website belonging to the City Hall that allows citizens
to propose and decide on Participatory Budgeting and Citizen Proposals. This portal can be
considered as a public service of new generation, offering citizens the service to be heard
and to decide.
4
III. Methodology
Designing a Digital Citizen Charter is a rather abstract exercise for a non-expert citizen. For
this reason, we carried out a quick mapping on perceptions, uses, appreciation and
recommendations of these services before the workshops. This allowed us to have a first
review of citizens’ evaluation of these services and served as an interesting input for the
two workshops: for geeks and for “common” citizens. Moreover, it allowed us to recruit
65% of the workshop participants. A company allowed to sort the remaining participants to
ensure diversity (age, gender, digital literacy, etc.).
1. Mapping perception, uses and evaluation of digital services
To begin, we carried out a review of the literature on digital administrative services at
European level and Spanish level in order to situate Spain and understand the main issues
in this field. Then we mapped the digital services offered by the City Hall of Madrid to gain
some insights about what is offered and how it works. Most of the services were offered
online, some of them entirely (classified 5/5) other partially (from 1 to 4, depending on
how much you could advance the procedure online).
1.1 Semi-structured interviews
Then we hold semi-structured interviews at administrative offices (Linea Madrid) to which
citizens go to complete bureaucratic procedures. 40 citizens got interviewed. It has been an
appropriate place to hold these interviews, given that citizens were waiting in line for their
turn, which made them more open to spending some time answering a few questions
about the procedures they were dealing with.
The idea behind this study was to understand the citizens’ knowledge about the services,
how they perceive and use them, their opinion about them and main recommendation to
improve them.
1.2 Online Survey
To complete the results of the interviews, we circulated an online survey that was
answered by 131 citizens. We circulated it by social networks (mainly WhatsApp and
Facebook) targeting different social groups (age, geographic location, social backgrounds,
etc.). We used Typeform, which is a survey program that is responsive and visual, and has
high rates of responses. The survey was taking on average 4 min to respond.
5
2. Workshops
Two workshops were carried out:
1) with citizens that use administrative services. In the citizen workshop, 20 citizens
participated. The workshop lasted 4h30. A diverse group in terms of gender, age
and socioeconomic background participated (see annex 1 or more details). We
recruited the participants mainly through the online survey circulated in WhatsApp
and Facebook and through the interviews carried out in the administration. A third
of the public came as recruited by a company.
2) with geeks, digital and data lovers. In this workshop, 6 citizens participated. The
workshop lasted 3h. It was a gender balanced workshop. We recruited people
through circulating to specific network of geeks. Medialab Prado publicized it also.
Both workshops used participatory methodology and had two parts: 1) mainly
concentrated on public online procedures; and 2) public services of new generation:
participation digital platform. See Annex 2 for more details on the agenda.
3. Social Network Research
We analysed the discussion around @LineaMadrid, which is the official Twitter account of
the City of Madrid’s citizen service. This analysis was done in order to: 1) identify if there
were conversations or recommendations around online procedures and to see what issues
citizens were interested in, in relation to the City of Madrid and its public services; 2)
identify the potential communities that could be interested in participating in the
elaboration of the charter, giving feedback on the draft that came out of the workshops.
However, due to time constraints, it has been decided not to implement this last part and,
instead, ask the workshops’ participants to give their feedback on the charter drafted in
Brussels.
6
IV. Outcomes and results
1. Results of the survey and interviews
We compiled the results from interviews and survey in a visual manner to serve as an input
for the workshops. This summarize the responses of 171 citizens.
Experiences carrying out online procedures
Advantages and disadvantages of carrying out online procedures
7
Proposals for the improvement of digital procedures
8
2. Workshops results
2.1 Experiences with online procedure: negative and positive
In workshops, first positive and negative experiences dealing with online procedures
have been remembered individually and then shared collectively. Here is the
compilation.
NEGATIVE EXPERIENCES WITH ONLINE PROCEDURE
INFORMATION - Out-of-date websites and information- Too much useless information- Lack of clear and brief information- Poorly structured contents- Decentralized and contradictory information
ACCESS and ACCESSIBILITY - Difficult to access for people with disabilities- Some services not open 24h a day (closing at 20h!)- Not functioning with open sources- Errors in different operating systems- Impossible to access by mobile phone. Not
responsive.- Access technology does not work (dnie, digital
certificate…)- Servers collapses
WEB DESIGN / USABILITY - Design too busy, lack of clear and user-
centered design- Poorly structured contents- Language used too technical, not
communicational- Not designed for people with some disabilities- Too much documentation requested- Too much data requested, some apparently
unnecessary- Slow process and big time delays- Difficulty to fill forms- Malfunctioning of the web. Technical problems.- Malfunctioning of the electronic ID- Digital signature is very complicated to procure- Complex process
HELP/SUPPORT - No help system
SECURITY / PRIVACY - Too much data requested, some apparently
unnecessary- No clear policy on privacy
TRANSPARENCY / ACCOUNTABILITY - Not clear information on who is responsible for the
service
PROCEDURE - Too bureaucratic- Complex process- From time to time so complicate that you do not save
any time (faster to do it offline).- Some procedures can just be done at the offices- More difficult online than face to face- Digital signature is very complicated to procure
9
POSITIVE EXPERIENCES WITH ONLINE PROCEDURE
- Flexible- Some of them are fast- Some of them are easy- New options in the online version of some
services
- Convenience- Fast, saving time- Efficient- Self-management
Then, recommendations to respond to these negative experiences have been listed in
small groups, starting from the results of the survey and interviews. Bellow the
compilation of recommendations of workshops, survey and interviews results.
2.2 Recommendations to improve online procedures
RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE ONLINE PROCEDURES
INFORMATION - Simplify (clear and concise instructions, brief
information).- Clear and intuitive steps to be followed. Like a
survey, step by step.- Visual.- Use iconography and video to explain complex
issues.- Higher quality information.- Simple examples.- Personalized (each citizen has access to the
information than concern them).- Unified place to check the status of applications
and track them.- Easy vocabulary, common language.- Provide spaces inside public websites (blogs,
forums…) where citizens can exchangeinformation about applications, procedures andpublic services; provide examples, share theirsuccess stories, etc.
ACCESS / ACCESSIBILITY - Free and open access to the Internet in public
spaces to carry out online procedures.- Free services.- Availability of updated computers in public
buildings.- Facilitate applications and procedures to the
elderly, people with different abilities, diseasesand people at risk of exclusion in general.
- Personalized assistance for people at risk ofexclusion.
- Offer horizontal public services, that boost trustbetween citizens and the administration andgenerates empathy.
- Simple access or identification methods. Uniquekey for all procedures in all administrations.
- Foresee many users accessing at the same timefor servers’ capacity.
- Access from any devices.- One-stop window for all administrations (local,
state, Community…).- Automatic identification of data already
registered by the administration.- Log in like a bank: electronic sign + SMS.
decentralized system through blockchaintechnology.
10
RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE ONLINE PROCEDURES
WEB DESIGN / USABILITY - Intuitive (independent of age, studies, social
status… of the user).- Intuitive schematization of the menu.- Clear, simple.- Well-structured.- Usability.- Functional.- Remove advertising and unnecessary
information.- Unified design taking into account style sheets
and issues like typography, colors, etc.
- User centered design, personalization.
HELP/SUPPORT - Help available for all citizenship: chats, free
phone, e-mail, Skype, WhatsApp, etc.- Qualified, multi-skilled staff with access to
updated info.- Immediate availability.- Spaces to write problems and receive direct help.- Assistance for elders and other citizens at risk of
exclusion.- 24h, 7 days a week.- Automatic help: Identification of errors in
procedures and suggestion of solutions(examples applied by other users or theadministration itself).
- Mobile center available in places with no accessto the Internet.
PROCEDURES - Simplify procedures, make them more intuitive.- Agility, shorter forms, with less data and
documentation needed.- Include new procedures to the digital sphere.- Allow online payments. Secure payment granted
with methods similar that those used by onlinebanking.
- Automatically detect errors, inform users andshow how to solve them.
SECURITY - Guarantee security and data protection.- Possibility to authorize, for each application, the
transfer of data between differentadministrations.
- Privacy by design.- Privacy conditions must be clearly announced
and written in a clear and understandablemanner.
- Option to have a private identity (in case ofactivists for example).
- Guarantee the anonymity of data throughtechnology like blockchain.
DATA - Data as a common and for common.- Data sovereignty: full control over citizens’
own data should be a right. Citizens must beable to decide on the use of their data (givethem for good, to feed collaborativeeconomies… or restrict the access to their datawhenever they consider necessary).
- Centralised data to make more efficient servicesbut also to ensure having consolidated data forresearch for good.
- Have clear and understandable information onwho has access to all our data at any time andwith what uses.
INNOVATION - Integrate innovation and best practices (also
from private sectors) to improve usability ofprocedures.
- Invite innovation and UX specialists todevelopment, testing and evaluation of digitalprocedures.
- Keep an eye on innovation to implement it in thesphere of public service procedures: artificialintelligence, machine learning, big data,blockchain…
- Develop and innovate in terms of methodologythat evaluates digital public procedures.
- Invest in innovation for real time transparency.
11
RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE ONLINE PROCEDURES
- Guarantee transparency and open market ofpublic data, even those generated throughprivate contracts. Companies participating inpublic services should open their data too.
- Use technology like blockchain to protect data.- Explain transfer of data conditions, rights, etc.
briefly, through easy vocabulary andiconography.
- Availability of all personal and administrativedata in my profile.
- Automatic identification of data alreadyregistered by the administration.
IT related - Improve SEO- Ensure that official public websites are in a
higher position and that they are identifiedthrough Google’s verified domains system.
- Personalized interface, user centered, with aunique, very secure access point.
- Have the API at disposal to developers,intermediaries… managed through processesof certification or smart contracts.
- Use of artificial intelligence.
NEW SERVICES - Ensure transparency on data procedures for data analysts, journalists and citizens.- Offer new services such as real-time transparency.
- Include other digital procedures: digital notary, access to social rights…
Then, we turned in a collective manner these recommendations and experiences in rights,
principles and actions for the charter. Here bellows the consolidation for the two
workshops.
2.3 Rights, principles and actions for the Charter
I HAVE THE RIGHT TO:
INFORMATION - Access to clear, simple, brief and well-structured information.- All information available in one entrance website.- Actualized and non-contradictory information regardless of which administration is providing it.- Virtual sites (blogs, sites within the administration websites…) to share experiences, documentations,
examples, etc. with other citizens.- Understand all information regardless of my age, studies, or any other condition.- Access to information with non-administrative language.- Have access to full information in case of errors on how to solve them.- Have all documentation needed listed and well explained.
12
I HAVE THE RIGHT TO:
ACCESS / ACCESIBILITY - A centralized platform with all my data, documents and previous procedures made from all different
administrations.- Decide about the technology I want to use to access to public services (not restricted to a particular
explorer, operating system, device, etc.).- A flexible, expanded and convenient schedule to access to public services and procedures.- Be able to access to all public services from home.- Be able to choose between digital or face to face access.- Have a service that is accessible and friendly for old and people with disabilities.- 24h/7days access to digital public services.- Wide access in public spaces to the hardware and software needed to carry out procedures: printer, photo
booth, updated computers, WIFI…- Easy access to public services independent of age, educational attainment, employment or social status.- Access all the services and procedure from one single window.
WEB DESIGN / USABILITY - A minimal, simple design that facilitates the access to information.- A clear website that follows a style sheet.- Unified design taking into account style sheets and issues like typography, colors, etc.- A website that have been tested and evaluated following user-centered methodology.
HELP / SUPPORT - Natural persons to be contacted through different channels (chat, phone, e-mail…); and who are well-
informed, so they can answer any question and/or solve any problem citizens could have.- Free phone support, with capacity to help all citizens in the event of any question or problem with digital
public services (forms, technical issues, documentation…).- Free telephone available for support.- Qualified, multi-skilled staff with access to updated info.
PROCEDURES/FORMALITIES - Carry out the whole procedure online.- Choose to carry out if needed the procedure offline.- Be able to easily understand how to carry out all public procedures.- Fast and on-time execution and resolution of procedures.- Be offered services that might be of interest to me (through analysis of my profile).- Give my feedback and claims on the online procedures as well as on the services.
DATA ACCESS AND SECURITY - Choose the data I what to submit or transfer through administrations in each procedure. Authorize which
data can be transferred through administrations.- Privacy on my data.- A secure account where all my data is well protected.- Secure public services and formalities.- Secure payment granted with methods like online banks.- Possibility to authorize transfer of data between different administrations.
13
I HAVE THE RIGHT TO:
TRAINING - Tutorials available in administration websites, easy to find and understand.
PARTICIPATION and CITIZEN VOICES - Denounce or notify problems in the neighborhoods.- Have access of information to clear and transparent budgets.- Propose initiatives for policy as a citizen.- Propose budget allocation as a citizen.
2.4 Decide Madrid, a citizen participation portal
65% of the citizen has never heard of Decide Madrid. In fact, Decide Madrid has been
launched in 2015 and therefore it is pretty new. Nevertheless, some massive
communication has been done in February around municipal referendum and we could see
that it did not reach more than half the population.
After browsing in the Decide Madrid, participants of the workshops were asked: “what is
Decide Madrid for”. We could see that after 7 min given of browsing, the older participants
had a general feeling that it is for giving an opinion about the cities and vote, but citizen
participation portal as such did not came out. In the younger group, to the same questions,
responses were closer to the objective of the web: allow citizen participation in proposing,
making decision and voting proposal and participatory budgeting. Both groups gave the
same technical feedback around the platform.
TECHNICAL FEEDBACKS OF DECIDE MADRID
- Difficulty to find proposal of your interest because the filters are not effective- Too many filters, you get lost- Difficulty to understand the difference between proposal and participatory budgeting- Too many proposals that are claims- Too many proposals that are political communication- Too many proposals that are not serious and are demotivating the internaut- These high amount of proposals, with no effective filter, discourage to stay in the platform- The web version is much clearer than the movil version, where key messages are at the end of the scroll- The low level of support of many of the proposals give a feeling that the platform is not functioning. A bit of
a despair feeling
14
Participants of the workshops were asked “should a citizen participation platform be
included in the ecitizen charter as a new generation services in Europe?”. The debate that
opened this question got highly politicized. It has been impossible to overcome the local
situation and stand in a broader European context.
Decide Madrid has been proposed by the actual Left Wing Party that has win the last City
Hall elections. For citizens, Decide Madrid is totally associate to this party. Participants
supportive to the mayor, were supportive of the platform. Opponents were defending that
democracy is about voting politicians that represent you and make decision for you.
The participants could be divided into four positions: 1) “democracy status quo” : the
opponents defending that only politicians should have the right to represent and propose
policy and initiatives 2) “expert first”: in general more critical than in favor of Decide
Madrid. Defending that citizen are not qualified to make a decision; decision should be
informed and stand in hand of experts, 3) “favorable and critical”: in general more
favorable but stunned by the technical problems that the platform has, 4) “enthusiastic” :
totally defending the platform.
15
IV. Social Network Analysis (SNA)
We analysed the discussion around @LineaMadrid, which is the official Twitter account of
the City of Madrid’s citizen service. This analysis was done in order to: 1) identify if there
were conversations or recommendations around online procedures and to see what issues
citizens were interested in, in relation to the City of Madrid and its public services; 2)
identify the potential communities that could be interested in participating in the
elaboration of the charter, giving feedback on the draft that came out of the workshops.
However, due to time constraints, it has been decided not to implement this last part and,
instead, ask the workshops’ participants to give their feedback on the charter drafted in
Brussels.
1. Conversation with and communities around @LineaMadrid
We monitored all tweets that contained “LineaMadrid” from February to June 2017,
extracted the dataset and analysed it. We chose Twitter as its data is open and as it is
commonly used for claims and viral campaigns.
During this timeframe of 5 months; 7,244 users sent 26,798 tweets containing
“LineaMadrid”. The most important communities emerging are formed by citizens that are
organised to ask @LineaMadrid and other social services (Metro, Police, etc.) for
improvements regarding different issues (infrastructure, services in specific
neighbourhoods, house taxes, etc.).
In terms of contents, almost half of the messages were related to a specific procedure (car
park authorisation) that can now be done through Twitter, speeding up bureaucracy (data
shows that it has been widely used by citizens). Approximately 40% of the messages were
written by citizens that used Twitter to inform @LineaMadrid about infrastructure
problems, public services malfunctioning, etc. and to propose improvements in public
services. This shows the high interest of citizens in expressing their voices around city
issues and services and to be part of the solution. Finally, around 10% of the users
participated in the conversation to ask about procedures and to claim about different
public issues.
The users that would have been selected to give feedback on the draft charter are those
that were active in proposing solutions or making recommendations on procedures.
16
17
V. Annexes
Annex 1: profiles of persons that participated in the survey, interview and
workshop.
198 persons
18
Annex 2: Workshops’ agenda
Citizen Workshop Agenda
Hora Actividad
16h15-16h45 Llegada de los participantes
16h45-17h Presentación del objetivo del proyecto + objetivo del taller + MediaLab
17h-17h15 Ice Breaking
17h15-18h45 Servicios públicos “clásicos”
1) Recordar unos trámites realizados online - 15 minPreguntar si todo el mundo ha hecho algún trámite online alguna vez. Los que nohayan hecho, pueden buscar información sobre cómo hacer un trámite y despuésapuntar esa experiencia.Los participantes están invitados en forma individual a recordar unos trámitesadministrativos realizados en los 2 últimos años. Les entregamos una matriz paraguiar su recuerdo y apuntar su experiencia en función de varias categorías (búsqueda,realización del trámite, resultado, emoción, etc.). Los últimos 5 min, lo comentan conotros participantes.
2) Socializar las experiencias negativas y positivas y reconvertir losproblemas/aciertos en derechos y principios - 45 minSe divide el grupo en 2 grupos en forma equilibrada.En grupo, los participantes están invitados a:
Compartir las experiencias más negativas y a convertirlas en derechos,principios o acciones: Se pide a un participante compartir la experiencianegativa, se anota en un post-it el tema central del problema. Se pide si otrosparticipantes tuvieron problemas similares. Se reflexiona para transformar enun derecho/principio/acciones/lineamiento.
Se sigue procediendo de la misma forma con más experiencias negativas,yendo por orden: búsqueda, realización del trámite, resultados, emoción, etc.
Después se comparten las experiencias más positivas y de la misma forma seintenta agrupar por categorías y transformarlos en principios.
Al final del ejercicio, se tiene una lista de derechos, principios, accionesordenada.
3) Compartir resultados de encuesta y socializar/completar - 30 minSe une el grupo en un solo grupo y se comparte los resultados de la encuesta. Sedispone al lado los resultados de los dos grupos. Se trabaja grupalmente de estaforma y se completa las listas si fuesen necesarias.
Hay temas que no han salido en vuestro grupo Son temas que os parece importantes Quisieran añadirlas a la carta de principios
19
18h45-19h Pausa
19h15-20h15 Servicios públicos de nueva generación: Decide Madrid - plataforma de participación ciudadana 1) Qué es y qué permite Decide Madrid - 15 min Los participantes navegan en la web de Decide Madrid durante 7 min y después apuntan en un post it.
Qué es Decide Madrid Qué permite hacer Decide Madrid
Luego socializamos las respuestas. Apuntamos en pizarra. Explicamos exactamente qué es Decide Madrid. 2) Ejercicio práctico - 30 min Los participantes elegirán entre tres ejercicios prácticos. La idea es que apunten su experiencia como usuario durante el ejercicio para socializarlo:
Elegir entre tres ejercicios prácticos 1. Votar o elegir propuestas de presupuestos participativos 2. Hacer una propuesta 3. Participar en un debate Realizar el ejercicio desde el móvil o desde el ordenador Apuntar en una hoja las dificultades y los aciertos. Los tiempos tomados Socializarlo
3) Valoración de Decide Madrid e identificación de los elementos claves que deben tener las plataformas de participación - 15 min En forma grupal, se pregunta la valoración general de Decide Madrid. Se anota en papel continuum. Se debate sobre los aspectos importantes a tomar en cuenta en estas plataformas. Algunas preguntas:
¿Creéis que la participación ciudadana en la toma de decisiones políticas debe ser un derecho?
¿Qué elementos creéis que debería tener una plataforma de participación? ¿Qué os echaría para atrás u os impediría participar en un proceso de ese
tipo?
20h15-20h20 Conclusión + Cierre
20
Geek Workshop Agenda
Hora Actividad
17h-17h15 Llegada de los participantes
17h15-17h30 Presentación del proyecto: objetivo del proyecto + objetivo del taller.
17h30-18h45 Servicios públicos administrativos
Los participantes están invitados en forma individual a recordar unos trámites administrativos realizados en los 2 últimos años. Les entregamos una matriz para guiar su recuerdo y apuntar su experiencia en función de varias categorías (búsqueda, realización del trámite, resultado, emoción, etc.).
2) Socializar de los resultados de las encues1) Recordar unos trámites realizadosonline - 10 mintas y complementar los derechos/principios/lineamientos- 60 minSe presentan los resultados de las encuestas. En grupos, los participantes estáninvitados a
Asociar los puntos de la encuesta con las experiencias negativas y positivas detrámites online (recortar y pegar).
Valorar cuáles son los puntos más esenciales Identificar cuáles son los puntos que hacen falta y formularlos en términos de
derechos.
18h45 -19h Pausa
19h-19h55 Servicios públicos de nueva generación: Decide Madrid - plataforma de participación ciudadana
1) Qué es y qué permite Decide Madrid - 10 minLos participantes navegan en la web de Decide Madrid durante 5 min y despuésapuntan en un post it.
Qué es Decide Madrid Qué permite hacer Decide Madrid
Luego socializamos las respuestas y explicamos exactamente qué es Decide Madrid y sus diferentes herramientas.
2) Navegar desde otra perspectiva - 45 minCada participante elige un rol y navega en la web con este personaje.- Elegir personajes:
Dos ciudadanos preocupados por temas 1) ambientales 2) limpieza quequiere buscar propuestas alineadas.
Dos ciudadanos preocupados por temas 1) ambientales 2) limpieza queproponer a la ciudadanía de Madrid.
Dos analistas/periodistas de datos. Dos investigadores de temas de participación
21
- Navegar en la web- Compartir mejoras y sensaciones.
3) Hacer una lista de los puntos esenciales que tiene que tener Decide Madrid u otraplataforma de participación ciudadana.Completar la lista realizada en la primera parte, con un apartado específicos de losderechos y principios que tienen que tener los servicios públicos de nuevageneración.
19h55-20h Cierre