study of the readiness of member states for a common pan ... · study of the readiness of member...

Study of the readiness of Member States for a common pan-European network

infrastructure for public services

FINAL REPORT A study prepared for the European Commission

DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology

Digital

Agenda for

Europe

This study was carried out for the European Commission by

Capgemini, Deloitte and Tech4i2.

Internal identification

Contract number: 30-CE-0528051/00-84

SMART number: 2012/0048

DISCLAIMER

By the European Commission, Directorate-General of Communications Networks, Content & Technology.

The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily

reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data

included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be

held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.

ISBN 978-92-79-38658-9

DOI: 10.2759/54275

© European Union, 2014. All rights reserved. Certain parts are licensed under conditions to the EU.

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Study of the readiness of Member States for a common pan-European network infrastructure for public services

Final Report

3

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... 4

1 SETTING THE SCENE ......................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 7

1.2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................................................... 7

2 EUROPEAN LANDSCAPE OF PUBLICLY FUNDED NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURES ................................ 9

3 MEMBER STATES’ READINESS FOR A COMMON NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PUBLIC SERVICES

12

3.1 METHODOLOGY TO ASSESS MEMBER STATES’ READINESS .................................................................................. 12

3.2 MATURITY LEVELS IN EUROPE: A BIRD’S EYE VIEW ............................................................................................ 13

3.3 THE POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE: GROW TOWARDS A CLEAR AND MATURE LEGAL FRAMEWORK ....................................... 15

3.4 THE TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE: LEVERAGE INFRASTRUCTURES OF COMMON INTEREST ............................................... 16

3.5 THE ORGANISATIONAL PERSPECTIVE: ALIGN AT A NATIONAL AND LOCAL LEVEL, AND ACROSS DOMAINS ....................... 17

3.6 THE ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE: ENSURE A CLEAR ALLOCATION OF BUDGET AND ICT SPEND ........................................ 19

4 CREATING SYNERGY BETWEEN NETWORKS ................................................................................... 21

5 FOUR REAL-LIFE CASES ................................................................................................................... 24

5.1 DIGINETWERK, A DUTCH BASIC CONNECTION NETWORK FOR PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS ......................................... 24

5.2 RENATER, THE FRENCH NATIONAL NETWORK FOR TECHNOLOGY, EDUCATION AND RESEARCH ............................... 26

5.3 ACONET, THE AUSTRIAN ACADEMIC COMPUTER NETWORK .............................................................................. 28

5.4 BELNET, THE BELGIAN NATIONAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION NETWORK ............................................................. 30

5.5 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS ON DEPLOYMENT OF OPTICAL FIBRE NETWORKS FOR PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS .................... 31

6 DRIVERS, BARRIERS AND SUCCESS FACTORS ................................................................................. 33

6.1 DRIVERS .................................................................................................................................................. 33

6.1.1 Cost Savings ......................................................................................................................................... 33 6.1.2 Better Services ...................................................................................................................................... 34

6.2 BARRIERS................................................................................................................................................. 36

6.2.1 Public Sector Barriers ........................................................................................................................... 36 6.2.2 Supply Side Barriers .............................................................................................................................. 39

6.3 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS ......................................................................................................................... 40

7 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................... 43

7.1 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 43

7.2 ROADMAP TO ENGAGE THE FUTURE CHALLENGES ............................................................................................. 44

ANNEX A: ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................... 47

ANNEX B: GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................................................... 50


Final Report

4

Executive Summary

Aim of the study. The “Study of the readiness of Member States for a common pan-European network

infrastructure for public services” (SMART2012/0048) assesses the maturity of EU Member States’ national

network infrastructures for public administrations. The study focuses on country-specific situations and the

challenges in building common nationwide network infrastructures for public services. The study will contribute to

creating the basis for connecting networks at European level.

Scope of the study. The scope of this study is defined as network infrastructures that enable (cross-border) data

exchange between public administrations. The study looks in particular at national network infrastructures for

public administrations as well as several Research and Education community (R&E) good practice cases. The focus

is on Closed User Group networks (CUGs) which are accessible only to public administrations at a national, regional

and local level. In the context of this study, these are networks that facilitate data exchange between public

organisations with access to that CUG as opposed to public networks that serve society at large.

Creating synergy between networks. This study looks at various ways of creating synergies between different

existing national network infrastructures as well as at drivers, barriers and success factors. These are interesting in

particular for policymakers in the fields of eGovernment, interoperability and information systems, but also for

public network providers and operators at a national level. In the context of this study, synergy1 between

networks refers specifically to the sharing of one or more “elements” or parts of a network infrastructure by

network owners and operators.

A network infrastructure generally consists of multiple levels of data communication. A distinction can be made

between Media layers, which provide basic transport, Network layers which provide IP packet transport, and

Service layers providing data transport. These three layers group together similar communication functions in

networks.

When creating synergies between networks for public administrations, these could be realised by sharing specific

parts or “elements” of these layers. For example, on the Media layers, cables/fibres/transmission systems can be

shared by various operators or delivered by subcontractors such as (dark) fibre operators or wholesale operators.

On the Network layer, it is common for different network operators each to provide part of the IP routing. On the

Service (data transport) layer, one example of a way synergy can be created is by sharing the same type of data

formats and security technologies.

The amount of overlap between the different networks and the service requirements (e.g. security,

authentication, authorisation) for each specific public domain (e.g. tax, health, defence) defines the extent to

which different layers and parts of layers can be shared. It is assumed that the lowest layers of a network

infrastructure (e.g. the physical cables) can be shared most easily and can therefore be shared by most

stakeholders. The higher one gets in the structure of a network infrastructure (e.g. the services), the more

challenging it becomes to create synergy due to the increasingly divergent requirements of the communities (e.g.

the level of security). It is important to note, moreover, that synergies only take place in the “core” of the network,

where routes between different destinations can be shared. The access to the core network (the ‘last mile’) is

generally a dedicated connection procured by and installed on behalf of the specific user.

Cost benefit analysis. The study gathered evidence of costs and benefits at the network level, notably through the

build-up of common optical fibre infrastructures levered by National Research and Education Networks (NRENs).

An overview of the costs and benefits network infrastructure deployment shows that across the EU28 Member

States, the annual benefits provided to citizens and public sector users (EUR 190mio), are in most cases greater

than the annual running costs (EUR 117mio).

1 Synergy is defined as “the combination of elements in networks in such a way that the results of the combination are more than the results of the sum of the individual elements”.


Final Report

5

Drivers. Apart from the possible technical benefits of creating synergies between networks, there is also a societal

perspective, i.e. the perspective that public administrations should have in order to serve the citizens and

businesses, which are essentially their final beneficiaries. Evidence gathered through field research shows that

advanced players are driven by:

Cost savings, which are important for the public sector as everyone is aiming to “do more with less”.

Synergies can deliver cost savings primarily in two ways: sharing resources (e.g. equipment) and collective

procurement. The first spreads costs. The second bundles and potentially increases bargaining power,

leading to better prices and thus cost savings.

Better services refers to “doing more”, “doing it faster” and “doing it better” and is often, if not always, the

goal of the public sector as it (ultimately) means providing better services to the businesses and citizens it

serves. Better services can, in this context, be provided by ensuring higher bandwidth, increased

availability, better reliability, more flexibility and higher security.

Barriers. There are also a number of barriers to achieving synergies between networks in and across the Member

States. These include political resistance to change and to giving up power and influence in a specific field of

activity and silo behaviour, i.e. the lack of willingness to communicate with others or share ownership. In

interviews, fears were voiced that the new network might lack flexibility or not satisfy basic needs. These are

significant barriers. Moreover, the complexity of governance makes it challenging to initiate synergies. Where

there are many stakeholders, the governance structure may become (even more) complex. In addition, in some

countries, legal restrictions (mainly related to legal barriers in the field of public procurement) make it difficult for

administrations and network providers to work together. Lastly, budgetary restrictions are seen as a barrier. Even

if there will be cost savings in the long term, at the start there will be set-up costs. Moreover, the cost allocation

and savings benefits might not be equally distributed among the different organisations involved.

Critical Success Factors. There are a number of critical success factors, without which the synergies will not

happen:

Political Sponsorship and Policy Alignment are essential because it is necessary for someone to take the

lead and drive the effort, demonstrate the benefits and overcome the potential political resistance.

Stakeholder Engagement and Commitment are not only about stakeholders being engaged by political

sponsors, they are also about stakeholders talking to each other, including at European level.

Good Governance and Stakeholder Representation are prerequisites when different stakeholders are

brought together, and consideration needs to be given to both common and different needs across these

domains.

Synergy-enabling procurement processes are needed to enable collective procurement.

Budgetary commitments are required to ensure that the necessary funding is available to make the initial

capital investment.

Recommendations. In terms of the way forward, it is envisaged that the role of the European Commission will be

to support, enable and encourage synergies at national level. It is recommended, therefore, that the European

Commission should:

Enable and encourage stakeholder dialogue and community building;

Identify and share good practices;

Take action to help overcome legal barriers;

Help secure the right budgetary commitments from key players;

Ensure that the advantages and disadvantages of synergies are clear; and

Stimulate TERENA2 (Trans-European Research and Education Networking Association) to drive the

stakeholder dialogue and the identification and sharing of good practices.

2 The Trans-European Research and Education Networking Association offers a forum to collaborate, innovate and share knowledge in order to

foster the development of Internet technology. During the course of the study, TERENA voiced the opinions of the Research and Education network providers (NRENs) and collaborated where appropriate.


Final Report

6

In the short term (2014) it is important to maintain the existing political momentum and further grow awareness

at European level as well as at Member State level. To this end, it is essential to:

1. Bring relevant stakeholders in the specific network areas and domains together during one or more

interactive workshop(s) so as to create a common understanding of the challenges ahead as well as the

issues at stake. The best approach is for these to be people at a comparable level of technical, political,

organisational and economic maturity. The challenges which countries with a high level of maturity face

are not the same as those faced by countries with a below average level of maturity. Issues which the

former have to deal with include CUG governance and how to scale up to a European network. The latter

are at the stage of needing to consider, for example, how existing networks can be leveraged and

combined to support a national interconnected basic network.

2. Define and detail good practices: these are hands-on examples of how a synergy would work or can be

organised. Good practices should be identified within the specific political, economic, technical and

organisational dimensions. These should focus not merely on the end-situation, but also on how to cope

with the challenges arising along the way. There is no one single solution. Good practices should inspire

people to design and implement a solution tailored to their specific environment. One way of identifying

and detailing good practices could be via a TERENA task force.

3. Set up an online platform or build on an existing platform to enable a collaborative community to be

established and to provide stakeholders with a means of sharing their thoughts, experiences and

knowledge, and of continuing their work together. Furthermore, it is recommended that different

discussion groups be set up for each dimension and maturity level. Stakeholders can then join the

appropriate group and better identify with the discussions and challenges raised.

In the medium term (2015-2018) it is important both to keep up the work initiated in the short term and to ensure

a suitable monitoring mechanism:

4. Monitor proceedings: this will enable policymakers to align their strategy properly at both a national and

European level. By monitoring the effects of short-term actions and the progress made per country, the

Commission can steer the efforts in the direction of the most impactful forms of activity.

Moreover in this context, the Commission and Member States should:

5. Create high-level political interest and backing for the creation of synergies by keeping the issue on the

political agenda, taking into account the renewal of the Digital Agenda for Europe (2015) and the mid-

term review of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF).

In the long-term (2018-2020) the work done needs to be leveraged by focusing more and more on ensuring the

sustainability of the synergies created. The Commission and Member States should:

6. Further investigate and explore the possibilities for connecting Member States to a pan-European

network infrastructure (either existing or new) through an action plan. This action plan should set out the

focus and funding needed to ensure adequate implementation. Given that the CEF investment framework

will come to an end in 2020, this allows time for the Commission and Member States time to define new

policy strategies and, more importantly, a new investment programme.


Final Report

7

1 Setting the scene

1.1 Introduction

This Final Report of the “Study of the readiness of Member States for a common pan-European network

infrastructure for public services” (SMART2012/0048) sets out the European landscape of publicly funded network

infrastructures, addressing specifically the needs of public administrations and the exchange of data between

these administrations.

This report presents the key findings on countries’ overall readiness for creating synergies at a national and

eventually a European level. This is analysed based on their current state of play and the challenges that lie ahead

from a political, economic, technical and organisational perspective.

The report expands, in addition, on how to create synergies and presents four different case studies from across

Europe. These case studies explain how synergies have been created between the network infrastructures of

various actors and/or domains and the challenges encountered. The report covers inter alia the governance,

financing and types of network. Moreover, it addresses the main drivers, barriers and success factors in creating

these kinds of synergies between network infrastructures.

1.2 Scope of the study

This study looks both at national network infrastructures from the viewpoint of public administrations and good

practice cases from the NREN community. Nevertheless, it is electronic information exchange among public

administrations which is the nub of this study. Information exchange between public administrations, citizens and

businesses is out of scope, but is taken into account if the access of citizens and companies to public information is

relevant.

The focus of the study is on Closed User Group networks (CUGs) in Member States, and of these, it is those which

are accessible to public administrations which are of interest. A CUG network is a network that facilitates the

exchange of electronic data between more than two organisations with access to that CUG. The clients and users

of these CUGs are public administrations at a national, regional and local level. The emphasis is on (the

developments around) connecting local, regional and national CUGs so as to be able to scale these up to a

European level. These national interconnected networks across domains are referred to as interconnected CUGs.

The figure below shows how CUGs related to closed interconnected networks for public administrations.


Final Report

8

Figure 1.1: Architecture model of interconnection (both physical and virtual) of different closed user groups at national level

Generally a network infrastructure consists of multiple levels of data communication. Three types of layer can be

distinguished:

Media layers providing basic transport like cables, fibres and transmission systems;

Network layers providing IP packet transport (IP routing of IP Packets);

Service layers providing data transport by laying down data formats and security measures.

These three layers basically group together similar communication functions in networks, while different parties

are involved in delivering the end-to-end communication services. This layering helps to identify stakeholders’

roles and responsibilities and the extent to and in relation to which layers, synergies are possible.

OUT OF SCOPE

Closed User GroupHealthcare

Closed User GroupPolice & Defense

departments

Closed User GroupMinistries

Closed User GroupGovernment

Agencies

Closed User GroupTax departments

Public Administration










CUG interconnections

IN SCOPE


Final Report

9

2 European landscape of publicly funded network infrastructures

Connecting governments and markets has been a key priority of the European Union from the very beginning.

There is a reference already in the Treaty of Rome to linking the different Member States and regions with an

efficient and well maintained network infrastructure in order to create a Single European Market. These ideas

were put into practice in the late eighties through the first major reform of the Treaties into the Single European

Act (1986)3. This act defined three types of Trans-European Networks (TENs): transport networks (TEN-T), energy

networks (TEN-E) and telecommunications networks (eTEN). The eTEN programme specifically supported the

deployment of cross-border digital services in the public sector. The programme finished at the end of 2006; most

of its projects ended in 2009 and 2010.

From 2007 to 2013, the Commission supported electronic public services through the Information and

Communication Technologies Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP), which was part of the Competitiveness and

Innovation Framework Programme (CIP). Relevant projects initiated under this Programme are the so-called Large

Scale Pilots (LSPs). Through five LSPs, public authorities have developed and piloted solutions for seamless cross-

border services in numerous domains. They cover e-Procurement (PEPPOL), e-Health (epSOS), e-Justice (e-CODEX),

Business Start-up (SPOCS) and e-Identity (STORK). These solutions can be seen as “building blocks” for further

development of cross-border public services, comprising (new) standards, software and services that enable public

authorities to deal with the various challenges and requirements of cross-border service provision. The European

Commission has also launched a new pilot called electronic Simple European Networked Services (eSENS) to

consolidate and solidify the work done previously under the CIP ICT PSP Programme.

Over the last decade the European Commission has initiated the roll-out of several more Trans-European Network

systems4 in support of EU policies. A key objective of all is to enable efficient and effective data exchange between

public administrations, citizens and businesses. Since the Commission is organised by policy area, these systems

have typically been developed per policy domain. This has resulted in various reference architectures, protocols

and standards per DG. A few examples are shown in the figure below5.

Figure 2.1: A few examples of Trans-European Network systems in various domains

In addition to the five LSP building blocks developed under DG CONNECT’s policy programme, DG DIGIT has, for

example, built the Trans European Services for Telematics between Administrations network (TESTA). It

facilitates the collaboration between public administrations in various policy domains by consolidating existing

networks and delivering a secure, reliable and flexible service layer on top of these. TESTA provides a private

3 http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_eec_en.htm 4 A Trans-European Network System is an ICT solution for cross-border data exchange information across sectors. 5 Note that only four DGs have been highlighted here, whereas there are several more DGs deploying Trans-European Networks.

DG CONNECT

• E-Codex

• SPOCS

• STORK

• PEPPOL

• epSOS

• GÉANT

DG DIGIT

• TESTA NG

• ECAS

• eTrustEx

• ePrior

• ESSI

• ULYSSE

DG EMPL

• EESSI

• EURES

DG TAXUD

• CCN/CSI

• CCN2

• VIES

• SPEED2


Final Report

10

communication platform for exchanging data between public administrations at Member State and European

level. TESTA is a concept based on a collaborative approach. It involves agreements like memoranda of

understanding (MoU) and the setting-up of various working groups, such as TESTA expert groups and a Security

Accreditation Panel. Challenges often arise when trying to reach a common understanding and alignment on the

content of the agreements. This stems from the mix of cultures across Europe and the various country-specific

ways of handling data (exchange). Moreover, technical security implementations are often driven by political

sensitivity and not by risk assessment and risk management.

The fourth ‘New Generation’ (TESTA NG) includes a Euro Domain and multiple clouds. The major focus of the

network services is on security and cryptography accredited to European Commission ‘restricted’ level.

DG DIGIT of the European Commission is responsible for the network infrastructure services and has

organisational and contractual control of the TESTA contracts. At the time of this report, Orange Business Services

(OBS) and HP hold the contract for this network.

DIGIT is not the only DG concerned with the implementation of a trans-European network infrastructure. DG

Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion (DG EMPL) is working on the Exchange of Social Security Information

(EESSI) system. This aims to support communication (messaging) between national social security institutions and

stimulate the exchange of social security information. Once the system is in place, it will enable the exchange

between national authorities of structured electronic documents on cross-border social security files. DG EMPL is

responsible for delivering and operating the EESSI International Domain covering the EESSI Backbone Network, a

Coordination Node and the International Part of the Access Points, at least for the next five years. The

participating Member States are responsible for the EESSI National Domain and delivering the National Part of the

Access Points. The EESSI Sectoral Domain covers the various social security sectors and the changes necessary to

existing systems to link them to the larger EESSI system. Sectoral authorities are responsible for this specific

connection.

These types of network can also be found in the customs and taxation domain, e.g. the Common Communication

Network/Common System Interface (CCN/CSI). The CCN/CSI infrastructure provides its own closed, secure trans-

European network infrastructure, which facilitates the exchange of information between the national

administrations’ IT systems. DG TAXUD is the owner of CCN/CSI. The infrastructure enables a common approach to

the development and operation of applications in compliance with EU legislation. The network backbone offers

global WAN access to national Customs and Taxation authorities. In addition, it supports various protocols,

confidentiality and data integrity by protecting and providing secure data exchanges. It deals with over 1.7 billion

data exchanges6 each year and without CCN/CSI, the national IT systems cannot function and communicate

internationally.

All networks have faced or are facing their own specific challenges. Nevertheless, strong commonalities exist

among the various domains. Similar challenges are known to include secure and reliable e-delivery, identity

management, document standards, and semantic dictionaries. A few Trans-European ICT solutions driven by

Member States and European Commission, and described below, provide clear examples of these challenges and

how they have been successfully addressed to achieve common approaches.

The GÉANT7 network is such an example. It is a fast and reliable pan-European communications infrastructure

serving Europe’s research and education community. The GÉANT project is entering its fourth generation, along

with associated development activities like addressing the digital divide in research and education networking

across Europe and supporting technological research to ensure Europe’s role at the forefront of networking and e-

science. GÉANT is co-funded by 38 European National Research and Education Networks (NRENs) and the

6 DG TAXUD, 2012 7 GÉANT (2012). (GN3) GÉANT Project Home. Retrieved from http://www.geant.net/pages/home.aspx


Final Report

11

European Union, and managed and coordinated by DANTE8 (Delivery of Advanced Network Technology to Europe)

on behalf of Europe’s NRENs.

It connects over 50 million users in over 10,000 institutions across Europe. The GÉANT network also connects to all

peering regional clusters in the world, including those in North and South America, the Balkans, the

Mediterranean, South Africa, and Central and Eastern Asia. The NRENs are Closed User Group networks,

specialised in offering services to research and education communities. NRENs have a special position compared to

the commercial Internet market since they operate as non-profit organisations that focus on a specific target

group and audience.

The GÉANT project is a good example of how to establish a successful trans-European backbone infrastructure. Its

success is based on a sound combination of innovative, leading national networks and European targets:

subsidised by both, and disseminated and led by others. Taken together, this provides a collaborative platform

with different beneficiaries, stakeholders and users, enabling the right mix of knowledge, expertise and standards

to set up a sound trans-European backbone. Bottlenecks are being removed, the quality of services is controlled,

and people build on their best practices and have secure access. Overall, the combined GÉANT and NREN networks

offer more than 110 000 km of dark fibre.

In addition, the European Commission has initiated a new instrument for the years 2014-2020 called the

Connecting Europe Facility9 (CEF) that addresses the transport, energy and digital infrastructure jointly, with a

view to creating a high quality European network to ensure social and economic cohesion. To achieve this, the CEF

will promote the deployment of Digital Service Infrastructures (DSI) like those mentioned above. DSIs build

bridges and connect Member States, leaving freedom at national level, while enabling cross-border delivery of

(electronic) services of common interest. The CEF complements other EU programmes, such as the Cohesion and

Structural Funds.

8 DANTE (2013). Homepage. Retrieved from: http://www.dante.net/Pages/default.aspx. 9 European Commission (2011). Proposal for a Regulation (EC) COM(2011)655 of 19 October 2011 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility. Retrieved from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0665:FIN:EN:PDF.


Final Report

12

3 Member States’ readiness for a common network

infrastructure for public services

3.1 Methodology to assess Member States’ readiness

Analysing Member State’s readiness for a common infrastructure for public services involves three steps which are

shown in the figure below.10 The first step is the analysis of a Member State’s current state of play in terms of

network infrastructures for public administrations. An understanding of a Member State’s state of play is key to

successful design of the way to organise any common network infrastructure for public services. Consequently, the

detailed Member State investigation is based on four perspectives. The political dimension captures a country’s

future orientation regarding the development of (cross-border) interoperable ICT solutions and its involvement in

creating DSIs. The technical dimension focuses on the networks available in a country. It captures the (plans for)

implementation of national reference architecture, the Closed User Group networks available and larger

interconnected Closed User Group networks at national level. The organisational dimension outlines the roles and

responsibilities, i.e. the extent to which the management and steering are aligned, and the networks are publicly

or privately owned. Finally, the economic dimension focuses on the time, money and resources available for

developing, maintaining and operating the network infrastructure(s).

This analysis is then complemented by a so-called SWOT-i analysis. This analysis identifies what elements are

helpful and what elements are harmful in order to achieve the objective of a common network infrastructure for

public administrations. The Strengths and Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats are therefore mapped.

Aggregation of the results reveals the identification of key ‘issues’.

Figure 3.1: Three-step approach to measuring readiness

The final assessment is an analysis of the countries’ readiness for establishing a nationwide network infrastructure

for public administrations. On each of the four dimensions – political, technical, organisational and economic, the

magnitude of readiness is assessed on a scale of 1 to 4. For instance, for a country with a score of 4 on the

technical dimension - The network infrastructure in this country supports (cross-border) electronic information

exchange across all government departments (national, regional, local) by means of one or more interconnected

Closed User Group networks. This network can either be built up by several interconnected Closed User Group

networks or a new dedicated network - would be likely to experience fewer difficulties connecting to a common or

even a pan-European network infrastructure than a country scoring 1 - The country does not provide any existing

Closed User Group networks for public administrations or in other words, there is no public administration

connected to a network specifically dedicated to their needs and requirements - on that same dimension. Here,

there is still a long way to go in terms of connecting public administrations nationwide.

10 A detailed explanation of the approach for the specific analyses, the methodologies used and country-specific outcomes can be found in the

‘Final Study Report – ANNEX Readiness Analysis’.

Analysis CurrentState of Play

SWOT-i analysisReadinessAnalysis


Final Report

13

Thus, in essence, the readiness is considered to be high when a country scores 4 on each dimension whereas it is

likely to be low if a country scores 111.

3.2 Maturity levels in Europe: a bird’s eye view

The spider chart in the figure below reveals Europe’s state of play along the lines of the four main dimensions

investigated during the readiness analysis: political, technical, organisational and economic. The analysis provides

an overview of the different macro-environmental factors influencing the development of national closed

interconnected networks.

Figure 3.2: Europe’s overall state of play on each of the four dimensions

The analysis shows that from a political and technical perspective, the Member States are relatively developed

(scoring 3 on a scale of 4), whereas from an economic and organisational point of view, there are still some

challenges to overcome (scoring 2 on a scale of 4).

Political. The research shows that the majority of the Member States (68%) have implemented (advanced) long-

term eGovernment strategies to enable interoperability not only between public administrations, and citizens and

businesses, but also across public administrations. Advancement comes mainly by reflecting on and stimulating in

the strategies more directly interoperability and the use of open standards across public administrations.

Moreover, a clear and mature legal framework in support of the implementation across administrations would

benefit even more countries (another 32% on top).

Technical. The analysis shows that the single largest group of countries (46%) have an advanced national network

infrastructure. These basically connect all levels of government (local, regional, national). They are connected to

pan-European network infrastructures like TESTA NG and CCN/CSI. Thirty-six per cent of the countries do not have

a single or several interconnected Closed User Group networks in place, but instead have several separate Closed

User Group networks. In almost all these cases, the preconditions for further interconnecting and scaling up these

CUGs are in place or are being developed. The other eighteen per cent could make gains by developing common

11 See ANNEX Readiness Analysis for details.

0

1

2

3

4

Political dimension -Future orientation

Economic dimension – Time, money and

resources

Technical dimension – Methods and

systems

Organisational dimension – Roles

and responsibilities


Final Report

14

standards and building blocks in support of (cross-border) electronic information exchange across all departments

and levels of government.

The opportunities generally involve leveraging infrastructures of common interest and, in a time that is

economically challenging, cost savings. At least four NRENs can be classified as providers of network

infrastructures and additional services not only for the research and education community but also for public

administrations. These include ACOnet (Austria), Belnet (Belgium), RENATER (France) and PIONIER (Poland).

Organisational. Looking at the organisational dimension shows that fourteen per cent of Member States fully align

the management of their network infrastructure(s) at a strategic, tactical and operational level throughout all

levels of government. However, in most countries by far (86%) strategic, tactical and operational management of

national network infrastructures is either dispersed or only partially aligned. This means that these governments

still have some challenges to overcome in order to align policy initiatives on a national and local level. Interviews

show that the threats more often revolve around communities and domains fearing a potential loss of autonomy

when network infrastructures and/or services are combined. The impact of mixed ownership models (public and

private) on the daily governance and maintenance of the existing solutions are seen as serious threats.

Economic. The results of investigating the budget and management of the ICT spend in each country are mixed.

Fifty per cent of Member States have a clear allocation of budget for the development of a common network

infrastructure and for the yearly maintenance and operating costs of the existing public network infrastructure.

For twenty-one per cent of the countries network infrastructures are still at the stage of being rolled out and thus

large amounts of the budget and ICT spend are being allocated in support of that. In many cases (29%), however,

these data could not be retrieved. This means either that no budget has been allocated to develop network

infrastructures for public administrations, or that these figures are classified. The technical maturity of systems in

several of these countries (e.g. Germany and Portugal) indicates that a budget is indeed allocated to developing

more sophisticated network infrastructures for administrations.

Figure 3.3: Europe’s overall state of play per Member State

Overall, as the figure above reveals, there is room for Europe to develop national network infrastructures for

public administrations further, if it is to realise its ambition of scaling these up to European level. The

measurement reveals gaps on all four dimensions and there is therefore a need to take country- and dimension-

specific action..

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Au

stri

a

Be

lgiu

m

Bu

lgar

ia

Cro

atia

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic

De

nm

ark

Esto

nia

EU2

8 A

vera

ge

Fin

lan

d

Fran

ce

Ge

rman

y

Gre

ece

Hu

nga

ry

Ire

lan

d

Ital

y

Latv

ia

Lith

uan

ia

Luxe

mb

ou

rg

Mal

ta

Ne

the

rlan

ds

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

gal

Ro

man

ia

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

ven

ia

Spai

n

Swe

de

n

Un

ite

d K

ingd

om

Average State of Play


Final Report

15

The following chapters therefore elaborate on possible ways of creating synergies between network

infrastructures in different domains: the challenges, the drivers, the barriers, and the critical success factors, as

well as making recommendations on the way forward. However, before going into detail on this, the next

paragraphs elaborate on the four different perspectives influencing the development of national closed

interconnected networks.

3.3 The political perspective: grow towards a clear and mature legal framework

Investigating more the political dimension in greater depth (as shown in the figure below) reveals that the majority

of countries score above average (3 or 4 on the scale). Countries which are quite advanced in the implementation

of their eGovernment policy strategies and in developing open standards in support of data exchange between

public administrations are Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Latvia, Malta,

Netherlands, Portugal and the UK (43% of all countries). They have adapted their legal frameworks in order to

make proper implementation possible. These countries are also taking future developments into account by

bearing in mind cross-border interoperability. This is mainly reflected in their involvement in one or more DSIs at

European level.

Figure 3.4: Countries’ scoring on the political dimension

Top scorers include Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Spain (25% of all Member States). These

score at the high end. This is because, on the one hand, they are establishing and piloting DSIs and building blocks,

and the use of open standards across the nation, and the other, they have effective legal frameworks which

contribute significantly to the success of their eGovernment strategy.

Austria was, for example, one of the first to pass comprehensive legal regulations in the area of eGovernment.

Legislation for the services offered online is not consolidated within one document, but is rather are spread-out

over various (existing) law books that together determine the ground rules of eGovernment12. A second example:

Poland’s interoperability framework and existing interoperability guidelines are all law-enforced: the eGovernment

communications and mandatory contents within electronic messages are explicitly laid down in law. This


0

1

2

3

4

Au

stri

a

Be

lgiu

m

Bu

lgar

ia

Cro

atia

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic

De

nm

ark

Esto

nia

EU2

8 A

vera

ge

Fin

lan

d

Fran

ce

Ge

rman

y

Gre

ece

Hu

nga

ry

Ire

lan

d

Ital

y

Latv

ia

Lith

uan

ia

Luxe

mb

ou

rg

Mal

ta

Ne

the

rlan

ds

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

gal

Ro

man

ia

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

ven

ia

Spai

n

Swe

de

n

Un

ite

d K

ingd

om


Final Report

16

enforcement has been an important enabler for Polish interoperability activities13. These consistent formats, or

open standards, are promoted within the Act on NIF (National Interoperability Framework that refers to the

benefits for successful interoperability when using open formats based on open standards.

Although Cyprus, Czech Republic and Lithuania (11%) have a long-term eGovernment strategy in place, it does not

address advanced (cross-border) interoperability between public administrations. This is closely linked to the lack

of maturity of the countries’ network infrastructure(s). These countries are still in the process of rolling out their

national broadband plans so as to provide high-speed Internet access in all populated areas14. These countries are

working on meeting their basic targets for creating a Digital Single Market in the Digital Agenda for Europe. This

internal focus is reflected in their low to no involvement in the development of DSIs.

Several more mature countries like Ireland, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden (21%) do not

either put emphasis on interoperability and the use of open standards between public administrations in their

policy strategy. Moreover, the legal framework does not necessarily support a common use of standards and

protocols among the different public organisations. Nevertheless, these countries seem to be establishing a more

‘outgoing’ view as they are involved in the development of one or more DSI building blocks.

3.4 The technical perspective: leverage infrastructures of common interest

Analysing the technical perspective in more detail shows a wide range of possible interconnections between

networks for public administrations in the Member States – ranging from a level where the focus is on the roll-out

of physical network infrastructures, as for instance in Bulgaria, to national interconnected CUG networks in

countries like in Austria, Belgium and France.

Figure 3.5: Countries’ scoring on the technical dimension

Of 28 Member States, forty-six per cent currently have a network infrastructure that supports (cross-border)

electronic information exchange across all government departments by means of a closed interconnected

network. These countries are Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg,

Malta, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. The development of these national networks differs, however, per

13 More precisely the “Law on Informatisation of Entities Performing Public Services” laid down the National Computerisation Plan and

initiated other guidelines, such as the Regulation Concerning Minimal Requirements for ICT Systems. 14 Retrieved from: http://daeimplementation.eu/

0

1

2

3

4

Au

stri

a

Be

lgiu

m

Bu

lgar

ia

Cro

atia

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic

De

nm

ark

Esto

nia

EU2

8 A

vera

ge

Fin

lan

d

Fran

ce

Ge

rman

y

Gre

ece

Hu

nga

ry

Ire

lan

d

Ital

y

Latv

ia

Lith

uan

ia

Luxe

mb

ou

rg

Mal

ta

Ne

the

rlan

ds

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

gal

Ro

man

ia

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

ven

ia

Spai

n

Swe

de

n

Un

ite

d K

ingd

om


Final Report

17

country. The Netherlands for example has several Closed User Group networks in place; e.g. the ‘Haagse Ring’

which connects all ministries, ‘RINISnet’ which connects public organisations in the social domain, and ‘Gemnet’

which connects all municipalities. By adopting a national ‘i-strategy’, coherence has been brought to the

fragmented national ICT infrastructure. Now ‘Diginetwerk’ connects the various existing physical networks for

government organisations to enable one single (virtual) interconnected network of government network

infrastructures15.

A second example, Estonia, basically had a completely different entry point. Their strategy took developments and

requirements at European level into account at the outset. Their strategy for implementation was designed

collaboratively by all ministries, the State Chancery, as well as organisations representing third parties. The

development of a national interconnected CUG network in Estonia builds on a number of principles which must be

respected by all public administrations, both national and local. The strategy is implemented based on annual

Information Society Implementation Plans. Each ministry submits a Plan to the Ministry of Economic Affairs, which

covers all the ICT-related developments foreseen during the following year. These Implementation Plans build on

the recommendations formulated by sectoral expert groups.

Thirty-six per cent of the countries have IT systems in place which support various building blocks enabling

electronic data exchange between public administrations. However, there is no single Closed User Group network

in place (or not yet) that physically connects all domains and levels of government. Nevertheless, preconditions for

further interconnection and scaling up are in place or being developed. These countries include Austria, Belgium,

Croatia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Portugal, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Among the lowest scoring countries are Denmark and Romania (7% of the total). Although Denmark, for example,

is stimulating construction of building blocks in all municipal and public-sector ICT systems, implementation is

complex. Therefore, the standardisation of procedures, information, data and systems across the public sector will

be implemented gradually through different initiatives. In this way, Denmark is indeed working on improving data

and communication exchange. However, there is no indication that a single interconnected network serving all

public administrations is being developed. There is also nothing in Romania to indicate that a common network

infrastructure is being developed.

The final 11%, including Bulgaria, Italy and Latvia, appear to have emerging CUG networks or an interconnected

CUG network at national level. For instance, the Bulgarian Executive Agency for ICT, or “Electronic Communication

Networks and Information Systems” (ECNIS) has been entrusted with the installation, operation and development

of the Integrated Electronic Communication Network (IECN) for state and municipality administrations (Public

Administration, Council of Ministers), and national security. This should enable the technology for data exchange

in that country. However, this technology is not close to being implemented.

3.5 The organisational perspective: align at a national and local level, and across domains

Investigating the organisational dimension reveals a mix of organisation models across countries, ranging from

centralised to decentralised or federated management of IT systems as well as ICT spend. The figure below

presents the countries’ scores on the organisational dimension.



Final Report

18

Figure 3.6: Countries’ scoring on the organisational dimension

Austria, Germany, Ireland and Netherlands (14%) have high scores, i.e. the management of the network

infrastructure(s) is fully integrated at strategic, tactical and operational level and aligned throughout all levels of

government. Germany strives for a common strategic orientation by federal, state and local governments in

further developing public services and network systems, and aims to coordinate action taken by those involved in

order to ensure interoperability and cost-effectiveness. The responsibility for this implementation lies with the

Federal Ministry of the Interior. All government departments have appointed Chief Information Officers (CIOs)

with wide-ranging powers, together forming the IT Council, chaired by the Federal CIO. The most important task of

the Federal CIO is to expand interdepartmental IT coordination into interdepartmental IT management. The

Federal CIO is pursuing this goal in conjunction with the IT management bodies: the CIO Council made up of the

chief information officers from each federal ministry, and the federal IT Management Group.

Austria takes a similar approach. It has centralised governance in place for aligning and steering the developments

around public services and network systems. The key body responsible for ICT programmes and execution is the

ICT Strategy Unit at the Federal Chancellery. The Federal Chancellery is responsible for coordinating general

government policy and the public information activities of the Federal Government and the Federal Constitution of

Austria.

The Netherlands is a different case again. Here, the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations commissions

ICTU (government ICT Unit) and Logius (government shared services for ICT) to implement the policy at a national

level. ICTU contributes to the structural development of public services by executing programmes and projects in

the public sector. In addition, they develop the actual ICT solutions for government departments and support

them during the implementation. Logius functions as the overarching institute that maintains ICT solutions and

generic standards at a government-wide level. The Association of Dutch Municipalities (VNG) coordinates the

implementation of the ICT policy and strategy at municipality level. KING, the quality institute for Dutch

Municipalities, is responsible for the development and management of ICT standards at a local level. It also

supports the actual implementation of tools and standards in municipalities across the Netherlands.

The single largest group of countries (54%) have an organisational structure that aligns only several aspects of the

strategic, tactical and operational management of their network infrastructures. These countries are Belgium,

Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia,

Spain and the UK. In these countries, there is a clear-cut distinction between the level of the national government

(which sets overall strategy) and local and regional governments that may implement the strategy ‘within the

limits of their respective competences’, as is for instance the case in France.

0

1

2

3

4

Au

stri

a

Be

lgiu

m

Bu

lgar

ia

Cro

atia

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic

De

nm

ark

Esto

nia

EU2

8 A

vera

ge

Fin

lan

d

Fran

ce

Ge

rman

y

Gre

ece

Hu

nga

ry

Ire

lan

d

Ital

y

Latv

ia

Lith

uan

ia

Luxe

mb

ou

rg

Mal

ta

Ne

the

rlan

ds

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

gal

Ro

man

ia

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

ven

ia

Spai

n

Swe

de

n

Un

ite

d K

ingd

om


Final Report

19

In Belgium, for example, responsibility for ICT strategy is spread across several federal ministries. Formal

agreements govern the alignment of the implementation by the agencies and bodies involved. These agreements

ensure that all levels of Government cooperate to provide integrated services regardless of organisational

boundaries and administrative layers. However, at a local level initiatives are coordinated by municipalities using

their own mechanisms and time schedules to implement the strategy.

In another fourteen per cent of the countries (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Greece and Poland) strategic, tactical and

operational management of national network infrastructures is dispersed. In several cases, there is a trend

towards aligning the management and ownership models of such networks better in order to create a more

efficient and effective public administration. While Poland has no government-led initiatives for mature and

country-wide roll-out of network systems at regional and local institutions, the greater importance being attached

to eGovernment on the agenda of Europe, and therefore for all of its Member States, led it to decide to have one

expert branch to steer developments across Poland’s 16 regions, 315 counties and 2,500 municipalities16. Local

authorities are themselves responsible for drafting roadmaps that facilitate the strategies defined at national level.

The Department of Information Technology merely allocated the funding necessary for the local initiatives17.

Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, Sweden (18%) all appear not to have clear strategic, tactical and operational

management around the development of national network infrastructures.

3.6 The economic perspective: ensure a clear allocation of budget and ICT spend

The economic dimension covers the budget available to implement, operate and maintain the existing network

infrastructure.

Figure 3.7: Countries’ scoring on the economic dimension

Researching this specific perspective reveals that forty-three per cent of EU-28-countries are aiming to develop a

sophisticated and efficient network infrastructure for public administrations. In these cases, part of the ICT budget

is allocated to these developments or improvements. The countries are Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia,

Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands, Slovakia, Sweden and the UK. According to a Gartner Forecast18, in

16 See ANNEX Readiness Analysis for details. 17 See ANNEX Readiness Analysis for details. 18 Enterprise IT Spending by Vertical Industry Market, Worldwide, 2011-2017, 1Q13 Update.

0

1

2

3

4

Au

stri

a

Be

lgiu

m

Bu

lgar

ia

Cro

atia

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic

De

nm

ark

Esto

nia

EU2

8 A

vera

ge

Fin

lan

d

Fran

ce

Ge

rman

y

Gre

ece

Hu

nga

ry

Ire

lan

d

Ital

y

Latv

ia

Lith

uan

ia

Luxe

mb

ou

rg

Mal

ta

Ne

the

rlan

ds

Po

lan

d

Po

rtu

gal

Ro

man

ia

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

ven

ia

Spai

n

Swe

de

n

Un

ite

d K

ingd

om


Final Report

20

Ireland, for example, the total amount spent on ICT by government organisations in 2012 was EUR 396 million,

which is 0.59% of the country’s total Gross National Expenditure. In the Irish government’s 2013 expenditure

report, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources states that in 2013 they will progress

towards the rollout of next generation networks as part of the National Broadband Plan. The government expects

a cost saving of EUR 2.8 million in 2013 due to broadcasting.

In Slovakia, development of ICT in the state administration is financed mainly from the state budget. Allocation of

these financial resources is initially planned to be in the region of an annual amount of EUR 267 million. This

represents the financial input of all contributors, including co-financing from the EU Structural Funds19. The

government of Slovakia is actively aiming to attract these EU structural funds for projects to improve Slovakia’s

digital public administration and infrastructure20.

Malta and Spain (7%) have a highly advanced network infrastructure in place in the form of a national

interconnected CUG network. In Malta, the 2010 annual report of MITA (Malta Information Technology Agency)

(the most recent annual report available) states that they were continuing to work consistently to improve the

overall information security framework of the government’s ICT infrastructure through an unprecedented

investment of over EUR 2 million in information security tools, technologies, skills and governance. Furthermore

MITA had invested over EUR 1 million to enhance Government’s Internet infrastructure in terms of security,

capacity and high availability.

What could be considered as a concern is that, for the vast majority of countries (29%), the budget and

management of the ICT spend is unclear. Moreover, it is currently not evident that proper resources are being

allocated to building a common network infrastructure. These countries are Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Italy,

Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal and Romania.

Twenty-one per cent of the Member States are at the stage of rolling out their basic network infrastructures across

the country and/or improving access to high-speed Internet by the whole population. Large amounts of the budget

and ICT spend are allocated in support of that. This applies to Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Luxembourg, Poland and

Slovenia.

19 http://www.informatizacia.sk/ext_dok-strategia_informatizacie_verejnej_spravy_eng/4115c. 20 http://www.informatizacia.sk/what-is-opis-/4633s.

http://www.informatizacia.sk/ext_dok-strategia_informatizacie_verejnej_spravy_eng/4115c

http://www.informatizacia.sk/what-is-opis-/4633s


Final Report

21

4 Creating synergy between networks

Synergy between networks. In general synergy between networks is defined as “the combination of elements in

networks in such a way that the results of the combination are more than the results of the sum of the individual

elements”. In the context of this study the definition of synergy between networks has been further refined as

being the sharing of elements of network infrastructures, specifically the networks connecting public

administrations with a view to data exchange.

Level of sharing. In order to analyse the different ways of creating synergy between networks, it is necessary to

consider the construction of a common network infrastructure. When building and expanding networks for public

administrations, synergies may be achieved by sharing certain elements in the Media, Network or Service layers:

for example, by the sharing of fibres on the lowest Media layer or the sharing of security measures on the Service

layer above. The amount of overlap between the different networks (bandwidth, etc.) and the service

requirements (security, authentication, authorisation, etc.) for each specific domain define the actual extent of

what can be shared.

The figure below shows some examples of communication flows between various domains in the public sector as

well as between these and citizens and businesses.

Figure 4.1: Communication flows between various domains

The focus of an organisation’s network depends, to a large extent, on the basic needs in terms of the data to be

exchanged as well as the key customers concerned, and their wishes and requirements. Furthermore, this defines

the type of network in place, e.g. a business model for Closed User Groups and dark fibre to ensure highly

innovative private networks (like the NREN networks) versus a business model dependent on the commercial

market, providing a private backbone as well as specific services on top (like the Police & Defence networks). The

amount of overlap between the different networks and the service requirements (security, authentication,

authorisation, etc.) for each specific public domain (e.g. tax, health, defence) defines the extent to which different

layers and parts of layers can be shared.

For example, communication between Research & Education institutions requires an advanced network

infrastructure to ensure high bandwidth and innovative services. To this end, the NREN community has a business

Communication:

To /

From

Ministries Government

Agencies

Healthcare Police & defence

departments

Tax department Research &

Education

Private business Public

organisations

Ministries

Internal

Interconnection

CUGs

Interconnection

CUGs

Secure gateway Secure gateway Interconnection

CUGs

Via Ministeries

Websites (possibly

with certificates)

Via Ministeries

Websites (possibly

with certificates)

Government

Agencies

Interconnection

CUGs Internal

Interconnection

CUGs

Secure gateway Secure gateway Via local websites Via local websites Via local websites

Healtcare Interconnection

CUGs

Interconnection

CUGs

Internal, high

bandwitdh, high

privacy

Secure gateway Secure gateway Via local websites Via local websites Via local websites

Police & defence

departments

Secure gateway Secure gateway Secure gateway Internal; high

secure and

encrypted

Secure gateway only secure

websites

only secure

websites

only secure

websites

Tax department Interconnection

CUGs

Interconnection

CUGs

Interconnection

CUGs

Secure gatewaysInternal, high

secure

only secure

websites

only secure

websites

only secure

websites

Research &

Education

Gateway Gateway Gateway. Exchange

of images

only e-mail only e-mailInnovative, high

bandwidth: NRENs

Learning websites Learning websites

Private business Mail & webforms Mail & webforms Mail & webforms Mail & webforms Mail & webforms research CUG

gateway Out of scope Out of scope

Public

organisations

Mail & webforms Mail & webforms Mail & webforms,

personal Health

record

Mail & webforms Mail & webforms,

annuat tax

declaration

Open school

Out of scope Out of scope


Final Report

22

model in place that basically focuses on advanced technologies for their specific users. This model puts emphasis

on network development for a specific Closed User Group rather than development with a view to ensuring a

specific market share. Moreover, because of this business model, NRENs are funded by their stakeholders. In this

context, stakeholders have a significant influence on future developments, and are interested in receiving an

innovative service from their NREN, not in their NREN gaining a large market share with other customers.

Police and Defence departments are another example: they require a service and network infrastructure with a

prime focus on security, encryption and integrity. This is mainly subsidised by the government and is also not

based on any commercial and marketing strategy. In some countries this results in a completely separate physical

architecture as a result of security considerations. NAFIN in the Netherlands is one example. In other cases this

results in (partly) shared infrastructures with dedicated encryption on different communication layers which

ensure that only users in the CUG can communicate with each other in a secure environment (e.g. A.S.T.R.I.D. in

Belgium, which is based on the European TETRA standard). The security requirements for creating such a network

will naturally impact on its construction. This, in turn, will define the level of permissible synergy with other

networks.

Types of shared network. There is one major precondition when modulating the level of shared elements in a

network: synergy can only be created on the different layers and on the elements where it is not in contradiction

with the basic requirements and needs of the domain (stakeholders) and the requisite data exchange. With this in

mind, it is assumed that the lowest layer is the one that can be shared most easily. The higher the layer, the more

challenging it becomes to create synergy due to the continually increasing requirements of the community and/or

domain. In these cases, the importance of tailoring the services to the specific needs of a domain (e.g. Tax, Social

Security, R&E) becomes more evident. Moreover, the layer above that might even be tailored to a particular group

of public administrations, e.g. municipalities, or provinces and federal states. The figure below presents the

anticipated level of sharing within each network layer.

Figure 4.2: The expected level of sharing among each network layer, some examples

Knowing this, synergies can be achieved in three areas:

Gateway functions. Gateway functions operate in the Service layer and play a major main role in securing the

connections between CUGs, translating formats (e.g. from plain text to XML, or from Open source document

formats to industry specific standards) and/or encryption/decryption. In the higher level of the Service layer,

gateway functions can be implemented between the Internet (e.g. for citizens and businesses) and public

administrations. For example, a gateway function between the segments ‘Ministries’ and ‘NRENs’ will allow

communication and data exchange without imposing the need for one network on the lower layer. Also the earlier

elaborated DSIs play a role in this area of gateway functions since these contribute to enhancing cross-domain

Net

wo

rkla

yersHealthcare Police &

DefenceMinistries


Final Report

23

interoperability by developing ICT standards, protocols and in essence gateways, to support communication

between countries’ network systems. However gateways are known to be difficult to scale-up, costly and complex

to manage.

Market-controlled synergy. At the level of the lower Media layers (data streams (Ethernet, SDH) and

cables/fibres), synergy can be sought in the commercial market. This can be achieved via the network (service)

providers – with the assumption of an optimally functioning market. Currently, there are a number of

infrastructures and wholesale services available in support of such a synergy. In many European countries these

activities used to be dominated by the traditional telecoms operators with significant market dominance. EU

Regulation on fixed wholesale service obligations has resulted in common wholesale broadband products. These

types of service have helped create a level playing field in basic services such as (dark) fibre and transmission

systems.

A driver in creating synergy in the Media layers is the possible combination of specialist tasks. The activities

needed to enable a Media layer require specialist companies/business units with specific capabilities and focus.

For instance, synergy in the lowest (physical) level of a network infrastructure entails excavating and creating ducts

in which the cables of different users can be installed simultaneously. At this level the capabilities required are

excavating, and laying or blowing cables in ducts. This is normally not seen as the core business of a service

provider and is outsourced to a specialised excavation and cable laying company. Synergies can be created when

requests are combined and the specialised company lays new cables in one-go. In most countries legislation ((e.g.

National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011 in Austria) requires that these activities be organised in so-

called wholesale units, which have to deliver bit stream connections at the same cost for their own organisation as

for new entrants. This is a clear example of legislation pushing market synergies in a market not functioning

optimally.

The same applies to the creation of dark fibre routes. These are usually created between two customer locations

by welding together fibres via different manholes located at end-points. These activities require specific tools and

specialised engineers for fibre welding. Synergy could be created by establishing specialised company/business

units providing end-to-end dark fibre routes. In this case the company would also act on behalf of different service

providers.

Government-controlled synergy. A third example is government-controlled synergy. This basically involves

creating synergy in the “core” network, having different segments of users deploying the same core network

infrastructure or “highway” for data exchange. Enabling such synergy requires a dedicated access connection from

one or more user locations to the core network. Normally, these so-called “last-mile connections” cannot be

shared and are therefore the most expensive part of a network infrastructure. In order to create synergy,

governments would need to stimulate the development of these types of connection. For example, FTTH (Fibre To

The Home) projects stimulate the connection of all buildings in a designated neighbourhood to a fibre network.

Such a FTTH network acts as the access line (or point) to different core networks. The benefit of a FTTH project is

that local governments will receive (relatively cheap) access to a network, which can also be used to connect to a

pan-European public backbone network.

In certain geographical situations participating in FTTH projects may not be an option. In these cases, the options

could be the creation of a “last mile operator” for public administrations. This last-mile operator for public

administrations could also gain the right to connect this last mile of the public administration either to existing

backbones or new ones.


Final Report

24

5 Four real-life cases

In recent years there have been several initiatives in order to leverage existing network infrastructures and to

create synergies. This chapter illustrates four real-life cases across Europe:

1. The case of Logius (Diginetwerk), the Dutch public service provider of eGovernment services, which creates

synergy by connecting various Closed User Group networks for public administrations to a single closed

interconnected network infrastructure at national level.

2. The case of RENATER, the French NREN, which provides its optical fibre network to public administrations

and other government institutions instead of only to the Research and Education community.

3. The case of ACOnet, the Austrian NREN, which provides network services not only to the Austrian Research

and Education community, but also to public administrations and other government institutions.

4. The case of Belnet, the Belgium NREN, which is a third example of a network service not only for the R&E

community but also public administrations.

This chapter finishes with an ex-ante Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) of the costs and benefits when implementing and

operating optical fibre-based networks for public administrations. This analysis was primarily carried out based on

the experiences of ACOnet, RENATER, HEAnet (NREN in Ireland) and further desk research by the study team.

5.1 Diginetwerk, a Dutch Basic Connection Network for public administrations

Logius is the Dutch service provider for eGovernment services supporting data exchange between public

administrations, citizens and businesses. Logius operates public sector-wide digital solutions, standards, building

blocks and networks. The products of Logius relate to network access, data exchange, standardisation and

information security.

Logius is an income and expenditure service of the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BKWI).

This Ministry commissions Logius for its services, as do others, such as the Ministries of Economic Affairs; Health,

Welfare and Sport; and Education, Culture and Science.

The network. Logius focuses on interconnecting and consolidating Closed User Group networks. The deployment

of Diginetwerk is an example of the creation of synergy between existing CUGs by building gateway functions

between the networks. It connects various existing physical networks of government organisations to enable one

single virtual and closed network of government network infrastructures21. Logius owns Diginetwerk and the BKWI

supplies this so-called Basic Connection Network and manages it. This also includes the architecture and the

guidelines for use and user support22. Diginetwerk enables secure connections for information exchange between

different public administrations. Every public administration connects to Diginetwerk via a Closed User Group

network. The CUGs linked to Diginetwerk are:

1. Haagse Ring, the Interdepartmental network

2. SuwiNet, a network in the Social security domain

3. Gemnet, an inter-municipality network (commercially owned)

4. RINISnet, an interconnection network in the public domain

5. OT-wolk, used by Logius as an interconnection network to other organisations.

The figure below provides a high-level representation of Diginetwerk. It incorporates the organisations that

manage the network infrastructure at a strategic, tactical and operational level.

21 Retrieved from: http://www.logius.nl/producten/gegevensuitwisseling/diginetwerk/ 22 Retrieved from: http://www.logius.nl/producten/toegang/nieuwsbericht/titel/een-aansluiting-op-alle-overheidsnetwerken-bkwi-en-logius-

formaliseren-diginetwerk/

http://www.logius.nl/producten/gegevensuitwisseling/diginetwerk/

http://www.logius.nl/producten/toegang/nieuwsbericht/titel/een-aansluiting-op-alle-overheidsnetwerken-bkwi-en-logius-formaliseren-diginetwerk/

http://www.logius.nl/producten/toegang/nieuwsbericht/titel/een-aansluiting-op-alle-overheidsnetwerken-bkwi-en-logius-formaliseren-diginetwerk/


Final Report

25

Figure 5.1: Overview of the interconnected systems (CUGs) in Diginetwerk

The following figure presents the Diginetwerk governance structure.

Figure 5.2: Diginetwerk governance structure

Government registers, work stations, data entries and applications are connected to Diginetwerk. Citizen to

Government (C2G) and Business to Government (B2G) connectivity are not part of Diginetwerk. However, a ‘Basic

Infrastructure’ steering committee led by the National CIO is currently developing a vision on national connectivity

using RON2.0. RON2.0 will replace the Haagse Ring and is a closed virtual network composed of several existing

main networks for data exchange, speech and video conferencing between central governments. Furthermore it

supplies standards and interfaces that enable secure connectivity with other public administrations, citizens and

Haagse Ring OT wolk SuwiNet Gemnet

PA “..” PA “..” PA “..” PA “..” PA “..” PA “..” PA “..”Assembly “..”

Basic CUG

Operational: Ivent Operational: BT Operational: KPN Operational: KPN

Tactical: Logius Tactical: Logius Tactical: BKWI Tactical: Gemnet

Tactical: BKWI

Diginetwerk | Strategic: Logius

Interconnectedsystems (CUGs)

Local Area Network PA “..”PA “..”


Final Report

26

business, and also cross-border. Together with the consolidated data centres, RON2.0 forms the foundation for a

generic ICT infrastructure for central government with connectivity, throughput and storage facilities.

Challenges and lessons learned. With future developments in mind, Logius investigated the use of dark fibres for

the transport of back-up data to the shared data centres. Initially, Logius planned to lease these dark fibres from

SURFnet, the Dutch NREN, since they have capacity available in the current set-up. However, public procurement

rules forbid SURFnet deploying its dark fibres for non-research and education purposes. The reasoning behind this

is the fact that SURFnet is a state-subsidised organisation and the use of their dark fibres for public administrations

would disrupt open, commercial market competition23. As an alternative, Logius now leases dark fibres for its

back-up data transport from IVENT, which provides the Ministry of Defence IT systems and services. IVENT is a

state institution and part of the ‘Commando Diensten Centra’ (CDC), the shared service centre for Defence. IVENT

is the owner of these optical fibres.

Some lessons can be distilled from the implementation of Diginetwerk24:

1. Participants in a network for public administrations should remain owners of the content distributed in

the network. With a grip on the content, it is possible to steer the providers of the network layers that

support the distribution of content in the desired direction. Without ownership, there is a risk of loss of

control.

2. Implementing and running interconnected networks will only succeed if subcontractors talk to each other

and reach agreements. This is a challenge.

3. The network infrastructure architecture should always be the ‘guidebook’ for implementation and scaling

up of network infrastructure. This will ensure a consistent, efficient and manageable infrastructure and

avoid an unmanageable, expensive ‘spaghetti-like’ infrastructure emerging.

5.2 RENATER, the French National network for Technology, Education and Research

A good example of the possibilities for creating synergies is the collaboration between RENATER, which is the

National Research and Education Network in France, and SCN RIE, the Service à Compétence Nationale - Réseau

Interministériel de l’Etat. The Réseau Interministériel de l’Etat (RIE) is a national network infrastructure that will

gradually replace all departmental networks. The RIE was launched in September 2013 and is part of the French

modernisation programme for public action ‘SGMAP’. RENATER is providing the optical circuits for RIE. It is an

example of dark fibre synergy, having a NREN providing its optical fibres to public administrations and government

institutions in addition to its initial research and education user base.

The network. RENATER offers state-of-the-art connectivity to its participants: public research institutions,

educational institutions and private (mainly Research & Development) institutions. RENATER is a non-profit

organisation25. Its members are the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Research, universities and research

organisations. RENATER deploys a 1200 km, 10 Gigabyte network with 72 Points of Presence (PoPs) for its

participants26. RENATER offers network and application services, as well as security administration. The figure

below presents the coverage of the RENATER network.

23 Moreover, on the basis of a statement from the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal in 2012, SURFnet cannot be classified as a

provider of public digital networks. 24 Provided by representatives of Logius. 25 TERENA presentation Patrick Donath 2012. 26 Some technical data: 11,900 km of fibre optics, 120 links, 72 points of presence, network: 125 wavelengths (10G), traffic: accumulated

external connectivity of nearly 100Gbit/s, 1346 ports in mainland and overseas departments and territories. High-use services: 10,000 electronic certificates supplied in total. Anti-spam: 550,000 email accounts, 2,000,000 emails filtered per day. Eduroam Wi-Fi access: more than 150 operational establishments, 50,000 requests per day. “Universalistes” mailing list service: 400,000 subscribers.


Final Report

27

Figure 5.3: The RENATER typology

The RIE network will consist of a backbone with 22 links, 3000 km of optical fibres and 14 Points of Presence. It will

be able to deliver services up to 10 GB/s. The network technology is aligned with MPLS, IPv4, and IPv6.

SCN RIE has been designated to further design and implement the network and shared services. It is also

responsible for the operation and management of the network, including guaranteeing proper security.27 SCN RIE

collaborates with RENATER in the development of the RIE network. RENATER provides the specific optical circuits

(dedicated wavelengths) for the closed interconnected network and a dedicated RENATER team in support of

developing the RIE network.28

The figure below depicts the high-level coverage of the RIE network.

27 RENATER Presentation. June 7th 2013: RIE (Réseau Interministériel de l’ Etat) The French Governmental Network. 28 See also the Study of the readiness of Member States for a common pan-European network infrastructure for public services, Member

States Analyses State of Play.


Final Report

28

Figure 5.4: High-level coverage of the RIE network

Challenges. The main challenge encountered by RENATER is to stay aligned with the expectations of their original

user base: the research and education community. Since the network and service requirements of the R&E

community (high bandwidth, exchange of large data, reliable network, etc.) differ from the requirements of public

administrations (security, encryption, etc.), some existing users fear the loss of autonomy and of focus on what is

most important for the original user base.

5.3 ACOnet, the Austrian Academic Computer Network

The Austrian NREN, ACOnet, is a second example of a NREN network provider deploying its infrastructure not only

for research and education organisations but also for public organisations. It shows that synergy between domains

can be established and benefit both groups of stakeholders.

In this case ACOnet creates network synergy by providing its optical fibres with the data link and network layers to

public administrations and government institutions in addition to its own research and education institutes.

The network. ACOnet is based on a dedicated wavelength-transparent fibre optic backbone with a bandwidth of

up to 40 times 10 Gbit/s to all its PoPs (Points of Presence)29. ACOnet provides layer two and layer three services,

and more and more middleware services. Classical application layer services are out of scope, but this might

change should there be a greater focus on cloud-based services.

ACOnet has signed agreements with the Ministry of Education to serve as a backbone for Internet access for all

regional school networks. It also has an agreement with the Ministry of Science to provide halls and off-campus

residences with network access, thus effectively subsidising connectivity for university students. ACOnet thus

connects all universities and academies, colleges and research institutes, the Austrian schools network (edunet),

student dormitories, museums, and various educational and cultural institutions. But it also connects hospitals,

ministries, federal agencies, the federal chancery, presidential offices, and provincial governments and

29 A Point of Presence represents the place with the technical supplies where the connection with a network is made.


Final Report

29

administrations. ACOnet does not differentiate between the educational and research organisations and

organisations in the government sector.

The next figure presents the ACOnet typology30.

Figure 5.5 The ACOnet typology

The University of Vienna is the legal owner of ACOnet and holds the contract with Telekom Austria for the optical

fibre backbone. ACOnet’s management is located there as well and the university operates the network together

with the participating institutions. Telekom Austria is the single fibre backbone provider of the network. The

University of Vienna signed a framework with Telekom Austria in 2007. This framework contract has a duration of

10-15 years and contains an IRU fallback31.

Challenges and lessons learned. Representatives of ACOnet mention a couple of reasons why ACOnet succeeds in

deploying its network to a broad landscape of organisations (with different demands), including Research and

Education institutions and public organisations. ACOnet uses a non-exclusive, cooperative and lightweight

approach for all its participants. The treatment of every organisation that wants to participate in ACOnet is

neutral. In addition, it is important that there be one uniform model to share the expenses between all

participants. The cost calculation is based on community download traffic in order to avoid penalising sites with

interesting content.

There is, however, a potential risk in serving two sectors of clients with different characteristics. Serving the

research and education organisations means keeping pace with the ever-changing state-of-the-art technical

requirements. The technical requirements of the public administrations and government organisations are mostly

average. A service provider serving both segments needs to combine two different types of requirements. ACOnet

deals with this by keeping the focus on the research and education community. The emphasis is on meeting the

requirements of this community by developing state-of-the-art services and technical solutions. The government

sector may use the services and solutions developed for the research and education community. ACOnet is funded

30 Some technical data: Dedicated network infrastructure (ACOnet only), wavelength-transparent (C-Band, 40λ) fibre-pairs (including OAs

(conservative, every ~80km). Alcatel-Lucent DWDM chassis (1626LM), active e2e monitoring by TA on a single wavelength, monitoring wavelength available for ACOnet payload (10GigEth sFEC Transponder), alien wavelengths allowed within specs). 100Gig-Lambda support can be made available “asar“. 5000km fibre (one pair active, one pair passive/reserve): ~ 60 optical amplifiers, 42 DWDM shelves (DCU, MUX, Transponder). Practical Alien Wavelength experience: 100Gig ADVA “metro” WDM technology successfully tested on ACOnet. DWDM backbone link (Alcatel Lucent) between Vienna and Salzburg.

31 Indefeasible Rights of Use.


Final Report

30

by public money, yet only develops services for the benefit of the government sector if this does not hinder or

harm the research and education community.

Examples of services specifically developed for public administrations are GovIX, GovDNS and Govroam.at32. GovIX

is the Government Internet eXchange, a nationwide dedicated layer 2 network service on top of the infrastructure.

It is an exchange point for government institutions only. It consists of a peering VLAN on top of the ACOnet

backbone infrastructure. It was developed in cooperation between ACOnet, GovCERT and the municipality of

Vienna. GovDNS, the Government Domain Name Service, is a complementary service to GovIX.

A separate government entity has been created for the participation of public administrations in the GovIX. The

Federal Chancery decides which public administrations are allowed to connect. ACOnet, on the other hand,

requests that all those who connect to the GovIX become regular ACOnet participants.

5.4 Belnet, the Belgian National Research and Education Network

The Belgian NREN, Belnet, is a third example of a NREN network provider deploying its network infrastructure not

only for research and education organisations but also for public organisations. Belnet is part of the Belgian

Science Policy Office and deploys a network of more than 1,600 km nationwide with 100 Megabits to 10 Gigabits

per second bandwidth. The network has 25 PoP’s (Points of Presence) and connects some 198 organisations,

ranging from research centres and institutions for education, to museums, hospitals and government agencies.

The Belnet network consists of a traditional IP network with an optical, glass fibre-based, layer47

. The Belnet

network is connected to GÉANT and Internet2 (USA).

Figure 5-1 The Belnet network33

In addition, Belnet deploys the Belgian National Internet eXchange (BNIX) and CERT.be. BNIX enables the exchange

of internet traffic between internet service providers, internet content providers and private companies in

Belgium. CERT.be is the Belgian federal Cyber Emergency Response Team. Belnet is responsible to Fedict, the

Information and Communication Technology Federal Public Service34 for the deployment of CERT.be.

32 See 5.4 Belnet, the Belgian National Research and Education Network, for more information about Govroam 33 http://www.belnet.be 34 http://www.belnet.be


Final Report

31

Belnet offers its optical layer, an MPLS layer and public IPv4/IPv6 routing, on behalf of FedMAN. FedMAN (Federal

Metropolitan Area Network) is the high-speed and secure network for federal public services which links 26

federal ministries and government service buildings in Brussels. The Federal Department for ICT (Fedict) launched

FedMAN in 2002. FedMAN III was completed in 2011. With Fedman III an optical fibre ring connects five federal

government data centres. FedMAN III offers bandwidths of 2 to 10 Gigabits per second. Fedict acts as the network

service provider to FedMAN and has a Service Level Agreement with Belnet35.

Belnet, like Austria, recently launched Govroam. This roaming service offers public servants connected to the

Belnet network the possibility of accessing the wireless networks of each individual public organisation that

deploys Govroam. Govroam was developed based on Eduroam36. Eduroam (meaning education roaming) is the

secure, world-wide roaming access service developed specifically for the international research and education

community. Through one-time registration, the users get secure access to WiFi, without logging on time after

time. Eduroam, as well as Govroam connects any organisation deploying the service. Eduroam has 20 million

authentications per week and was developed under the umbrella of TERENA37.

5.5 Cost Benefit Analysis on deployment of optical fibre networks for public administrations

This section summarises the results of the ex-ante Cost Benefit Analysis. It presents an approximation of the costs

and benefits involved when implementing and operating optical fibre based networks for public administrations.

NRENs bring insight into the potential structure, activities and issues related to the deployment of network

infrastructures for public administrations. They therefore provide a useful focus for a Cost Benefit Analysis.

The activities of the French government when developing the RIE network for public administrations provide an

insight into likely costs of deployment. Development of a ‘new’ network is estimated to cost approximately EUR 30

million or EUR 0.459 per capita. The development of a network on the RENATER NREN offered considerable cost

savings. The per capita cost of this type of network was EUR 0.184 per person. This represented a saving of 60 per

cent.

The possible annual cost for a ‘new’ EU-28 network infrastructure for public administrations for Member States is

estimated to be between EUR 0.153 and EUR 0.307 per capita. However, costs are likely to vary depending on the

level of security required, on the demand for existing infrastructure and on topography if new deployment is

required.

Channel shift, facilitated through new and more extensive networks linking government offices, can harness the

power and convenience of the web to transform back-office activities and to make online interactions for citizens

and businesses with government quicker, simpler and more secure. Benefits are estimated for the future

opportunities arising from back-office transformation and improved eGovernment services provided by more

extensive infrastructure networks. It was also estimated that the level of cross-border transactions that a

European network would have to carry (for 25 leading services) is 40 million transactions per annum.

Research shows that the NRENs currently have approximately 21 million users. This is a useful figure to enable

comparison (in terms of users) with the number of public administration users that might use EU28 Member

States network infrastructures. Estimates suggest that the number of public administration users of network

infrastructures in EU28 Member States could be up to 33.5 million people. If only central government personnel

joined the EU28 Member States network infrastructures, the estimated number reduces to 12.7 million. NREN

network users could remain as the dominant group if only central government personnel (estimated at 12.7

35 Fedict and Belnet, NIPS Brussels,B. Hanssens, November 13th 2013 36 http://www.geant.net/Services/UserAccessAndApplications/Pages/eduroam.aspx 37 TERENA Compendium of National Research and Education Networks In Europe, 2012

http://www.geant.net/Services/UserAccessAndApplications/Pages/eduroam.aspx


Final Report

32

million) use the network. However, they could become a minority if all government personnel (estimated at 33.5

million) use the network.

The primary benefits consistently identified by NREN users are network capacity and quality, membership/support

from the NREN organisation and the community of network users. Additional benefits arise from the provision of

network services, application services and free internal use. The financial value of these benefits could not be

estimated by interviewees, however the wide range of benefits highlights that the advantages NREN membership

offers extend far beyond the simple financial benefits that arise from joining the NREN network.

Aggregation of demand by sharing common centralised infrastructures. The adoption of cloud services by the

public sector might make further synergy possible. Aggregation of demand for both telecom infrastructures and

ICT services by sharing common centralised infrastructures might result in significantly lower IT costs38 39.

The 2013 study for the European Commission “Analysis of cloud best practices and pilots for the public sector”40

develops a model for the adoption of cloud computing based on the pooling of resources between public

administrations by using a common central infrastructure. Centralisation of infrastructures and sharing of the

infrastructures by public administrations are the main aspect of this model.

The study distinguishes between two variants. In the first variant, infrastructures are shared around a private

cloud. This offers the possibility of testing cloud computing but is also applied with the objective of cost savings.

The second variant is applied by NRENs in different European Member States. The NRENs first investigate the

public cloud for the intended cloud services. When these applications cannot be found or applied from the cloud,

NRENs develop their own specific cloud services. The study mentions cost savings, possibilities for better

collaboration between public administrations and fewer financial risks for these public administrations as main

objectives. When public administrations share a common central infrastructure, this enables aggregation of

demand and makes cost savings possible.

38 Quantitative Estimates of the Demand for Cloud Computing in Europe and the Likely Barriers to Up-take, July 13th 2012, IDC. 39 The Adoption of Cloud Services, ASPIRE foresight Study, September 2012, TERENA. 40 Digiworld, Technopolis: Analysis of cloud best practices and pilots for the public sector, 2013 European Commission, DG Communications

Networks, Content & Technology


Final Report

33

6 Drivers, barriers and success factors

In order to enable, encourage and ultimately create synergies between networks, it is important to understand

what the drivers for synergies are, what barriers have to be overcome and what the success factors are for

creating possible synergies.

6.1 Drivers

There are a number of possible drivers of synergies: evidence gathered from field research shows that advanced

players are driven by:

Cost savings

Better services.

Seen from a societal point of view, which is of course the perspective that public administrations should have in

order to serve the businesses and citizens that are their customers, these are the two categories of drivers41.

In practice, by creating synergies, and by public administrations coming together, better services could be

provided at the same cost, the same services could be provided at a lower cost or, ideally, better services could be

provided at lower costs42.

6.1.1 Cost Savings

Since public funding originates in the taxes paid by citizens and business, cost savings are always important in the

public sector in order to ensure that this money is spent in the best possible way, providing the best possible

services for the lowest possible cost43. In times of financial turmoil, when there is even more pressure on the

public sector to do more with less, cost savings are an important driver for change44. Moreover, cost savings are

an important driver for streamlining the way services are provided as well as the way the public sector procures

the services or components needed for the provision of the services.

For these reasons, cost savings are a very important driver in creating synergies, as the potential for cost savings

through synergies is significant. There are a number of different approaches to achieving cost savings in the public

sector and more specifically in the context of networks for public administrations. These approaches fall into two

main categories:

Sharing resources,45 and

Collective procurement46.

Sharing resources is essentially about sharing costs. If two separate networks both need a piece of equipment in

order to provide the network services, but could potentially share this piece of equipment, then they could

significantly reduce their individual (and combined) costs of procuring the equipment. Therefore, sharing

resources and sharing costs, leading to cost savings, is an important driver for creating synergies, as this is one of

the ways for public administrations to achieve their goal of doing more with less.

Collective procurement, which is when several potential procurers come together to procure in order to be able

to get a better deal, is essentially about increasing bargaining power (economies of scale, a concept that has been

41 As also touched upon in: Eightytwenty insights (2008). Public Service Transformation and Reform. 42 As also touched upon in: European Commmission (2013). Trends and Challenges in Public Sector Innovation in Europe. 43 As also touched upon in: Sir David Varney (2006) Service Transformation – A better service for citizens and businesses, a better deal for the

taxpayer. 44 As also touched upon in: European Commmission (2013). Trends and Challenges in Public Sector Innovation in Europe. 45 As also touched upon in: European Commission () Draft Paper: Consultation on directions for ICT-driven public sector innovation at

European Union level – Research and innovation in Horizon 2020. 46 As also touched upon in: PolicyCures (2009). Innovative Financing Mechanisms for South East Asia – Policy brief 9: pooled procurement.


Final Report

34

around for decades)47. The bargaining power of public administrations is increased when they join forces as they

can buy larger volumes (more products/services). This increases their bargaining power as such, and gives them

greater bargaining power as they represent a bigger part of the total market, meaning that they can apply more

pressure on suppliers as suppliers would not want to lose large parts of the market. Again, the cost savings that

would result from collective procurement48 are an important driver of synergies as this is a way for the public

administrations to achieve their goal of doing more with less.

Cost savings are much needed in the current financial situation of many Member States. Whilst cost savings relate

to the “with less” part of “doing more with less”, the “doing more” part is about providing more or improved

services, collectively known as better services.

A study carried out in the field of cloud computing49 highlights similar benefits in centralising the purchasing (and

in this case also the infrastructure) as: “The high level of centralisation has logically some strong benefits. The

common infrastructure should allow easier cooperation between Ministries and better savings in the long term

with the amortisation of the infrastructure and scale economies.” While there is a strong argument for resource

pooling and collective procurement, it should be noted that due to the nature of some decentralised infrastructure

required for a network (i.e. the cables), it is not possible to fully centralise the actual infrastructure as suggested in

the cloud study.

Another lesson that can be learned from this study is that the creation of a procurement framework may be

beneficial as: “Efficiency is achieved through standardised processes and procedures with cross administration

accreditations; it is also easier to monitor in terms of actual adoption and savings targets.”

6.1.2 Better Services

Providing better services helps the public sector to serve its businesses and citizens better. Whilst the network

services do not necessarily provide citizens or businesses with services directly, the networks enable the provision

of services to citizens and businesses by connecting public administrations.

With an increase in the number of services that are provided online (and in general), and with the increased

integration of such services through an increased focus on the user experience through a life-events approach to

eGovernment and other services, the public sector continues to focus on providing better services. Collaboration

and information exchange between public organisations is a prerequisite for delivering these better, user-centric

services. These services can be provided by the network ensuring50:

Higher bandwidth

Increased availability

Better reliability

More flexibility

Higher Security.

Higher bandwidth helps to ensure that any delays are reduced, meaning not only that back-office services that

enable citizen and business services are faster, but also that automatic, integrated services are faster.

47 As also touched upon in: William R. Grove, Jr. – Carnegie Institute of Technology (1967). Economies of Scale in the Provision of Urban Public

Services – As well as in RAND (1971) The Feasibility of Economies-of-Scale Analysis of the Public Sector – and in OECD (2000) Sigma Papers No 29 - Centralised and decentralised public procurement.

48 Cf. Presentation: World Health Organisation (2010) – Pooled Procurement of Medicines & allied commodities. 16.07.2010 – Geneva. 49 Cf. European Commission (2013), Analysis of cloud best practices and pilots for the public sector. 50 The relevance and importance of these is also touched upon in. European Commmission (2009) A. Data communication network services

(sTESTA) – As well as: Presentation: Fedict and Belnet, NIPS Workshop 13.11.2013, Brussels – and in: Presentation: European Commission, TESTA NG, 2nd International Conference on Cyber Crisis Cooperation and Exercises. 23-24.09.2013, Athens – and in: European Commission (2009) Strengthening the EU’s telecommunications backbone.


Final Report

35

Increased availability, i.e. less down time, is also a potential benefit, so public administration back-office services

and the automated services for citizens and businesses will be available (and accessible) whenever they are

needed.

Better reliability of the networks means that the data (traffic) required for the services will not only be more

reliable in terms of constant level of service, but also in network terms. This will make it possible to provide

network terms on improved reliability in the delivery of the data over the network (i.e. less data loss or corruption

– e.g. through built-in redundancy) as well as confirmation of receipt of the data.

More flexibility in the networks is also an added advantage in terms of providing better services, as sharing

networks or components means that a change in requirements, whether permanent or temporary, can be

accommodated more easily.

Higher security is also a potential added advantage when creating synergies and working together as the cost of

achieving this can be shared. Security is increasingly important, not only because more and more data is being

transferred over networks, but also because of the nature of the data (e.g. personal data). Furthermore, recent

revelations of security breaches have thrown the importance of security into the spotlight. However, whilst the

cost of security measures can be shared, from some perspectives this also increases risk. For example, from the

perspective of the NRENs, more entry points means more risk, or put differently, not creating synergies may be a

security advantage for some.

In the context of security, recent developments have served as a strong illustration of the security risks related to

using the internet for the transfer of data. In early June 2013, Edward Snowden a former technical worker for the

US Central Intelligence Agency revealed that the US National Security Agency was collecting communications data

from users around the world under the PRISM programme51. The revelations provoked a strong response from

leaders around Europe, including the European Commission52. Security of data is paramount and this is even more

so when the data being transferred is sensitive and personal data relating to citizens and businesses. The

information Public Administrations exchange is often sensitive and personal and therefore, security on any

network connecting public administrations must be strong. In the context of providing better services, this

includes providing more secure exchange of data, where citizens and businesses can be assured that their data is

safe.

Security measures can both be on the network related to data transmission, but also physically securing the

network. Furthermore, in the context of the revelation of the existence of programmes such as PRISM, security

becomes an issue on open networks like the internet. As many exchanges are happening over the internet, a clear

driver for a European-wide network is also that this can be a closed user group network, which in itself strengthens

security to some extent as network connections can be monitored, network audits (of entry-points) can be carried

out, unapproved access to the network can more easily be detected and monitored.

Therefore the ability to provide better services by creating synergies drives the creation of such synergies. Whilst

this may be intrinsically linked to cost savings, as more can be done with the same funds, it is important to

consider this as a separate driver since it is a major area of focus on the political agenda, and in combination with

cost savings, it forms the basis for better eGovernment and better service provision in general. Cost savings and

better services lead to more efficient and more effective government – cost savings leading to increased efficiency,

and better services leading to increased effectiveness.

However, a number of barriers can be identified that need to be overcome in order to be able to leverage the

drivers to create synergies. These are discussed in the next section.

51 For more details please see: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23768248 last visited on 07.03.2014 52 See: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-536_en.htm and http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-550_en.htm last

visited on 07.03.2014

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23768248

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-536_en.htm

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-550_en.htm


Final Report

36

6.2 Barriers

There are two main types of barrier. On the one hand, there are the barriers that directly relate to the public

sector and its ability to leverage the drivers to create synergies and subsequently save costs, and provide better

services. On the other, in addition to the barriers that exist directly for the public sector, the suppliers of network

components, typically private sector companies, can also be seen as barriers as it is not in their direct interest for

public administrations to reduce costs. Each of these two types of barrier is further explored in the next

paragraphs.

6.2.1 Public Sector Barriers

The barriers that are directly related to the public sector are barriers that affect the ability to leverage the drivers

to create synergies.

These barriers include53:

Political resistance

Silo behaviour

Fear the new network will lack flexibility

Complexity of governance

Legal barriers

Budgetary restrictions.

Each of these barriers is explained below.

Political resistance is an important barrier as there may be political resistance to creating synergies based on fears

that shared control and funding could affect the political landscape, and thereby the influence and status of the

politicians within it.

Silo behaviour. Similar to political resistance, this barrier relates to the reluctance to share and potentially give up

power or influence, but in this case, at administration level. However, in addition, the silo behaviour barrier also

relates to the fact that within many administrations there is a silo culture, meaning that they have historically

worked independently of other administrations and are not used to sharing infrastructure, experiences and

knowledge.

Fear the new network will lack flexibility is as the name suggests, related to a fear of lack of flexibility, meaning

that the current owners/operators and users of a network are reluctant to create synergies because a network

shared with others may not be focused enough on the needs of the individual administrations. A shared solution

has to be found for a number of different administrations whose needs may differ in some respects.

Complexity of governance can be considered a result of the three previous barriers and will certainly be a barrier

to creating synergies that has to be overcome at the very start. Complexity of governance relates to the fact that a

number of political and administration stakeholders will have to work together in a coordinated manner, and with

political resistance, silo behaviour and fear of a lack of flexibility, this governance will be very complex. The

complexity arises as a result of having to take political positions, power and influence into account, as well as

ensuring that the lack of cooperativeness and knowledge exchange is overcome in the design of the governance

structure. Moreover, it is challenging to ensure that the governance is structured in a manner that ensures that

the needs of all the stakeholders are taken into account and the network is flexible enough to serve all its users.

53 As outlined and touched upon in PRO INNO EUROPE (2009) Innovation in the Public Sector – Policy Brief No. 2 – and in:

European Commission (2013) European Public Sector Innovation Scoreboard 2013 – and in: Australian Government website: Barriers to innovation in the Australian Public Sector: http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/archive/publications-archive/empowering-change/barriers last visited on 06.03.2014 – and During interviews and the workshop, a number of these barriers were expressed as areas of concern

http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/archive/publications-archive/empowering-change/barriers%20last%20visited%20on%2006.03.2014

http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/archive/publications-archive/empowering-change/barriers%20last%20visited%20on%2006.03.2014


Final Report

37

Legal barriers are of course a significant issue that has to be overcome in order to be able to leverage the drivers

and create synergies. The legal barriers mainly relate to procurement54). The barrier55 is in essence that potential

providers of networks (e.g. NRENs) are (in a number of cases) not allowed to respond to tenders relating to

providing (network) services to public administrations as this would mean that they would become a revenue-

generating market player. However, given that in (a number of cases) the supplier receives public funding and

would in essence be a subsidised market player should the entity compete as a market player, this would distort

the market, thus compromising free competition.

This is clearly an issue. Whilst there are exceptions to this within the case law relating to procurement law, namely

the “Teckal” case56, procurements of this nature do not always fall under this exception or the other exceptions

set out in the staff working paper relating to procurement produced by the European Commission57. It is in this

context important to consider the significant challenges the administrations are faced with in establishing up

potential synergies, both in the way procurement is carried out, but also in setting up entities to provide such

services. Whilst it may be possible to set up an entity to provide synergy-enabling services, this is highly complex

as illustrated by the vast case law in the area58. In essence, the challenges faced by the public sector in setting up

what is referred to as a Teckal in-house exemption or a separate entity that falls under the Teckal exemption is

that these have to follow a number of rules that fall into two main categories, known as the control and function

tests59. The control test relates to the company having to be fully public, meaning no private ownership.

Furthermore, for a company to fall under the Teckal exception, the “decisive influence” over strategic objectives

and important decisions has to lie with (one or more) public authorities, thus essentially meaning that they have to

be on the board – and making the decisions. In addition to this the company’s primary goal has to be to serve the

public sector.

However, whilst the Teckal case and a large number of other cases relate to separate companies or legal entities

that can or cannot be subject to the Teckal exception, the Hamburg case60 shows the relevance of the law and

exception for administrative cooperation in relating to procurement in general. The Hamburg case was one where

“four local authorities agreed with the City of Hamburg that Hamburg would procure a waste facility with

sufficient capacity for all of them. It was agreed that capacity within the facility would be reserved for the four

authorities at a price to be paid direct to the waste facility operator.”61 The four local authorities did not have

“decisive influence” (“control”) over the agreement, but the court nevertheless found in favour of the authorities

as the agreement to cooperate was purely public, neither included private parties, nor placed any party in a better

position to provide the services than another. The new Procurement Directive includes the so-called “Hamburg”

conditions for exempting this type of horizontal cooperation, which are62:

1. It is part of an agreement establishing genuine cooperation between the contracting authorities aimed at

carrying out jointly their public service tasks and involving mutual rights and obligations;

54 As voiced by JANET and seconded by ACONET during the workshop. 55 A special thanks to Bob Day from JANET (UK NREN) for providing the iIn-depth perspectives on this barrier. 56 Retrieved from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61998J0107:EN:HTML 57 Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/docs/public_public_cooperation/sec2011_1169_en.pdf 58 For example: Teckal Srl v Commune di Viano Case C-107/98 [1999] ECR I-8121, European Commission v Germany Case C-480/06 [2009] ECR

I-4747, Stadt Halle v Arbeitsgemeinschaft Thermische Restabfall und Energieverwertungsanlage TREA Leuna Case C-26/03 [2005] ECR I-1. See paras 46-51, Sea Srl v Commune di Ponte Nossa Case C-573/07 [2009] ECR I-8127, Commission v Italy, C-371/05 [2008] ECR I-00110, para 29, Parking Brixen GmbH v Gemeinde Brixen Case C-458/03 [2006] All ER (EC) 779, Carbotermo SpA v Commune di Busto Arsizio Case C-340/04 [2006] ECR I-4137, Asociacion National de Empresas Forestales (Asemfo) v Transformacion Agraria SA (Tragsa) Case C-295/05 [2007] ECR I-2999, Coditel Brabant SA v Commune d’Uccle Case C-324/07 [2008] ECR I-8457, etc.

59 See for example: http://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12842%3Athe-use-of-teckal-company-structures-in-public-service-delivery&catid=59&Itemid=27

60 European Commission v Germany Case C-480/06 [2009] ECR I-4747 61 http://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12842%3Athe-use-of-teckal-company-

structures-in-public-service-delivery&catid=59&Itemid=27#_ftn15 62 http://www.procurementanalysis.eu/resources/Public-Public+and+Public-Private+Cooperation.pdf

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61998J0107:EN:HTML


Final Report

38

2. It is governed only by considerations related to the public interest;

3. The contracting authorities carry out 90% of their relevant activities within the agreement;

4. Financial transfers [only] correspond to the reimbursement of actual costs; and

5. There is no private participation in any of the contracting authorities involved.

Further to these five conditions are of course the conditions for the Teckal exemption, which can be considered to

be63:

1. The public authority exercises a level of control over the entity similar to that which it exercises over its

own departments;

2. The entity carries out the essential part of its activities for the controlling authority;

3. There is no private participation in the controlled entity;

It is clear that there are ways of overcoming any potential barriers to effectively creating synergies. However, as

illustrated in this section, it is a vast minefield of case law and rules. When seeking to create synergies around

networks, an example of the difficulty related to this case law is that NRENs that may want to provide network

services to the public authorities are not necessarily subject to the same level of control of the authorities as the

authorities’ own departments as they are often autonomous and run by the universities and research institutions.

Furthermore, in some cases, the NREN is also providing services and/or connectivity to the private sector.

Information provided by TERENA64 shows that of the 22 Member States that have provided information on this65,

1266 are not allowed to serve for-profit organisations, but 1067 are and of these, 768 already serve for-profit

organisations. This may be in conflict with the second point shown directly above in the Teckal exemptions.

Furthermore and finally, in relation to the third point of the conditions for the Teckal exemption, some NRENs’

core shareholders include private universities and research institutions represented on equal footing with the

public sector universities and research institutions. Similarly, in a situation where the Hamburg conditions must be

respected, whether this is NREN also procuring on behalf of the public authorities or the NREN subsequently

“selling” services or connectivity to the Public Administrations, there may be difficulties with some of the five

Hamburg conditions. Again, for example with private participation as mentioned previously in this section and

referring to both points 2 and 5 of the Hamburg conditions (also potentially point 3, however, this is not

completely clear). For point 2, any agreement that is created by public administrations with an NREN that serves

for-profit organisations can (potentially) be said not only to be “governed only by considerations related to the

public interest” if the for-profit organisations are a part of the governance of the NREN or if their needs and

requirements are taken into account in the governance of the NREN. For point 5, “There is no private participation

in any of the contracting authorities involved”, the point is very simple, as the NREN would be one of the

contracting authorities and as established, some NRENs have private participation, the conditions would not be

respected. The potential legal difficulties could be a blocking factor in creating synergies. Furthermore, even in

cases where the legal barriers may not be present or where they may be easily overcome, the perception of the

existence of these as significant barriers could mean that certain stakeholders are reluctant to drive the creation of

synergies as they think that they would likely risk legal issues69.

63 Idem 64 This information has been provided to TERENA by the NRENs in the Member States. For further information, please see the TERENA

website: www.terena.org , last visited on 24/03/2014 65 NRENs from Cyprus, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Romania and Sweden have not provide information on this matter. 66 NRENs from Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Luxembourg, Slovenia and United

Kingdom are not allowed to serve for-profit organisations. 67 NRENs from Belgium, Croatia, France, Hungary, Lituania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain are allowed to serve for-proit

organisations. 68 NRENs from Belgium, Croatia, France, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain already serve for-profit organisations. 69 It should be noted that the legal difficulties noted above, may not be an issue in all cases and the interpretation of the issues have not been

reviewed by the European Court of Justice and therefore, the interpretation may not be completely in line with the Court’s interpretation. Furthermore, more case law may have come out during the finalisation of the report or may come in the future, which can overturn or alter the conditions laid out in this document.

http://www.terena.org/


Final Report

39

There are potentially other legal barriers that could relate to e.g. privacy and data protection. However, no

concerns were voiced during the interviews, surveys and workshops about such issues, so these are not (currently)

considered to be primary barriers.

Budgetary restrictions are also a potential barrier that could become a blocking factor when trying to create

synergies. While cost savings are one of the main drivers for creating synergies, changes in the status quo will

require investment by the different stakeholders. They mainly need to invest time, but will also to some extent

have to invest resources. It is clear that in order to be able to work together, meetings have to be set up, processes

and procedures have to be defined, requirements have to be established, etc. In other words, a great deal of

analysis has to be carried out and agreements have to be reached. This takes time. Furthermore, there may be a

need for an initial investment in resources across the public administrations. For example, equipment may need to

be changed in order to be interoperable with new systems. These types of investment may not be foreseen in the

budgets of the different public administrations. Consequently, initiating the synergies may be difficult, even with

the knowledge that there will be cost savings in the medium- to long-term. A capital investment is required in

order to be able to fund this work. Such an investment may not be obvious.

The barriers outlined above are in many cases apparent from the work carried out for the study, but were also to a

great extent voiced by key stakeholders during the workshops (as reported on in the post-workshop report). While

the supply side of the equation was not present during workshops, but it is clear that there are also barriers there.

These will be further elaborated on below.

6.2.2 Supply Side Barriers

On the supply side, the companies that provide the services or infrastructure that enable the network(s) also

present a potential barrier as the synergies between the networks will potentially impact negatively on these

companies. This barrier mainly relates to reduced income.

Reduced income (specifically related to the income from leasing cables and bandwidth) could be a consequence of

cost savings in the public sector. Although some of the cost savings may be created through efficiencies in the

public sector, such as needing fewer personnel, some efficiency will be related to the procurement of equipment,

infrastructure and services from the private sector. Through sharing resources, less equipment, infrastructure and

services will be needed, and through pressure of collective procurement, the private sector will have to offer this

at lower prices. The consequence of these two changes occurring when synergies are created is that the overall

amount procured in the market will likely be reduced and the profit margins or volumes of the private companies

would also be reduced. Whilst the private sector will not as such be able to stop synergies, they may be able to

affect them and the speed at which they are achieved.

Whilst this is not, as such, a barrier for the creation of synergies by the public sector, the private sector will

probably not be eager for this to happen. Therefore, if they see a move towards creating synergies and they

consider that there could be serious consequences for a significant part of their market/income and they do not

see the opportunities linked to the synergies, then they may choose to resist. Their resistance is basically the

barrier. The resistance is likely to take the form of heavy lobbying, down-playing the benefits of synergies, as well

as making small technical barriers (or non-existent problems) seem like large barriers. However, it is important to

note that this may not become an issue, but it could be and should therefore be kept in mind. Similarly, it should

It should also be noted that it this study has not been able to create a complete overview of this barrier as it has not been possible to collect

this data. The difficulty in collecting this data for the study relates to the very late stage of the project at which this barrier was discovered. In the future it may be advantageous to have an exploratory workshop with all the relevant stakeholders at the beginning of the project to identify and further explore barriers that are only identified through discussion amongst the stakeholders and less easily through surveys or even interviews (as not all stakeholders can realistically be interviewed).


Final Report

40

be kept in mind that the extent to which this comes to be a barrier may vary from one country to another and

from one supplier to another. It can also be considered as an advantage for the player that ends up winning the

collective procurement contract. This may be a bigger contract than they previously had and than they could

otherwise have expected to get. Furthermore, there may be the potential to provide other services once the

synergies are provided, however, this may not be immediately clear to the providers.

6.3 Critical success factors

The drivers and barriers presented above are key elements to keep in mind when considering the approach to

creating synergies between networks. However, if keeping them in mind is important, it is equally important, if not

more so, to understand what is required to ensure synergies are successful. Therefore, this paragraph outlines the

critical success factors.

The list of critical success factors is not a guaranteed recipe for success. It is a list of minimum requirements. In

other words, it is the minimum that needs to be done if any synergies are to be achieved. The drivers for creating

synergies are clear and well established, but it has to be possible to leverage these by having or establishing the

most suitable environment for them to flourish in. The critical success factors are70:

Political sponsorship and policy alignment

Stakeholder engagement and commitment

Good governance and stakeholder representation

Ways to overcome legal barriers (e.g. in procurement))

Synergy-enabling procurement processes

Budgetary commitments.

Making sure that the suppliers also see the creation of synergies as a win-win situation.

Political sponsorship and policy alignment are essential because someone must take the lead and drive the effort,

demonstrate the benefits and overcome the potential political resistance. Furthermore, in order for the efforts to

be fruitful and for it to be possible to leverage the drivers to create synergies, it is important that at the level of

different administrations, the policy be aligned with the overall (national) strategy. This ensures that it can be and

is incorporated into the overall approach at administration level and is thus implemented at that level.

It is of critical importance that the leadership behind the effort be non-political in order to create all-round

political sponsorship. If the force driving the move towards synergies is political, then this will decrease the

likelihood of broad political support (as political opponents are less likely to back each other’s ideas as opposed to

backing non-political leaders’ ideas). Moreover, it is important that the highest possible level of non-political

leader drives the move towards synergies in order not only to have direct access to the highest political level, but

also to have the authority to be able to oversee the policy alignment and implementation across administrations.

With this in mind and given the need for the person to have some technical understanding in order to be able to

understand what is possible and not (at least to a certain level of detail), the ideal person to take on the role and

responsibility of leading efforts towards synergies is the National Chief Information Officer (National CIO) and in

the future, at EU level if needed, an EU-level CIO. CIOs are best placed to ensure that political sponsorship is

present and policy is aligned across all stakeholders71.

Stakeholder engagement and commitment are very important not only because stakeholders need to be engaged

with political sponsors and driving the policy alignment (as mentioned above), but also because they need to talk

70 European Commission (2014) EIS Governance – and:

P.J. Vaughan et al. System Implementation Success Factors; It’s not just the Technology, University of Colorado at Boulder – and in: Queensland Government (2009) Change Management Best Practices Guide – Five key factors common to success in managing organisational change. – and in: Mark Hannum (2008) Ten Critical Success Factors for a Succesful Change Initiative

71 European Commission (2014) EIS Governance.


Final Report

41

to each other, including at European level. The importance of stakeholder engagement is clear. It is the only way

to break down silo behaviour and ensure that the stakeholders are aware of and understand each other’s needs.

This is necessary to make sure that they think beyond just their own areas and administration. This in turn is a

prerequisite for creating an understanding of the need to work together and share infrastructure, experiences and

knowledge.

The understanding of other stakeholders is important not only in breaking down historical habits of working alone

(and administrations thus only focusing on themselves), but also in order to create an understanding of the way

others do things and of their experience. This can help in finding a common approach and improving the way

things are done within the individual administrations. That has the potential to save costs and lead to better

services. Getting a dialogue going is key. If stakeholders engage with one another and can learn rapidly from each

other how to improve their own approach, this will be a strong motivation to continue to work together and come

to an understanding of and agreements on how infrastructure can be shared.

It is important to realise how hard it can be to overcome historically entrenched silo behaviour in order to ensure

that the stakeholders do not give up at the first difficult situation when working towards creating synergies. This

creates a need for a neutral driving force behind the efforts. This neutral driving force is one that should bring the

different stakeholders to the table, initially set out the strategy and its advantages, then catalyse and enable the

cooperation and synergies. Subsequently this force should ensure that the agreements made and the synergies

achieved are in line with the overall ICT and interoperability strategies and frameworks at national level and

eventually at EU level. Finally, the driving force should ensure that once the synergies have been created and the

networks have been put in place, work continues at an operational level. This role is best taken on by the national

CIOs at national level and potentially by an EU-level CIO, but more importantly someone supported by the

European Commission.

Whilst the Commission has an important role to play in this context, it is important that the driving force be

someone/an entity with an in-depth understanding of the challenges that network owners and operators face as

well as someone that can “speak the same language” as the network operators and owners. Furthermore, it

should be an entity that has, or can obtain, the funding to drive the stakeholder engagement. (An example could

be TERENA).

Good governance and stakeholder representation are key to successfully creating synergies as these are a

prerequisite when different stakeholders are brought together, and both common and different needs across

these domains need to be considered. It is essential that the relevant stakeholders be represented in the

governance structure and that the structure provide them with the opportunity to voice their needs, requirements

and concerns so that these can be taken into account. If stakeholders are not involved properly, the synergetic

networks might not fulfil their basic requirements and there is the possibility that this group will detach itself,

revert to silo behaviour and possibly set up an entirely (new) dedicated network facilitating their own specific

needs.

To ensure good governance and stakeholder representation in the governance structures and processes, it is also

crucial to include the driving force or national CIO. Moreover, the governance structure should be reflected in the

operational management of the network, since this will ensure proper (technical) implementation of the strategies

envisioned and the agreements made. Furthermore, it is advisable to include an anticipatory element in the

governance structure, i.e. to build in processes and procedures that make it possible respond to the challenges

ahead so as to avert major shifts or unforeseen events in future.

Finding ways to overcome legal barriers (e.g. in procurement): this is another prerequisite for being able to

create synergies. As the real-life cases have shown, there can be legal barriers that make it difficult or impossible

to create synergies. It is essential to find ways for the Member States to overcome legal barriers. It is necessary to

identify ways of setting up organisations and relationship between these, as well as inter-(public)-organisation

procurement that complies with procurement legislation (and other applicable legislation). This is critical if a legal


Final Report

42

environment established for good reason (but perhaps not with this specific case in mind) is not to become the

blocking factor, leading to inefficiencies and lack of synergies in the public sector.

Synergy-enabling procurement processes form the basis for being able to leverage cost savings. The procurement

rules should allow for collective procurement and at the same time ensure that the processes are executed in the

most efficient way. This means opening up the invitation to tender to as many suppliers as possible in order to

create fair competition. Thus, the procurement processes should not just result in a complete definition of what

should be procured, but should also examine the most suitable and effective way of structuring the call for

tenders. It is however important to find the right balance between savings on procurement procedures through

the division of the call into separate lots, and the cost of preparing various lots instead of one.

Budgetary commitments. The funding required to make the initial capital investment needs to be available.

Secondly, the funding needs to be available in the right place, for the right institutions, at the right time.

Although the medium- and long-term cost savings should be economically beneficial to all stakeholders, the

investment that will be necessary from specific stakeholders to create the synergies that will lead to these savings

will depend on their needs and requirements. Once the initial costs have been defined and agreed on, the

budgetary commitments required of all relevant stakeholders can be established.

In addition, there is another budgetary commitment involving the resources required for governance and

operations. In some cases, there will, for instance, be a need to transfer part of the operating budget from one

administration to another. This aspect should be considered carefully. There is often a tendency for stakeholders

to protect and defend their initial budgetary allocations fiercely. This is another reason why the driving force needs

to ensure political sponsorship and to keep the bigger picture in mind. The political sponsorship may have to be

leveraged in order to move the topic further up the political agenda in order to ensure this opposition is

overcome.

Making sure that the suppliers also see the creation of synergies as a win-win situation. This is only a critical

success factor if there is resistance to change. In many cases, however, it can be hard to pin down that such

resistance is taking place because of its backroom political nature. Therefore, in order to overcome future

difficulties it is important that such activities be monitored, to the extent possible, or at least kept in mind. Also, as

it may be advantageous to have the Telecoms take an active role in exploring the possibilities of synergies and

giving it visibility, making it clear that synergies can be considered a win-win situation is a critical success factor

even if there is no apparent resistance.

Furthermore, if it is discovered that lobbying is taking place, then it is important to also take advantage of this.

Whilst providing an objective view of the advantages and disadvantages, it is important to leverage the attention

that the lobbying is bringing to the subject. Also from a European perspective this is especially important in the

present situation, as 2014 is the first year in which the EU budget has been reduced, so there are fewer funds to

spend in different policy areas. This is also especially important at the time of this report as a new Commission will

take office in 2014/2015 and the future sponsorship of the policy is therefore uncertain.

The critical success factors presented above are the minimum needed for an environment suitable for looking into

and initiating successful collaborations. Nevertheless, the situations across Member States in Europe might differ

and need to be considered when determining specific actions.


Final Report

43

7 Recommendations

This chapter presents recommendations on what action should be taken in order to move towards the creation of

synergies between networks. It is complemented with a high-level roadmap providing steps to be taken in order to

implement the recommendations.

7.1 Recommendations

The recommendations need to be adapted to individual countries at national level. Once the networks are up and

running at national level, and are being managed and operated successfully, synergies can be sought at a European

level. In terms of the way forward, the role of the European Commission is to support, enable and encourage

synergies at national level, but not to establish them as such. Therefore, the recommendations presented below

specifically address how the Commission can act as facilitator in helping the Member States themselves to create

synergies at national level. Several of them link closely to the critical success factors described previously.

The European Commission should:

1. Enable and encourage stakeholder dialogue and community building

2. Identify and share good practices

3. Take action to help overcome legal barriers

4. Help secure the right budgetary commitments

5. Task TERENA with ensuring a dialogue with telecom providers to the public sector, about a WIN-WIN

situation

6. Task TERENA with driving the stakeholder dialogue as well as the identification and sharing of good

practices.

RECOMMENDATION 1: Enable and encourage stakeholder dialogue and community building: this means that the

European Commission should make it possible for the stakeholders to meet on- and offline, and should encourage

them to do so and obtain their commitment. This can be done, for example, by hosting conferences or workshops,

and by building collaborative communities on relevant online platforms. What is key is bringing the stakeholders

together to discuss the main challenges encountered when (working towards) creating synergies, to share

experiences and exchange knowledge, and to voice potential concerns and needs72.

RECOMMENDATION 2: Identify and share good practices: this can serve as an inspiration for others and help

stakeholders implement aspects successfully in their Member State or public administration73. Areas, in which

such good practices should be identified, shared and explored, include to:

Create stakeholder dialogue at Member State level

Overcome legal barriers

Set up a successful governance structure and linked processes

Create an enabling political, technical or organisational environment

Encourage synergy-enabling procurement processes

Make the necessary budgetary commitments successfully.

The identification and sharing of good practices can be carried out by different means, including, but not limited

to, interactive workshops, contributions and dialogue on an online platform or a combination of these.

RECOMMENDATION 3: Take action to help overcome legal barriers: the difficulties in creating synergies whilst

respecting the relevant law and regulation are clear. Given that current setups vary from Member State to

Member State, the solutions needed may vary. However, it is important that there be clear best practices on how

72 The benefit of this was already seen after the NIPS workshop, after which a number of key stakeholders that had not previously been in

contact with one another agreed to meet to discuss possible collaboration. This was led by the TERENA representative. 73 In line with the competencies conferred upon the European Union in Art.6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


Final Report

44

to set up structures that enable the synergies whilst respecting the relevant legislation and case law. The European

Commission should, with the spirit of the relevant legislation in mind, investigate potential ways of setting up

organisations so that synergies can be enabled. Whilst it is not recommended that the Commission should provide

ways of circumventing the law with the purpose of manipulating markets or otherwise compromise the spirit of

the law, it is essential that it provide input, advice and examples of ways to overcome legal barriers in order to

enable the synergies.

RECOMMENDATION 4: Help secure the right budgetary commitments: this should help ensure that a Member

State makes the right budgetary commitments and guarantees the funds needed to initiate and create the

synergies required and subsequently sustain them. This should be done through identification of and sharing of

good practices on how to undertake this. Where possible, the Commission should also inform the Member States

how they can obtain EU funding to finance such efforts. An example is through the Structural Funds.

RECOMMENDATION 5: Task TERENA with ensuring a dialogue with telecom providers to public sector

elaborating on the win-win situation of having an enhanced optical backbone network which will enable a whole

range of services and applications. In turn this will trigger demand for advanced access networks which are the

bulk of the business in the public sector.

RECOMMENDATION 6: Task TERENA with driving the stakeholder dialogue as well as the identification and

sharing of good practices. This recommendation relates to TERENA taking the lead, under the 2014-2015 Work

Programme of Horizon 202074, in a number of activities relating to the deployment of connectivity and services to

public administrations. Practically, this mean that TERENA should assume the driving role in creating and

maintaining the stakeholder dialogue with all the relevant stakeholders in the move towards synergies in

deploying connectivity and services for public administrations (e.g. in the on- and offline fora created by the

European Commission cf. Recommendation 1 – but also by devising their own additional fora). Furthermore, in

driving the stakeholder dialogue, TERENA should identify and share good practices in creating synergies, in

addition to the good practices identified by the Commission.

7.2 Roadmap to engage the future challenges

The way forward provides some of the key steps that should be taken by the European Commission to implement

the recommendations. This basically means translating the recommendations into a (non-exhaustive) list of steps

that need to be considered in order to initiate and create the synergies.

Short term (2014). In the short term it is important to maintain the political momentum and further grow

awareness at European level as well as Member State level. To this end, it is essential to:

1. Bring relevant stakeholders from the specific network areas and domains together during one or more

interactive workshops to create a common understanding of the challenges ahead as well as the issues at

stake. The outreach activities of the study showed that people are willing to work on creating synergies,

but are not aware of the issues or who to turn to. The best approach is to bring together people who are

at a comparable level of technical, political, organisational and economic maturity75. The challenges faced

by countries who score highly in terms of their maturity on a specific dimension are not the same as in the

case of countries scoring below average. The first group are concerned with issues such as how to govern

the CUG or how to scale up to a European network76, while the second group are grappling with how

74 European Commission (2013) Draft Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2014-2015 in the area of European research infrastructures (including e-

Infrastructures). 75 See readiness analysis chapter 2. However note that the outcomes evolve over time and that a country’s current scoring may be updated

accordingly. 76 An example based on the results of the readiness analysis (chapter 2); Countries with a high score from an organisational perspective are

Austria, Germany, Netherlands (scoring 4); and Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, France, Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia,


Final Report

45

existing networks can be leveraged and combined to support a national interconnected basic network77.

Setting up physical workshops does not only means bringing together people, but also establishing strong

interaction between the participants. Through plenary sessions, participants will together discuss their

sense of urgency of specific issues, whereas breakout sessions will contribute to going into greater depth

on various topics. It is essential that all workshops wrap up the day with an overall conclusion and a

concrete action plan for further investigation or implementation. In addition to TERENA as a potential

driving force behind the workshops, key network operators and owners from the Commission, including

e.g. TESTA NG, should also be involved as a driving force.

2. Define and detail good practices: this implies providing hands-on examples of how a synergy would work

or can be organised. It is important to look ‘outside the envelope’ and investigate reference architectures

and existing synergies. Good practices should be identified within the specific political, organisational,

economic and technical dimensions and should focus not merely on the end-situation but also on how to

cope with the challenges along the way. There is no single solution. Good practice should inspire people

to design and implement a solution tailored to their organisational environment. The good practices can

be defined and shared either by complementary work or through interactive workshops.

3. Set up an online platform or build on an existing platform to enable a collaborative community. This

provides the stakeholders with a means of sharing their thoughts, experiences and knowledge and

continuing their work together. Moreover, this can also be a means of publishing additional good

practices. In addition, it is recommended that different discussion groups be set up for each dimension

and maturity level. Stakeholders can then join the corresponding group and better identify with the

discussions and challenges raised.

Medium term (2015-2018). In the medium term, it will be important on the one hand to keep up the work

initiated in the short term (e.g. facilitating workshops, identifying and sharing good practices, setting up an online

platform), and on the other to ensure a suitable monitoring mechanism.

4. Monitoring proceedings will enable policymakers properly to align their strategy at both a national and

European level. Due to the many differences between the individual countries, it is hard to predict when

they will be “ready” for the next step, i.e. scaling up their national closed interconnected network for

public administrations so as ultimately to lead to a common trans-European network infrastructure for

public services. By monitoring the effects of short-term actions and the progress made per country, the

Commission and Member States can steer efforts towards the most impactful forms of activity.

At this stage, it might also be necessary to conduct additional studies or points to new subjects to put on

the agenda for discussion. Furthermore, this step may involve the implementation of measures or ICT

solutions identified previously in support of synergy creation or dedicated nationwide network

infrastructures. Further action may also be needed to:

5. Create high-level political interest and backing for the creation of synergies by keeping the issue on the

political agenda bearing in mind in steering efforts that the Digital Agenda for Europe is up for renewal in

Slovenia, Spain and United Kingdom (scoring 3). Countries with a high score from a technical perspective are Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Sweden and United Kingdom (scoring 4).

77 An example based on the results of the readiness analysis (chapter 2); Countries with a low score from an organisational perspective are Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Romania and Sweden. Countries with a low score from a technical perspective are Bulgaria, Latvia, Italy and Romania.


Final Report

46

2015 and there will be a mid-term review of the CEF, of Horizon 2020, and of the new eGovernment

Action Plan.

Long term (2018-2020). In the long-term it is important to further leverage the work done at national level. On

the one hand, for countries that might still have a long way to go before having a single Closed User Group

network at national level, the work has to be continued by providing extra support, and sharing good practices and

knowledge on the online platform.

On the other:

6. Activities must focus more and more on ensuring the sustainability of the synergies created. The

Commission and Member States should further investigate and explore the possibilities for connecting

Member States to a pan-European network infrastructure (either an existing one like TESTA NG or a new

one). The challenges should be defined and relevant stakeholders should be brought together to further

detail the steps to be taken. These should be detailed in an action plan setting out the focus and funds

needed to ensure adequate implementation. The plan should define the governance model in order to

assure implementation and maintenance. (Key examples could include TESTA NG and GÉANT). This should

be also considered in the short- to medium-term so it is ready for the long term. This will give the

Commission and Member States time to define a potential new long term policy strategy, and more

importantly, a new investment programme before the CEF investment framework comes to an end in

2020.


Final Report

47

Annex A: Acronyms

A.S.T.R.I.D. All-round Semi-cellular Trunking Radio communication system with Integrated Dispatching

CBA Cost Benefit analysis

CCN/CSI Common Communication Network/Common System Interface

CDC Commando DienstenCentra (Command Services Centre)

CEF Connecting Europe Facility

CIO Chief Information Officer

CIP Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme

COI Cities on the Internet Association

CUG Closed User Group network

DAE Digital Agenda for Europe

DANTE Delivery of Advanced Network Technology to Europe

DG Connect Directorate General Communications Networks, Content and Technology

DG DIGIT Directorate General Informatics

DG EMPL Directorate General Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion

DG TAXUD Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union

DSI Digital Service Infrastructures

DWDM Dense Wavelength-Division Multiplexing

ECNIS Electronic Communication Networks and Information Systems

e-CODEX e-justice Communication via Online Data EXchange

EESSI Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information

EESSI Exchange of Social Security Information system

EIF European Interoperability Framework

epSOS European Patients Smart Open Services

eTEN Telecommunications networks

FTTH Fibre To The Home

G2B Government to Businesses

G2C Government to Citizens

GovCERT Government Computer Emergency Response Team

GovDNS Government Domain Name Service

GovIX Government Internet eXchange

ICT Information and Communication Technology

ICT PSP Information and Communication Technologies Policy Support Programme

ICTU ICT Unit

IECN Integrated Electronic Communication Network

IP Internet Protocol


Final Report

48

IPv4 Internet protocol version 4

IPv6 Internet protocol version 6

IRU Indefeasible rights of use

IT Information Technology

KING Quality institute for Dutch Municipalities

LSP Large Scale Pilot

MITA Malta Information Technology Agency

MoU Memoranda of Understanding

MPLS Multi Protocol Label Switching

NAFIN Netherlands Armed Forces Integrated Network

NIF National Interoperability Framework

NREN National Research and Education Network

PA Public administration

PEPPOL Pan-European Public Procurement Online

PEST analysis Political, Economic, Social and Technical analysis

PoPs Points of Presence

R&E Research and Education

RIE Réseau Interministériel de l’Etat (State Interministry network (France))

SCN RIE Service à Compétence Nationale - Réseau Interministériel de l’Etat (Service with National

Competence – State Interministry Network)

SDH Synchronous Digital Hierarchy

SGMAP French modernisation programme for public action

SLA Service Level Agreement

SPOCS Simple Procedures Online for Cross-Border Services

STORK Secure idenTity acrOss boRders linKed

SWOT-i analysis Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats and issues

TEN Trans-European Network

TEN-E Trans-European Energy networks

TEN-T Trans-European Transport networks

TERENA Trans-European Research and Education Networking Association

TESTA Trans European Services for Telematics between Administrations network

TESTA NG TESTA “Next Generation”

TETRA Terrestrial Trunked Radio

VLAN Virtual Local Area Network

VNG Association of Dutch Municipalities

WAN Wide Area Network

XML Extensible Mark-up Language


Final Report

49


Final Report

50

Annex B: Glossary

Application services Software which makes services available via the internet to institutions or companies.

Authentication and

authorisation services

The process where an entity's identity is authenticated, typically by providing evidence

that it holds a specific digital identity such as an identifier and the corresponding

credentials. Examples of types of credentials are passwords, one-time tokens, digital

certificates, digital signatures.

The authorisation function determines whether a particular entity is authorised to

perform a given activity, typically inherited from authentication when logging on to an

application or service.

Bandwidth The rate of data transfer, bit rate or throughput, measured in bits per second (b/s)

Building blocks Large scale piloted cross-border service solutions, which can be used for further

development of cross-border public services. Examples are PEPPOL, epSOS, e-CODEX,

SPOCS and STORK.

Broadband

The wide bandwidth characteristics of a transmission medium and its ability to transport multiple signals and traffic types simultaneously. The medium can be coax, optical fibre, twisted pair or wireless. In telecommunication, broadband refers to a bandwidth of at least 256kb/s as opposite to narrowband lines of 64kb/s (POTS) or 128kb/s (ISDN).

Closed User Group (CUG) A network that facilitates the exchange of data between more than two organisations

being part of the Closed User Group.

Interconnected Network A network that connects different Closed User Group Networks.

Cloud computing

The sharing of resources to achieve coherence and economies of scale similar to a utility (like the electricity grid) over a network. At the foundation of cloud computing is the broader concept of converged infrastructure and shared services. The cloud also focuses on maximising the effectiveness of the shared resources. Cloud resources are usually not only shared by multiple users but also dynamically re-allocated per demand (pay-per-use).

Common Communication

Network/Common System

Interface (CCN/CSI).

A European project relating to technical infrastructure providing interoperability of the

IT systems of the Taxation and Customs Union DG and of all National Administrations

dealing with Customs, Indirect Taxation, and fight against Fraud.

Connecting Europe Facility

(CEF)

A European initiative which addresses the transport, energy and digital infrastructure, to

create a high quality European network to ensure social and economic cohesion.

Core Service Platforms

One of the two layers of the concept of digital service infrastructures. It consists of the

central elements or hubs which will ensure trans-European connectivity, access and

interoperability.

Cost benefit analysis A method to compare the costs of a solution with the expected benefits generated by that solution. A cost benefit analysis (CBA) helps in choosing the most favourable in a set of possible solutions.

Dark Fibre Dark fibre is optical fibre infrastructure (cabling and repeaters) that is currently in place

but not being used. Optical fibre conveys information in the form of light pulses. "Dark

fibre" refers to the fact that the fibre is not lit, is conveying no light pulses and no

data/information.

Data communication Transmission of electronic data over media.

Data link layer Infrastructure that enables the transfer of data between different components of a

network. One of the functions of the data link layer is to detect and correct errors in the

physical layer.

Data exchange services A service that provides a mechanism for sending files to and/or retrieving files.

Digital Service Infrastructures In the context of this study: networked services delivered electronically, providing

interoperable services in the public interest and having an enabling charter for citizens,

businesses and/or governments.

Eduroam Education Roaming: the secure, world-wide roaming access service developed for the

international research and education community.

Electronic information

exchange

Transmission of electronic data over media.

Federated network In the context of this study: a network consisting of Member State networks that are


Final Report

51

inter-connected (either NRENs or NSPs or both) e.g. GÉANT.

Free internal use Use of a network which is free for the closed network group.

GÉANT The high bandwidth pan-European research and education backbone that interconnects

National Research and Education Networks (NRENs) across Europe and provides

worldwide connectivity through links with other regional networks.

Generic Services One of the two layers of the concept of digital service infrastructures. It consists of the

central elements which provide the functionality and content.

Gigabits

The gigabit is a multiple of the unit bit for digital information or computer storage. The

prefix giga (symbol G) is defined in the International System of Units (SI) as a multiplier

of 109 (1 billion, short scale), and therefore 1 gigabit = 109bits = 1000000000bits. The

gigabit has the unit symbol Gbit or Gb.

Government to Business

services (G2B)

Digital services provided by public organisations on behalf of enterprises.

Government to Citizen

services (G2C)

Digital services provided by public organisations on behalf citizens.

Government to Government

services (G2G)

Digital services supporting the collaboration between public organisations.

High-speed network

A relative concept related to network bandwidth, end-systems architecture and low-

latency communication. Nowadays, high-speed backbone networks operate at speeds

between a Gigabit per second up to multiple Terabits per second.

Internet

The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks that use the

standard Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) to serve several billions of users worldwide. It

is a network of networks that consists of millions of private, public, academic, business,

and government networks, that are linked by a broad array of electronic, wireless and

optical networking technologies.

Interoperability

Is the ability of diverse systems and organisations to work together (inter-operate).

While the term was initially defined for information technology or systems engineering

services to allow for information exchange, a broader definition takes into account

social, political, and organisational factors that impact system-to-system performance.

IP Address, IPv4 / IPv6

Is a numerical label assigned to a device (e.g. computer, printer) participating in a

computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication. The designers of

the Internet Protocol defined an IP address as a 32-bit number[1] and this system,

known as Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPv4), is still in use today. However, due to the

enormous growth of the Internet and the predicted depletion of available addresses, a

new version of IP (IPv6), using 128 bits for the address, was developed in 1995.

Large Scale Pilots (LSPs) Forms of digital service infrastructure solutions piloted cross-border.

National Interoperability

Framework (NIF)

A set of policies, guidelines and rules on a national level that facilitates the development

and implementation of interoperability between eGovernment services in a Member

State.

Network layer Infrastructure that delivers the components that enable the transfer of data from one

network to another network.

Network Service

Providers (NSP)

Organisations that offer connectivity to their clients across open or closed networks.

More and more NSPs offer additional services in addition to core connectivity. In the

context of this study NSPs provide this core network connectivity and additional services

to public administrations to support data communication.

National Research and

Education Networks (NRENs)

Specialised service providers offering network connectivity to research institutes and

institutes of higher education. NRENs act at a national level, connecting the different

local networks of these institutes. The 32 European NRENs co-funded GÉANT, the pan-

European network serving Europe’s research and education community.

Open standards

Specifics (norms) about hardware and software which are publicly available and

therefore can be applied by every party and which enhance interoperability.

Pan-European network

infrastructure for public

services

A European infrastructure of digital networks interconnecting the public administrations

of Member States and enabling a coherent digital deployment of European cross-border

public services.

Physical layer Infrastructure that contains the physical characteristics of a network. The layer also


Final Report

52

defines the relationship between a device and the physical medium, such as a fibre

optical cable.

Presentation layer Infrastructure that translates the data to the format that is suitable for an application.

Encryption is one of the tasks of this layer.

Public services Services provided by public administrations both between public administrations as to

their citizens.

Readiness analysis

Method to analyse the readiness of organisations (but also, for example, employees) for

certain developments. It can incorporate qualitative as well as quantitative indicators

that determine the readiness of the organisation. The degree of readiness for every

aspect, defined by an indicator, is determined by linking the value on a scale to that

specific indicator.

Trans European Services for

Telematics between

Administrations (TESTA NG)

network

An example of a DSI which serves business needs and information exchange between

European and national administrations by providing a secure, generic private

infrastructure. Secure Trans European Services for Telematics between Administration.

TESTA NG is the European Community's own private, IP-based network. TESTA offers a

telecommunications interconnection platform that responds to the growing need for

secure information exchange between European public administrations. It is a European

IP network, similar to the Internet in its universal reach, but dedicated to inter-

administrative requirements and providing guaranteed performance levels.

Trans-European

telecommunications networks

(eTEN)

A European programme set up to support the interconnection of telecommunications

infrastructure networks, and later in the area of establishment and development of

interoperable services and applications and access to them.

Transport layer

Network layer which takes care of the transfer of data between the end users. It takes

care that data are transferred properly between network elements.


Final Report

53

European Commission

Study of the readiness of Member States for a common pan-

European network infrastructure for public services

FINAL REPORT

Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union

2014 – 54 pages

ISBN 978-92-79-38658-9

DOI: 10.2759/54275


Final Report

54

@@

DOI: 10.2759/54275 ISBN 978-92-79-38658-9

KK

-02

-14

-72

2-EN

-C

study of the readiness of member states for a common pan ... · study of the readiness of member...

Documents