KS_SC9_D03.05_Inception report template - European …



DG [Name]Unit [Name]ICT Inception Report templateAssessment of ICT impacts of the [Name of the initiative]Date: [Issue Date]Doc. Version: [6.00]This report was carried out for the European Commission by:591185344614500Disclaimer 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 European Commission. The European Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this document. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on the European Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.? European Union, 2015Table of contents TOC \o "1-3" \f \h \z \t "Executive summary,1" Disclaimer PAGEREF _Toc445996788 \h 21. Introduction PAGEREF _Toc445996789 \h 52. Methodology PAGEREF _Toc445996790 \h 62.1. Step I: Define the scope of the ICT assessment PAGEREF _Toc445996791 \h 62.1.1Identify the ICT relevance of the policy problem and objectives PAGEREF _Toc445996792 \h 62.1.2Define the technical scenarios PAGEREF _Toc445996793 \h 62.2. Step II: Prepare the ICT assessment PAGEREF _Toc445996794 \h 82.2.1Analyse stakeholders PAGEREF _Toc445996795 \h 82.2.2Build the ICT cost-benefit model PAGEREF _Toc445996796 \h 102.2.3Define the data collection methods PAGEREF _Toc445996797 \h 122.2.4Define the assessment criteria PAGEREF _Toc445996798 \h 132.3. Step III: Assess the ICT impacts PAGEREF _Toc445996799 \h 142.3.1Collect and analyse data PAGEREF _Toc445996800 \h 142.3.2Compare the technical scenarios and make recommendations on the policy options PAGEREF _Toc445996801 \h 153. Work Plan PAGEREF _Toc445996802 \h 164. Risks, Issues and Decisions PAGEREF _Toc445996803 \h 17Table of tables TOC \h \z \c "Table" Table 1 Link between ICT and the policy options PAGEREF _Toc445996804 \h 6Table 2 Mapping between technical scenarios and policy options PAGEREF _Toc445996805 \h 7Table 3 Summary of the stakeholder groups PAGEREF _Toc445996806 \h 8Table 4 Regulatory costs and benefits per stakeholder group and technical scenario PAGEREF _Toc445996807 \h 9Table 5 Mapping requirements and ICT costs PAGEREF _Toc445996808 \h 11Table 6 Benefits per technical scenario (and stakeholder group) PAGEREF _Toc445996809 \h 11Table 7 Mapping of the data collection methods per stakeholder group PAGEREF _Toc445996810 \h 12Table 8 List of documents for desk research PAGEREF _Toc445996811 \h 12Table 9 List of stakeholders to consult PAGEREF _Toc445996812 \h 13Table 10 Summary of the list of assessment criteria and related weightings PAGEREF _Toc445996813 \h 13Table 11 Comparison of the technical scenarios PAGEREF _Toc445996814 \h 15Table 12 Risk Log PAGEREF _Toc445996815 \h 17Table 13 Issue Log PAGEREF _Toc445996816 \h 18Table 14 Decision Log PAGEREF _Toc445996817 \h 18IntroductionThe ICT Inception Report template is developed to support the policy makers and ICT experts going through a detailed ICT assessment. Pre-formatted so as to follow the Commission proposed methodology for assessing ICT impacts, it serves as a starting point for defining the scope and preparing an ICT assessment. As a result, this template should be filled-in by policy makers and ICT experts and ideally submitted for review to the Inter-Service Steering group (including the initiative lead DG) before the actual assessment of ICT impacts (including data collection activities).[The introduction should include:A summary of the context and background of the initiative going under the assessment of ICT impacts;The purpose of any assessment of ICT impacts in general and in the particular case of the concerned initiative;The purpose of the document and how it is articulated.]MethodologyThe proposed methodology for assessing ICT impacts comprises three (3) steps, namely: Step I: Define the scope of the ICT assessment; Step II: Prepare the ICT assessment; Step III: Assess the ICT impacts.Step I: Define the scope of the ICT assessmentThe first step of the methodology aims to define the scope of the ICT assessment of a new Commission initiative: [Include the name of the new Commission initiative and information on its context and background].For this purpose, the following key elements should be identified prior the actual assessment of ICT impacts: the ICT relevance of the policy problem and objectives (Section REF _Ref421269465 \r \h \* MERGEFORMAT 2.1.1) and the technical scenarios (Section REF _Ref421284683 \r \h \* MERGEFORMAT 2.1.2).Identify the ICT relevance of the policy problem and objectives[Describe the policy problem and objectives related to this new Commission initiative as identified in the regulatory IA and explain how ICT or Internet drivers are linked to the problem and could contribute to achieving the objectives in an efficient and effective way.In relation to the problem definition, you should address the following questions:Are there insufficient/outdated ICT means influencing the problem?Are there trends indicating that digital technology could change the nature of the problem?How will the problem evolve over time if digital technologies are not used as needed?Ensure that you set the objectives of the present study so that they are aligned and serve well the policy objectives.]Define the technical scenarios[Describe how ICT can leverage the implementation of each policy option, baseline (“do nothing”) included.Ensure that:All policy options, ICT and non-ICT related are listed (for the non-ICT related options, explain why no ICT relevance exists);The policy options presenting the potential to be "Internet Ready" are clearly identified.This information can be presented using the following table.]Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 1 Link between ICT and the policy optionsPolicy Option code(PO)Policy Option Short Title (POST)DescriptionICT leveragePO01<POST01>< Description of the policy option >< Description of how ICT can leverage the implementation of the policy option >PO02<POST02>……PO03<POST03>……[Based on the information entered in REF _Ref421284263 \h \* MERGEFORMAT Table 1, define and describe the technical scenarios that should be in the scope of this ICT impact assessment and indicate how these relate to the policy options. REF _Ref422932737 \h \* MERGEFORMAT Table 2 can be used to facilitate the mapping between policy options and technical scenarios.Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 2 Mapping between technical scenarios and policy optionsTechnical Scenariocode (TS)Technical ScenarioShort Title (TSST)DescriptionRelated Policy Option(code and Short Title)TS01<TSST01>< Description of the technical scenario, including a list of main requirements >< List of policy options for which the technical scenario can be used : PO-<POST>TS02<TSST02>……TS03<TSST03>……While one technical scenario can be defined for several policy options; one policy option can also be implemented by different technical scenarios. The ultimate objective of the assessment of the costs and benefits of each technical scenario is to provide an input to policy makers on the level of ICT impacts of each policy option.]Figures and graphs can be added to illustrate the technical scenarios selected.Step II: Prepare the ICT assessmentThe second step of the methodology aims to prepare the ICT assessment through the identification of four key elements:Stakeholders affected by the technical scenarios (Section REF _Ref421269445 \r \h 2.2.1);ICT cost-benefit model related to the technical scenarios/requirements (Section REF _Ref423021625 \r \h 2.2.2);Data collection methods to be employed (Section REF _Ref421277581 \r \h 2.2.3);Assessment criteria to be used for choosing the preferred technical scenario (Section REF _Ref421269456 \r \h 2.2.4).Analyse stakeholders[Based on the different stakeholder groups affected (either positively or negatively) by the policy options, profile the ones who will be specifically affected by the technical scenarios defined in section REF _Ref421284683 \r \h 2.1.2 (e.g. size and role of each stakeholder group, description of how they are affected by the technical scenarios).The profile of each stakeholder group can be summarised using REF _Ref422933238 \h \* MERGEFORMAT Table 3.Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 3 Summary of the stakeholder groupsStakeholder Group code (SG)Stakeholder Group Name (SGN)Size of the stakeholder groupDescription of the stakeholder groupSG01< SGN01 >< Size of the stakeholder group N°01 (in number of persons)>< Description of the role of the stakeholder group N°01 and how they are affected by the technical scenarios.>SG02< SGN02 >…………At the end of this analysis, all potential impacts – positive or negative – should be mapped out according to the specific parties that would be affected. For this purpose, the impacts identified in REF _Ref422933238 \h \* MERGEFORMAT Table 3 should be mapped to the regulatory costs and benefits described in the Better Regulation guidelines 2015. A linkage between a regulatory cost or benefit and the related stakeholder group affected can be denoted by ticking the concerned cell.The mapping can be performed using REF _Ref423002385 \h \* MERGEFORMAT Table 4 (for each technical scenario).]Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 4 Regulatory costs and benefits per stakeholder group and technical scenarioTechnical Scenario code (TS) and Short Title (TSST): TS-<TSST>CategorySub-categoryStakeholder Group code (SG) and Name (SGN)SG01-<SGN01>SG02-<SGN02>…COSTSDirectDirect compliance costsRegulatory chargesSubstantive compliance costsAdministrative burdensHassle costsHassle costsEnforcementOne-off adaptation costsInformation costs and administrative burdensMonitoringAdjudicationEnforcementIndirectIndirect compliance costsIndirect compliance costsOther indirect costsSubstitution effectsTransaction costsReduced competition and inefficient resource allocationReduced market accessReduced investment and innovationUncertainty and investmentBENEFITSDirectImproved well-beingImproved market efficiencyIndirectBenefits from third-party compliance with legal rulesWider macroeconomic benefitsOther, non monetizable benefitsAssuming that ICT costs are mainly substantive compliance costs or indirect compliance costs (as highlighted in REF _Ref423002385 \h \* MERGEFORMAT Table 4), for the other categories of costs and for all categories of benefits, estimates should be performed in accordance to the Better Regulation guidelines and toolbox 2015.]Build the ICT cost-benefit modelICT costs[Map the main requirements related to each technical scenario to ICT costs, using VAST taxonomy and taking into account whether these costs are one-off or ongoing. Following VAST, five categories of costs should be analysed while defining the mapping between requirements and ICT costs:Infrastructure costs provide the total (anticipated) cost of the hardware (e.g. network, servers, storage) and software (e.g. licences, libraries) required to develop, support, operate and maintain the online collection system;Development costs provide the total (anticipated) cost (human resources) for the development of the system (e.g. analysis and process re-engineering activity, coding activity, project management activity, test activity, configuration & change management activity, deployment activity);Maintenance costs provide the total (anticipated) cost (human resources) in person days per year to maintain the system (e.g. activities related to both corrective maintenance and evolving maintenance);Support costs provide the total (anticipated) cost (human resources) in person days per year to support the system, its users and end-users;Training costs are related to the costs to train systems’ users. REF _Ref423006079 \h \* MERGEFORMAT Table 5 can be used to perform this mapping. For one-off costs, a simple linkage between the requirement and the category of costs can be denoted by ticking the concerned cell. For ongoing costs, the number of years during which the cost is foreseen should be added in the concerned cell.]Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 5 Mapping requirements and ICT costsRequirementsInfrastructureDevelopmentMaintenanceSupportTrainingOne-offOngoingOne-offOngoingOne-offOngoingOne-offOngoingOne-offOngoingTS01<Requirement n°01><number of years><number of years><number of years><number of years><number of years><Requirement n°02>……………………………TS02<Requirement n°01>……………<Requirement n°02>………………………………<Requirement n°01>……………………………At a later stage the ticks and number of years will be replaced by the ICT costs associated to each requirement. These costs will provide an estimate of the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for each technical scenario assessed.ICT benefits[Identify all the benefits related to each technical scenario and for each stakeholder group and map them to their corresponding category of regulatory benefits, as defined in the Better Regulation guidelines and toolbox 2015. REF _Ref422315064 \h \* MERGEFORMAT Table 6 can then be used to describe each type of regulatory benefits, at least qualitatively and, when possible, quantitatively.] For more information on how to identify and estimate benefits, please refer to the ISA method.Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 6 Benefits per technical scenario (and stakeholder group)TECHNICAL SCENARIOQualitative descriptionQuantitative descriptionStakeholder group N°1Benefits Improved well-beingImproved market efficiencyBenefits from third-party compliance with legal rulesWider macroeconomic benefitsOther, non monetizable benefitsStakeholder group N°XBenefitsImproved well-beingImproved market efficiencyBenefits from third-party compliance with legal rulesWider macroeconomic benefitsOther, non monetizable benefitsThe assessment of the benefits will provide inputs when comparing the technical scenarios against a set of assessment criteria (please refer to Section REF _Ref424048932 \r \h 2.3.2).Define the data collection methods[Based on the stakeholder analysis results and on the specificities of each data collection method, define the most appropriate data collection method(s) to get inputs on the ICT impacts of the technical scenarios for each stakeholder group, whether positive or negative, qualitative or quantitative. Complete the following table to depict the mapping between the stakeholder groups and data collection methods to use.]For more explanation on the specificities of each research method, please refer to the ISA method.Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 7 Mapping of the data collection methods per stakeholder groupStakeholder Group code (SG) and Name (SGN)Desk researchInterviewsFocus groupsQuestionnaire surveysWorkshopOthersSG01-<SGN01>SG02-<SGN02>…[Define the list of documents that should be analysed with desk research. This information can be presented using the following table.]Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 8 List of documents for desk researchID1< Title > < Author(s) > < Year of publication > < Country, city of Publisher > < Hyperlink >2< Title > < Author(s) > < Year of publication > < Country, city of Publisher > < Hyperlink >3…[Define the list of stakeholders who should be consulted, via e.g. interviews, questionnaire surveys and workshops as well as the purpose of these consultations.This information can be presented using the following table.]Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 9 List of stakeholders to consultStakeholder Group code (SG) and Name (SGN)Name/ SurnameOrganisationData Collection methodSG01-<SGN01>SG02-<SGN02>…Define the assessment criteria[Define the list of criteria (e.g. efficiency, effectiveness, coherence) to be used to evaluate the technical scenarios. In line with the Better Regulation guidelines 2015, the main assessment criteria against which the technical scenarios should be compared are effectiveness and efficiency. Additional ones, such as the technical feasibility, coherence, relevance and EU added value of the technical scenarios, may be introduced as needed.Drill down each criterion into sub-criteria (when possible) and assign a weighting to each of these sub-criteria. The sum of these weightings will provide the weighting at criterion level. REF _Ref421274933 \h \* MERGEFORMAT Table 10 can be used to display the list of criteria, sub-criteria and their related weightings.] For more explanation on how to assign weightings to the different criteria, please refer to the ISA method.Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 10 Summary of the list of assessment criteria and related weightingsWeighting(assessment criteria)Assessment criteriaWeighting(sub-criteria)Sub-criteriaW1 EfficiencyN/AN/AW2 =m=1M2w2,mEffectivenessw2,1< Name and description of sub-criterion N°1 >w2,2< Name and description of sub-criterion N°2 >w2,M2< Name and description of sub-criterion N°M2>WK =m=1MkwK,m< Name and description of the assessment criterion N°K>wK,1< Name and description of sub-criterion N°1 >wK,Mk< Name and description of sub-criterion N°Mk >Step III: Assess the ICT impactsThe third and last phase of the methodology aims to conduct the ICT assessment. For this purpose, two key actions have been identified, as listed below:Collect and analyse data (sub-section REF _Ref421277546 \r \h 2.3.1);Compare the technical scenarios and make recommendations on the policy options (sub-section REF _Ref421277551 \r \h 2.3.2).Collect and analyse data[Explain how you intend to control the quality of the collected data. For instance, you can cross-check the coherence, reliability and validity of the information/data collected, by applying different methods, using different data sources and/or consulting different experts (triangulate).RACER (Relevant, Accepted, Credible, Easy to monitor and Robust against manipulation) technique can also be used to control data quality, as mentioned in the Better Regulation toolbox.Relevant: closely linked to the objectives to be reached (in this case, measured). Relevance indicators should not be overambitious and should measure the right thing (e.g. a target indicator for health care could be to reduce waiting times but without jeopardising the quality of care provided).Accepted: The role and responsibilities for the indicator need to be well defined (e.g. if the indicator is the handling time for a grant application and the administrative process is partly controlled by Member States and partly by the EU then both sides would assume only partial responsibility).Credible: Indicators should be simple and robust, unambiguous and easy to interpret. If necessary, composite indicators might need to be used instead – such as country ratings, well-being indicators, but also ratings of financial institutions and instruments. These often consist of aggregated data using predetermined fixed weighting values. As they may be difficult to interpret, they should be used to assess broad context only.Easy to monitor (e.g. data collection should be possible at low cost).Robust against manipulation: e.g. if the target is to reduce administrative burdens to businesses, the burdens might not be reduced, but just shifted from businesses to public administration.Explain how you will analyse the data so as to come up with an assessment of the (regulatory) costs and benefits of each technical scenario, per group of stakeholders.]For more information on how to design and address an interview guide or a questionnaire survey, or how to prepare and animate a workshop or focus group, please refer to the ISA method.For more information on the quality controls, please refer to the ISA method. Compare the technical scenarios and make recommendations on the policy options[Explain that you will evaluate how well each technical scenario meets the assessment criteria defined in Section REF _Ref421275626 \r \h 2.2.4, taking into account the key findings from the data analysis and the weighting attributed to each assessment criterion:Assessment criteria could be of both types: quantitative and qualitative.For quantitative assessments, estimate the monetary value (monetised costs minus monetised benefits). This is usually the case for efficiency, some or all of effectiveness, as well as for other assessment criteria as appropriate.In any case, use a scoring mechanism from 1 (lowest) to N (highest) in order to rank the technical scenarios against each sub-criterion and criterion."N" corresponds to the number of scenarios assessed: if three (3) technical scenarios are compared, the scoring mechanism should go from 1 (lowest) to 3 (highest=most favoured); if four (4) technical scenarios are compared, the scoring mechanism should go from 1 (lowest) to 4 (highest).The following table could be used for the scoring mechanism. Try to complete it, if possible, with some preliminary data. If this is not possible, the table will be used for the ICT Final Report.Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 11 Comparison of the technical scenariosAssessment criteriaWeightingTechnical Scenario code (TS) and Short Title N°1 TS01-<TSST>…Technical Scenario code (TS) and Short Title N°N TSN-<TSST>Quantitative criteria, e.g. efficiency, effectiveness, etc.Assessment criterion N°1 (monetised) W1 S1(1) S1(N)Total monetary value (in EUR)Qualitative criteria, e.g. effectiveness, technical feasibility, coherence, relevance, EU added value).Assessment criterion N°2W2 S2(1) S2(N)Sub-criterion N°1w2,1 S2,1(1)… S2,1(N)Sub-criterion N°2w2,2 S2,2(1) S2,1(N)Sub-criterion N°M2w2,M2 S2,M2(1) S2,M2(N)Assessment criterion N°KWK SK(1) SK(N)Sub-criterion N°1wK,1 SK,1(1)… SK,1(N)Sub-criterion N°MkwK,Mk SK,Mk(1) SK,Mk(N)Total ScoreFinally, explain that you will determine the implications of these results on the policy options and make recommendations.]For more explanation on the formula used to calculate the preferred technical scenario, please refer to the ISA method.Work Plan[Define the timeline of the assessment of ICT implications, specifying the starting dates and ending dates of each of the activities mentioned above, the dependencies of the different activities and the key milestones to achieve.]Risks, Issues and Decisions[Log the risks, issues and key decisions made (if any) before starting the assessment and update them regularly along the exercise. Following project management methodologies, such as PM?, risks, issues and decisions should be documented (e.g. risks likelihood, level and impact, mitigation actions).The following tables can be used to respectively log the risks, issues and decisions identified during the assessment.]Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 12 Risk LogRisk identification and descriptionRisk AssessmentRisk ResponseIDRisk NameRisk Description & DetailsStatusIdentification DateLikelihoodImpactRisk LevelRisk OwnerRisk mitigation actionMitigation action DetailsRLO1<Short title><Detailed text 1><Proposed><Date XX/XX/XXX><from 1 to 5><from 1 to 5><Likehood*Impact><Name><Avoid><Detailed text>RLO2<Short title><Detailed text 2><Investigating>…………<Reduce>…RLO3<Short title><Detailed text 3><Waiting for Approval><Accept>RLO4<Short title><Detailed text 4><Approved><Transfer/ Share>RLO5<Short title><Detailed text 5><Rejected>RL06<Short title><Detailed text 6><Closed>Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 13 Issue LogIssue identification and DescriptionIssue Assessment and Action DescriptionIDIssue nameIssue Description & DetailsStatusIdentification DateUrgencyImpactSizeIssue ownerILO1<Short title><Detailed text 1><Open><Date XX/XX/XXX><from 1 to 5><from 1 to 5><from 1 to 5><Name>ILO2<Short title><Detailed text 2><Postponed>……………ILO3<Short title><Detailed text 3><Resolved>ILO4<Short title><Detailed text 4>ILO5<Short title><Detailed text 5>Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 14 Decision LogDecision identificationOwnershipDecision implementationIDDecision nameDecision descriptionDecision ownerDecision dateDLO1<Short title><Detailed text 1><Name><Date XX/XX/XXX>DLO2…………DLO3DLO4DLO5For more information on the content on how to complete these tables, please refer to PM? templates. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download