- индекс оптимизации документооборота (1д - 2,3%);
- индекс оптимизации финансовых расчетов (1фр - 1,2%);
- индекс оптимизации контрольных, управленческих и экономических
задач (1УЗ - 1,7%);
- индекс оптимизации информационного обмена (I - 3,1%).
При этом для простоты расчетов использовался средний индекс полезности мобильных приложений по следующей формуле:
На основе проведенных расчетов можно предположить, что коэффициент полезности государственных цифровых сервисов в 2018 г. составил в среднем 2%.
В дальнейшем на основе этого показателя можно рассчитывать реальные объемы средств, сэкономленных хозяйствующими субъектами при использовании государственных (муниципальных) цифровых сервисов.
При секторальной оценке во внимание могут быть приняты коэффициенты включенности государственных сервисов в отдельные производственные отношения. Они умножаются на объем ВВП каждой из отраслей экономики. Таким образом рассчитывается показатель ВВП с учетом использования хозяйствующими субъектами государственных цифровых сервисов.
Важно подчеркнуть, что отдельные приведенные результаты не могут быть оценены сами по себе, вне связи с критериями технологической реализуемости цифровых решений в системе цифрового правительства, инфраструктурной готовности и социальной поддержки развития цифрового правительства, разрабатывать методику которых еще только предстоит.
Государства, приступившие к реализации своих стратегий оценок цифрового правительства, уже столкнулись с проблемой мониторинга прогресса на социальном, политическом и технологическом уровнях по причине отсутствия общемировых показателей и критериев.
Таким образом, у Правительства Российской Федерации имеется возможность уже на начальном этапе принять участие в разработке сопоставимых показателей с учетом глобальных тенденций и синхронизировать свою систему мониторинга с международной системой.
ЛИТЕРАТУРА
1. Добролюбова Е.И., Южаков В.Н., Ефремов А.А., Клочкова Е.Н., Талапина Э.В., Старцев Я.Ю. Цифровое будущее государственного управления по результатам. - М.: Издательский дом «Дело» РАНХиГС, 2019. -114 с.
2. Косоруков А.А. Цифровое правительство в практике современного государственного управления (на примере Российской Федерации) // Тренды и управление. - 2017. - № 4. - С. 81-96.
3. Al-Khouri A.M. An Innovative Approach for e-Government Transformation // International Journal of Managing Value and Supply Chains. 2011. Vol. 2. No. 1. P. 22-43.
4. Bannister F. The curse of the benchmark: an assessment of the validity and value of e-government comparisons // International Review of Administrative Sciences. 2007. Vol. 73. No. 2. P. 171-188.
5. Bryson J., Crosby B., Bloomberg L. Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional //Public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review. Vol. 74. No. 4. P. 445-456.
6. Chu P., Sun Y.A Prospective Survey on Future e-Governance Research Directions. Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on e-Government (ECEG 2013). Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited. 2013. P. 127-134.
7. Dobrolyubova E., Yefremov A., Aleksandrov O. Is Russia Ready for Digital Transformation? // Communications in Computer and Information Science. 2017. Vol. 745. P. 431-444.
8. Graafland Essers I., Ettedgui E. Statistical Indicators Benchmarking the Information Society. Benchmarking e-Government in Europe and the US. RAND. 2013. URL: http://www. rand.org/ (дата обращения: 20.05.2019).
9. Kao C. Evaluation and improvement of e-government: The case of European countries in proceedings of the second international conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment (ICEDEG 2015), IEEE. 2015. P. 104-107.
10. Machova R., Lnлnicka M. Reframing E-Government Development Indices with Respect to New Trends in ICT // Review of Economic Perspectives. Narodohospodarsky Obzor. Vol. 15. No 4. P. 383-411.
11. OECD Government at a Glance 2017. OECD Publishing. Paris, 2017.
12. OECD. Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies. OECD Publishing, Paris. 2014. URL: http://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/Recommendation- digital-government-strategies.pdf (дата обращения: 19.05.2019).
13. OECD. Recommendation of the Council on Open Government 2017. OECD Publishing, Paris. 2017. URL: http://www.oecd.org/gov/Recommendation-Open-Government-Approved- Council-141217.pdf (дата обращения: 19.05.2019).
14. Rorissa A., Demissie D., Pardo T. Benchmarking e-Government: A comparison of frameworks for computing e-Government index and ranking // Government Information Quarterly. 2011. Vol. 28. No 3. P. 354-362. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.09.006 (дата обращения: 20.05.2019).
15. Siskos E., Askounis D., Psarras J. Multicriteria decision support for global e-government evaluation // Omega. 2014. No. 46. P. 51-63. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.02.001 (дата обращения: 20.05.2019).
16. United Nations e-Government Survey 2001: Benchmarking E-Government: A Global Perspective. UN Publishing Section. New York, 2001.
17. United Nations e-Government Survey 2003 World Public Sector Report: E-Government at the Crossroads. UN Publishing Section. New York, 2003.
18. United Nations e-Government Survey 2014: E-Government for the Future We Want. UN Publishing Section. New York, 2014.
19. United Nations e-Government Survey 2018. UN Publishing Section. New York, 2018.
20. Vintar M., Decman M., Kunstelj M., Bercic B. Integral E-Government in Slovenia // Information Polity. 2003. Vol. 8, No 3, 4. P. 133-149.
THE EFFICIENCY OF DIGITAL PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ASSESSING: THEORETICAL AND APPLIED ASPECTS
Elina L. Sidorenko
Ph.D. (in Law), Head of the Working Group on the Risks of Cryptocurrency Turnover, State Duma of the Russian Federation; Professor at the Department of Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Criminology, Director of the Center for Digital Economy and Financial Innovation, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University), Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.
Igor N. Bartsits
Doctor of Law, Professor, Director of the Institute of Public Administration and Civil Service, Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation, (RANEPA). Merited Lawyer of the Russian Federation,
Active State Advisor of the Russian Federation, 3rd class.
Zarina I. Khisamova
Ph.D. (in Law), Head of Planning and Coordination of Scientific Activity Department, Krasnodar University of the Ministry of the Internal Affairs of Russia.
Abstract
In the most of the developed countries digital transformation of public administration is rather slow; the development is far behind of the officially defined and announced schedules. In this regard, the assessment of the effectiveness of digital management becomes particularly relevant. The authors note that the effect of digitalization of public administration is often identified with improving its quality and reducing costs. However, most of the research is aimed at assessing the quality of digitalization, while the issue of studying the cost of digitalization and minimizing costs has not been given due attention. The study proposes the author's model of the analysis of digital public administration effectiveness, based mainly on the criteria of minimizing the costs associated with the introduction of digital services. To demonstrate the operational capabilities of the author's model of measuring the digitalization of the public sector, the calculations of the cost coefficient of digital services and the utility coefficient of public digital services are given. It is assumed that a suggested model will make it possible to determine the technological feasibility of digital solutions in the system of digital government and infrastructure readiness for the digitalization of public administration; evaluation of subjective parameters of digitalization and determination of the economic feasibility of the introduction of digital services in the public sector. The proposed methodology can be applied on a regular basis both at the regional and national level to assess the dynamics and statistical effectiveness of the implemented digital platforms and services, launch a single information database for ministries and departments; rate and rank regions within the framework of the multifactor measurement, as well as to assess the level of public support for the policy of digitalization of public administration (establishing feedback «consumer of digital services - state»), etc.
Keywords: digitalization; public administration; efficiency assessment; digital government; e-government; e-government development ratings.
REFERENCES
Al-Khouri, A.M. (2011). An Innovative Approach for e-Government Transformation. International Journal of Managing Value and Supply Chains. 2011, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 22-43.
2. Bannister, F. (2007). The Curse of the Benchmark: An Assessment of the Validity and Value of E-Government Comparisons. International Review of Administrative Sciences, vol. 73, no 2, pp. 171-188.
3. Bryson, J., Crosby, B. & Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional. Public Administration and the New Public Management. Public Administration Review, vol. 74, no 4, pp. 445-456.
4. Chu, P & Sun, Y.A. (2013). Prospective Survey on Future e-Governance Research Directions. Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on E-Government (ECEG 2013). Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited, pp. 127-134.
5. Dobrolyubova, E., Yefremov, A. & Aleksandrov, O. (2017). Is Russia Ready for Digital Transformation? Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 745, pp. 431-444.
6. Dobrolyubova, E.I., Yuzhakov, V.N., Efremov, A.A., Klochkova, E.N., Talapina, E.V. & Startsev, Ya.Yu. (2019). Tsifrovoe budushchee gosudarstvennogo upravleniya po rezul'tatam [Digital Future State of Performance Management]. Moscow: “Delo”.
7. Graafland, E.I. & Ettedgui, E. (2013). Statistical Indicators Benchmarking the Information Society. Benchmarking e-Government in Europe and the US. RAND. Available at: http:// www.rand.org/ (accessed: 19 May, 2019)
8. World Bank (2016). Tsifrovoe pravitel'stvo 2020: perspektivy dlya Rossii. [Digital Government 2020. Prospects for Russia]. Available at: http://www.iis.ru/docs/DigitalGovernmen- tRussia2020RUS.pdf (accessed: 19 May, 2019)
9. Kao, C. (2015). Evaluation and Improvement of E-Government: The Case of European Countries. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment (ICEDEG 2015), IEEE, pp. 104-107.
10. Kosorukov, A.A. (2017). Tsifrovoe pravitel'stvo v praktike sovremennogo gosudarstvennogo upravleniya (na primere Rossiyskoy Federatsii) [Digital Government in the Modern Public Administration Practice (the Example of the Russian Federation)]. Trendy i upravlenie, no 4, pp. 81-96.
11. Mдchovд R. & Lnenicka M. (2015). Reframing E-Government Development Indices with Respect to New Trends in ICT. Review of Economic Perspectives. Narodohospodarsky Obzor, vol. 15, no 4, pp. 383-411.
12. OECD. (2017).Government at a Glance 2017. OECD Publishing, Paris. 2017.
13. OECD. (2014). Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/Recommen- dation-digital-government-strategies.pdf (accessed: 19 May, 2019)
14. OECD. (2017). Recommendation of the Council on Open Government 2017. OECD Publishing, Paris. 2017. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/gov/Recommendation-Open-Govern- ment-Approved-Council-141217.pdf (accessed: 19 May, 2019).
15. Rorissa, A., Demissie, D. & Pardo, T. (2011). Benchmarking E-Government: A Comparison of Frameworks for Computing E-Government Index and Ranking. Government Information Quarterly, vol. 28, no 3, pp 354-362. Available at: doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.09.006 (accessed: 19 May, 2019).
16. Siskos, E., Askounis, D. & Psarras, J. (2014). Multicriteria Decision Support For Global E-Government Evaluation. Omega, no 46, pp. 51-63. Available at: doi.org/10.1016/j.omega. 2014.02.001(accessed: 19 May, 2019).
17. United Nations (2001). United Nations E-Government Survey 2001: Benchmarking E-Government: A Global Perspective. New York: UN Publishing Section.
18. United Nations (2003). United Nations e-Government Survey 2003 World Public Sector Report: E-Government at the Crossroads. New York: UN Publishing Section.
19. United Nations (2014). United Nations e-Government Survey 2014: E-Government for the Future We Want. New York: UN Publishing Section.
20. United Nations (2018). United Nations e-Government Survey 2018. New York: UN Publishing Section.
21. Vintar, M., Decman, M., Kunstelj, M. & Bercic, B. (2003). Integral E-Government in Slovenia, Information Polity, vol. 8, no 3, 4, pp. 133-149.
22. Экономический журнал ВШЭ. 2019. Т. 23. № 1. С. 61-89. HSE Economic Journal, 2019, vol. 23, no 1, pp. 61-89.