Whether the base is strong? 62 inconvenient questions of the electronic Government of the Russian Federation

The base of Electronic government in this article of TAdviser is meant as the following technologies:

• interdepartmental interaction (SIEI),
• system of identification (Unified identification and authentication system),
• portals of state services - EPGU (Uniform portal of state services) or RPGU (Regional portals of state services),
• AIS MFC (automated information system of the multifunction center of provision of services).

To a Unified identification and authentication system there are no questions

Let's begin with the least disputable technology - a Unified identification and authentication system (Unified identification and authentication system) which allows is authorized to work on the Internet with state (and not only) systems. The technology in itself works for the middle of 2018 pretty well, its opportunities allow to create personal accounts of applications even more functional, than a personal account on EPGU. Unified identification and authentication system developers very actively react to the notes sent in their address and quickly eliminate the revealed inaccuracies.

At the same time there is a large number of the individuals having accounts in a Unified identification and authentication system and also the legal entities having SQES (The Strengthened Qualified Electronic Signature). From practice - the technology of registration of the organization in a Unified identification and authentication system, receiving UKEP allows the organization to undergo all necessary procedures in one and a half weeks. As a result connection to the state systems based on authorization of physical persons and legal entities does not represent for users of big problems. Of course, there are also such letters in technical support of the departmental system working with a large number of legal entities: "How we can receive UKEP and begin work in a system when our director is on the run?". But it is not a technology problem.

So the Unified identification and authentication system works, allows to create applications by forces of the different IT companies and questions causes the minimum quantity.

The key objectives SIEI are achieved, but is what to work on

Let's continue about SIEI. It is the state technology which is most underestimated in respect of PR. Key appointment SIEI - to save citizens from carrying references from one authority in another. Remember, the joke was relevant until recently: "Give the reference that you have reference". There is no it in most cases now. From this point of view SIEI achieved the goal and can/has to be used for demonstration of achievements of the power. By the most rough estimates thanks to SIEI from one to ten million references daily are not REQUIRED from citizens and the organizations. If to accept expenses on obtaining one reference in 500 rubles (the applicant arrived, stood in queue, left, in certain cases also paid duty, the employee of authority spent time for acceptance of the visitor), then daily economy makes from 0.5 to 5 billion rubles which would be spent otherwise it is not productive.

In the development plan for technology it is possible to ask the following questions:

• What actual level of use SIEI in the country? I.e. amount of requests with breakdown by suppliers of information. Earlier such data were published, the truth in a mashinonechitayemy type that did not allow to analyze them.
• What average amount of requests by specific types of services for 1000 inhabitants? As well as why it changes from the region to the region? (before the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications published initial data about amount of requests, use level).
• Whether it is worth forcing and how exactly to stimulate the "lagging behind" regions to use SIEI? How to organize monitoring so that it did not provoke emergence of the wrapping systems?
• What types of monitoring work now i.e. what sort reports can be received? Whether there are reports on time of the answer to questions? What events are held for reduction of time of obtaining answers? Whether it is possible to bring closer terms of answers to one day?

Explanation. Questions are connected with the fact that a part of state services cannot be performed legally correctly because of impossibility to receive the answer in normative completion date of service. There are services lasting 5-7 days, and the normative term of the response to an interdepartmental request is 5 days.

• Whether there are reports on the number of "empty" answers (i.e. there are no answers like "data")?

Explanation. The set of answers forms automatically due to applications connection to SIEI, but a part of "empty" databases. So on formal grounds the service working, and a system does not give data for decision-making.

• Whether working capacity level SIEI of the Eurasian economic commission (EAEK) understands Ministry of Communications? Whether SIEI EAEK is going Ministry of Communications to participate more actively in a production part? What situation with existence SIEI in the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU)?

Explanation. Questions are not idle as all systems of traceability are tied on interaction about SIEI of the State Parties.

• Whether it is going to develop a technique of start of R-data in SIEI 3 (we periodically face lack of a type of data, responsible for an output, in a productive circuit)?

So, questions are asked, almost all of them are technical, i.e. rather easily solvable.

Whether should EPGU become a uniform point of filing of applications?

The most mythologized technology. In 2017-2018 two interconnected ideas are heard - through EPGU millions of services are represented and EPGU should become a uniform point of filing of applications.

Let's sort the first statement. For the analysis we will take data on EPGU for November, 2017^[1] and according to the portal of Moscow for September-October, 2017. ^[2]

On closer examination it turns out that almost all traffic of EPGU (98%) is made by 4 information services (table 1). There are six more demanded services which amount is 2 million addresses.

The number of requests for information services through EPGU (November, 2017).

The number of requests for federal services through EPGU (November, 2017).

The number of the regional services provided with EPGU does not impress - four most demanded services are requested 52,300 times in a month, this indicator is quite achievable on ten well working regional portals.

The number of requests for regional / municipal services through EPGU (November, 2017).

The number of requests for services via the Portal of Moscow in September and October, 2017.

Outputs which arise from statistics:

1) Information services, i.e. statements from databases are most popular, they are base of statements about millions of electronic services. Mass services need to be considered separately, their economic feasibility from the public point of view is so high that any realistic budgets are not critical.

2) Record in queue for receiving specific internal services is also very popular.

3) And here services in which interaction is supposed are not mass. But it is impossible to consider such services unnecessary at all. Further we will consider only not mass services. They make real project scope regarding "electronization", problems exactly here are concentrated.

For example, the large municipality or department of the federal ministry can render up to one hundred services in a month in electronic form (issue of the construction license and permission to input of objects in operation). As the driver of digitalization the contractor (authority or local government) acts as everything that increases labor productivity of employees is welcomed by their head: "It is possible to transfer input of the request for the applicant - perfectly, it is possible to create automatically resulting register - perfectly, it is possible to respond automatically to the external requests - perfectly, it is possible to monitor automatically execution of services by the staff of department - absolutely well". So, in not mass services the internal expediency of authority has a considerable impact. Let's remember this postulate. By the way, on many services readiness of the applicant for communication in electronic form is high, i.e. we do not consider the applicant and the contractor antagonists.

For automation of internal processes any specialized departmental information systems (DIS) are used. After start of portals of state services they are used for filing of applications and obtaining results. The architecture looks so - the Portal of state services is the interface of input separated from main system, communication between a system and the interface is performed through web service, processing is conducted in DIS, the non-material result of execution is transmitted to a personal account of the portal of state services. It is the key moment of the current approach.

In terms of the subsequent analysis we will pay attention that there are three points of change - the commitment form, service of transfer of the request, VIS.

We begin to ask questions.

• Whether and the truth, portals of state services are so good that they obviously have the functionality equal to subsystems of input of the departmental systems absolutely various to destination?

Let's take requirements to several services. The construction license is characterized by existence of applications on hundreds of megabytes. VIS developers recommends to do forms for services of a social security parametrical, with the fields depending from each other and also depending on the information about the applicant and members of his family in VIS. The service in registration of defects requires signing of the statement by two people.

• Whether and the truth perhaps to repeat in the interface part separated from VIS all types of formatno-logical control, work with reference books, sutevy verification of the request on the basis of the data which are available in VIS? To repeat really, but not to pretend?
• How much is department of the VIS interface on the Portal of state services? Let's not forget that except costs for creation there will be costs for maintenance in current status.

Here the list of costs - in addition or instead of the VIS interface is created the interface on the portal of state services (for each subservice), web service of data reception is created, the subsystem of processing of data retrieveds is created. The analysis of the author - at least 800 thousand rubles increases costs by one service consisting of three subservices, variability of service.

• What variability of the interface part of information systems in application to forms of statements on the portal of state services? How many times in a year can exchange requirements to a form in connection with change of regulatory requirements, operating experience of a system, etc.?
• Whether it is possible to provide synchronous financing of works on change of a departmental system and form on the portal of state services?

Explanation. For the answer to this question it is possible to use the letter of the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of AK-P13-070-20462, it is dated on August 28, 2017. Proceeding from it follows that "window" of changes of forms on EPGU in the 2017th year was about 2 months.

Let's pay attention that practice of maintenance in current status of the departmental systems is developed and not too unprofitable.

• What to do with service in case of change of requirements of the regulatory base to it and as a result, changes of requirements to the request? Whether it is necessary to stop a possibility of application before change of all chain (a form - service - VIS)?
• What duration of existence of more or less irregular shapes on the portal of state services without notes after its output to the portal of state services?

Explanation. From experience of the author - 3 months after the integration which demanded 3 months of hard works from outside VIS and the portal of state services.

• What number of the services brought to portals of state services do cease to correspond to the regulatory base annually? What with them to do, take out of service?

Sometimes it is necessary to see the following answer to problems of variability of forms - "the simplified approach" when the form on the portal consists of 4 parts:

a) Identification data of the applicant on the basis of a Unified identification and authentication system;
b) Identifier of service / subservice;
c) A big field of the comment (write a pier, everything that you want);
d) A field for applying of files.
It is possible to claim that a considerable part of regional electronic services is a variation of the described case.

Therefore we raise additional questions:

• And we precisely wanted to receive such automation? What are benefits in such option?
• What is the statement? The structured data set which is subject including the automated processing or information garbage can which it is necessary just to deliver to the specialist?

In addition to technical issues we will consider organizational features of an output of forms to portals of state services on the example of EPGU.

The current procedure of an output of services to the Portal looks as follows:

a) the developer creates/adapts VIS,
b) develops a type of data of reception of an application (2 weeks),
c) registers it in a test environment (14 working days),
d) creates terms of reference on a portal form (2 weeks),
e) gives it to the developer of a form.

If there are errors, mismatch to technological capabilities of the Portal, then there is a correction of almost all chain (duration of correction is one - two months). Further, after a form output in a test environment of EPGU and successful testing of a form at positive result the type of data is registered in production environment (14 working days) and the application form is displaid in production environment of EPGU.

• Only this scheme seems to the author not optimal?

Let's specify additional process parameters. Now specialists of Ministry of Communications (the regulations of their activity are not clear, we will add 2 weeks between points of) and e) participate in approval of requirements to a form of service). Still questions result:

• What procedure of an output of services to EPGU? Namely what rights the staff of Ministry of Communications has at approval of terms of reference on EPGU? How the procedure of work of staff of Ministry of Communications at approval of terms of reference is regulated?
• Whether there is an approved technique in which it is described that it is possible to include in a form on EPGU and what is expert opinion of staff of Ministry of Communications?

Explanation. The question is cast by real experience.

• What duties does the staff of Ministry of Communications have at approval of terms of reference? What responsibility do they bear for violation of terms of approval of terms of reference, and, above all - for the end result?
• Whether it is possible to guess in advance at signing of the contract a completion date taking into account work of staff of Ministry of Communications on approval of terms of reference?

"Standard services" - the application forms which are filled in by the applicant for EPGU using a form hub partly solve a problem, but only regarding the cost/terms of primary integration.

So, we considered enough questions for formation of the answer to the question raised at the beginning: whether "should EPGU become a uniform point of filing of applications"?

If you answer positively, then it is good to support it with statistics and to attach the estimate. And it is good to look at statistics with experts - recently authorities for achievement of control indicators send requests to themselves. Example. On separate types of service the target figure is normative set - 30% of applications should be submitted via portals. In practice the staff of authority at the end of the working day "types statistics", submitting themselves applications.

By the way, written does not follow from everything at all that EPGU is bad. A problem in the selected approach. In most cases regional portals cardinally lose EPGU as have no integration potential and do not allow to implement services differently as using "The designer of services" which was developed by the creator of the regional portal. So we pass to designers.

"The designer of state services" is a type of the information systems providing designing of an application form, several interfaces of the contractor - acceptance of the request, providing the answer. Initially these systems were or continuation of the regional portal of state services, or were able to be integrated with portals through web service. Approach arose for a long time and is implemented with different degree of success.

It is thought that use of the designer, especially at besservisny integration, was attempt to implement the concept of fast transfer of VSEH of services in an electronic form (such demands were made in 2012-2014). To all of us (to developers and customers) saw that we found the answer to an assigned task. The step, still a step seemed, here we already implement...

Use of systems based on designers happens in two options - delivery of the request (to the restrictions described above) with further manual rearrangement in a real departmental system or service execution process implementation. The second type of use makes some sense, but he is limited on time - it is necessary to pass to the normal departmental systems. We besides come to what is a departmental information system whether it is possible to create it on low code ideology (without programming) whether it is possible to create the process systems based on register approach (most of designers of services are register systems, and execution of state services has obviously expressed signs of two approaches - process and register).

Stated above "the simplified approach" is mass, it is possible to claim that 50%-90% of services on regional portals are made on this technology.

We ask questions:

• Whether it is possible to make based on the designer real complex VIS without programming?
• What real use of the electronic services created on designers? Look at experience of implementation, analyze the number of real use of services based on designers.
• How many will the working services be rendered after the analysis?
• How to get out of this situation, simple "write-off" of services from regional portals will cause mass checks from prosecutor's office?

Of course, the issues stated above should be resolved more reasonably from a point of the organization of works, but even this list - minor questions. The main issue - and why we need the portal of state services? And this question can be broken into two parts:

1) What does the portal as a point of application for electronic provision of services give us?

2) What does a descriptive part (the list of descriptions of services, administrative regulations) give us?

So, what the portal as a point of application for electronic provision of services gives us? Everyone can think up the explanation. Author's sounds so - the portal allows to fix the fact and date of application; the result of providing service is transmitted to a personal account of the portal. Seemingly probably on what is? Let's specify, at the same time on the portal of state services it is worth filling the minimum (data on the applicant, the name of subservice), the request is transmitted through web service, a specific part of the commitment form dozapolnyatsya in a departmental personal account. So cardinally all expense types on integration decrease.

Once again we will emphasize that to refuse absolutely the portal (EPGU or RPGU) as from a point of initial giving hardly reasonably. These portals bear functions of external fixing of the fact of giving. Personal accounts fix the shown results. And this function supplements the key idea - development of the departmental systems for the benefit of specific authority as we emphasized earlier.

Fixing of start time of a request of service is extremely useful as to competitive services (for example, record to the summer camp), and to time supervision of provision of services, the number of failures.

Finishing with electronic services, we will bring up some more the questions connected with existence of real demand of electronic services. Generally it sounds so - and whether there is a potential demand for transfer of services to an electronic form.

• What number of services is demanded for transfer to an electronic form?
• What number of "competitive" services, i.e. services for which receiving there is a competition (for example, signing up in school, to the winter or summer camp)?
• What "islands" of unambiguous demand exist?

There is a wish to note that answers to these questions not absolutely simple and cannot be collected by the simple analysis of statistics of regions or federals.

Let's pay attention to a huge reserve - it is services for legal entities. In a number of the directions, for example, on construction services high degree of readiness is shown by both parties - both the power, and builders.

Now we will pass to a descriptive part of portals of state services.

Many years we see that a descriptive part of portals of state services changes a little - at the portal there is a "flat" list of services and functions, i.e. business processes of the power. But these "trees" are not represented by "wood", i.e. it is impossible to visualize end-to-end processes. The author happened to see the portal of business processes of the large organization. In fact it is very similar to EPGU, but there are two differences:

a) the list is arranged hierarchically, i.e. there is a grouping on levels of processes - from the macro description before detailing. It seems that such approach is more logical for formation of the approved list of functions of authorities.
b) there is a technology of control of activity of division which relies on process description (administrative regulations), such approach stimulates to trace the owner of process to monitor quality of the description of service.

It is possible to give some more ideas which implementation will do good EPGU and RPGU. For example, in the construction industry it was succeeded to spot "The calculator of construction procedures": over the list of procedures a system for settling of a trajectory of interaction of the builder with the state at construction implementation is made. On EPGU similar functions appear in the section Life situations, but they "live" in itself, without relying on the existing information on services and contractors of services.

Briefly we will formulate the most obvious questions by a descriptive part:

• Whether there is a sense to carry out structurization of services and functions?
• Whether there is a sense to organize calculation and visualization of some trajectories (at the level of descriptions) for standard life situations with pulling up of values from the available reference books?
• Whether there is a sense to use portals of state services as a point of professional consultation?

In the professional environment the Nizhny Novgorod portal of state services acted as a standard of implementation of such function.

Functions of the AIS MFC plunge into amazement

The multifunction centers (MFC) really solved a set of problems, simplified communication with the power, are the successful state project. At the same time the physics of this process is up to the end not clear. Judge for yourself - instead of the professional from authority (for example, a social security) who understands a question, you fill out the form under supervision of "the universal specialist". Let's not forget about routine of the personnel in MFC, and it is necessary only to be surprised how this construction can be such useful. In the author's opinion, a basic reason in what in MFC the guaranteed acceptance of visitors in a short space of time due to redistribution of operators from section on section depending on loading was succeeded to provide.

And here functions of the Automated Information System (AIS) of MFC plunge into amazement. You look, at the heart of MFC the designers of services considered earlier who are cut off before acceptance of primary form without execution. Between the AIS MFC and VIS the non-automated way (the courier bringing the filled form of the statement) is laid generally. In 2018, it seems, transition to transfer of data from the AIS MFC in VIS through SIEI began (the author hoped that this transition will begin in 2013). And here we rest against the task considered earlier - the interface of input is separated from actually system. All depth of a task can be understood on the example of development of forms for obviously difficult services of Rosreestr. Let's traditionally ask questions:

• Really the interface part of the Uniform State Real Estate Register (USRER) is so simple that it can be made on some "designer of services"?
• Whether the truth someone in addition to the EGRN developer or someone from "old" system developers of maintaining the inventory can make it, at the same time having submerged in data domain?

Explanation. The council/question given to the author by S.A. Sapelnikov (Rosreestr) - "And how you are going to write service of an interdepartmental request to us is remembered, without having understood specifics of our industry?" So the main informatizator of Rosreestr considered that even for a request of statements it is necessary to study data domain of knowledge.

• If it is so easy, then why process of creation of EGRN lasted for one and a half years?

Explanation. It is unlikely the problem is primitive.

• Whether the truth that the most nervous system in a part SIEI (development of services for integration with Rosreestr - the most difficult task) will be simple for implementation in the AIS MFC?
• Whether the problem of retraining of staff of MFC to work with the new version of the PVD PC is primitive?

Let's consider "simple services" which the author not bad knows - the Construction license, permission to commissioning. They require hundreds of pages of documentation even for simple objects. Therefore we ask a question:

• How it is possible to enter paper documentation in the multifunction center and not to ruin it at o'clock of scanning, purchase of scanners of A3 format or it is more?

It is sure that many other services impose the specifics and there too it is possible to ask the questions which do not have answers.

Therefore we will ask final questions:

• Whether really to include the AIS MFC in an end-to-end chain of provision of services in a digital form?
• In what direction it is worth developing the AIS MFC?

Finishing about the AIS MFC it is necessary not to forget about very interesting direction - the IC MDM (The state information system of monitoring of providing the public and municipal services based on MFC). If this technology fully earns, it will be possible to replicate such approach and a direct effect will be considerable.

Instead of the conclusion

Why it is necessary to ask the specified questions? To understand current situation and the reasons for which we are here. It seems to the author that the reality and our opinion on it cardinally disperse. Let's understand and we will move with open eyes.