Ratings of the regions of Russia for the development of information technologies

2021

Minek issued a rating of regions on the quality of provision of electronic public services

In June 2022, the Ministry of Economic Development presented the results of monitoring the quality of electronic services in Russian regions. In the course of the study, experts analyzed 408 of the most demanded socially significant services provided by the executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments on the Unified Portal of gosuslugi.ru and regional portals of state and municipal services.

When compiling the rating, various parameters were assessed that affect the quality of receiving an electronic service, for example, the availability of complete information on the procedure for providing it, the convenience of submitting an application, the ability to track its status in your personal account and reduce the number of face-to-face visits to departments.

Rating of regions in terms of the quality of provision of electronic public services

Moscow became the leader in the quality of provision of state and municipal services in electronic form (95.84 points at the end of 2021). The capital topped the rating compiled by the Ministry of Economic Development for the third year in a row, said Deputy Mayor Natalya Sergunina. The second and third places were taken by the Moscow and Tula regions with results of 84.19 and 83.67 points, respectively.

Monitoring stimulates the regions to constantly improve the quality of the provision of state and municipal services, says State Secretary - Deputy Minister of Economic Development of the Russian Federation Alexei Khersontsev. - A peculiarity of monitoring in 2021 was its conduct on a limited and previously unknown list of services for the regions, which, in our opinion, increased its objectivity, equalizing the possibilities of its participants. The task is to achieve a fully proactive nature of the provision of the service. So that the convenience of interaction with the state corresponds to the level of popular banking applications and electronic trading platforms.[1]

Rating of Russian regions for Internet work

At the end of November 2021, it became known about the rating of regions for working on the Internet, which was compiled by the Dialogue ANO. Experts assessed all subjects of the Russian Federation, except for Moscow, the Moscow region and Chechnya, according to five parameters:

• speed and quality of feedback in the "Incident Management" system;
• development of information threats;
• infrastructure (working with official and unofficial publics, personal accounts of heads of regions);
• information campaigns;
• activities of the Regional Management Center (SDG).

ANO "Dialogue" presented a rating of Russian regions for working on the Internet

The Kaluga region (86 points) is the leader in terms of indicators, followed by Tatarstan and the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug (84 points each), Kemerovo and Tyumen regions (83 points each) close the top three. In fourth place were the Magadan Region and Kalmykia (82 points each). Next are the Nenets and Chukotka Autonomous Okrugs, Sevastopol, Tula Region (81 points each).

Less than 70 points were scored and ended up in the "red zone" Voronezh, Murmansk, Penza, Sakhalin, Chelyabinsk, Yaroslavl, Volgograd, Kurgan, Sverdlovsk, Smolensk, Ivanovo, Novosibirsk, Ryazan, Kaliningrad, Vladimir and Tver regions, Ingushetia, North Ossetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Bashkiria, Mari El, Karelia, Krasnodar and Khabarovsk Territories. Experts did not assess Moscow, Moscow region and Chechnya.

The head of the Petersburg Politics Foundation, Mikhail Vinogradov, believes that such a rating demonstrates the integration of governors into the KPI system for working with social networks, which is set by the Kremlin, and is an element of building a common language with federal curators.

And then it all depends on the style of work of the governors: someone believes that social networks and the Internet are very important and the faster you react to people's appeals, the higher the manageability and assessment of your work, he said.[2]

2019: Region Ranking for End-to-End Digital Technology Development

In October 2021, the Institute for Statistical Research and Knowledge Economics (ISIEZ) of the Higher School of Economics published a rating of the involvement of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in the development of "end-to-end" digital technologies (SCT), which include neurotechnology and artificial intelligence, distributed registry systems, quantum and new production technologies, robotics and sensory components, wireless communications and virtual and augmented reality technologies (VR and AR).

The place in the ranking was determined by the total contribution of the region to the total flow of submitted applications for inventions related to all SCTs. The capital accounted for 40.6% of domestic patent applications for SCT (11.3 thousand in 2010-2019). The strongest positions Moscow were taken in the development of distributed registry systems (75.4% of all domestic patent applications for inventions filed Russia in this SCT over the past decade), virtual and augmented reality (54.9%), neurotechnology and (artificial intelligence 54.6%), wireless communication (53.6%).

The contribution of the other two leading regions to the flow of domestic patent applications for SCT inventions is somewhat more modest - 8.6% (2.4 thousand) in St. Petersburg and 5.8% (1.6 thousand) in the Moscow region. The sphere of their most noticeable influence is also more limited: both regions demonstrate high performance in the field of patenting robotics and sensorics technologies, and developers from St. Petersburg have succeeded in the field of virtual and augmented reality.

According to the results of the rating, the regions were divided into four groups. In the first - "national leaders" (leading positions in almost all SCTs), these are the top 3 regions. Moscow in it occupies the strongest positions in four of the seven technology groups. The second group is regions specializing in individual SCT groups (Voronezh, Nizhny Novgorod, Novosibirsk, Samara, Saratov and Sverdlovsk regions, Tatarstan and Bashkortostan, Krasnoyarsk and Perm Territories).

The third group includes regions that successfully develop non-specialized neurotechnologies and artificial intelligence, VR and AR technologies and distributed registry systems. These are the Oryol and Rostov regions and the Krasnodar Territory, where the ratings of applicants in the field of SCT are headed by universities. The fourth group is the most numerous. These are 69 regions lagging behind in terms of patent activity in all areas of SCT. In total, they account for only a fifth of all patent applications.^[3]

2017: Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications: Rating of regions on the development of the information society

The Ministry of Communications and Mass Media of the Russian Federation presented in October a rating of regions for the development of the information society for 2017.

Ugra ranks third in this rating, behind Moscow and the Tyumen region. The top ten also includes the Republic of Tatarstan, the Tula Region, the Novosibirsk Region, the Republic of Bashkortostan, the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, the Tomsk Region and the Chelyabinsk Region.

To determine the leaders, the assessment method was used for 120 indicators and 17 sub-indices. When calculating the location, the level of development of special information systems is taken into account: GIS "Contingent," IE of the Transport Management, EGAIS, GIS GMP, System-112 and GIS "Energy efficiency."

Among the priority sub-indices: ICT infrastructure, e-government, ICT in education, ICT in health care, ICT in transport. The list of sub-indices corresponds to the sections of the Concept for the Development of Regional Informatization.

The assessment of the regions took into account the development of such projects as the transfer of public services to electronic form, the introduction of information systems for distance education, the introduction of ICT in the educational process (electronic diary), an appointment with a doctor, an electronic card, telemedicine, the introduction of electronic means of payment for travel, online traffic monitoring. Also, the success of the regions in the ranking guaranteed the creation of regional information systems in the field of power, state and municipal finance; integration of regional information systems with federal ones and automation of libraries, museums and theaters.

2013: State Management: Level of e-government implementation

According to the rating of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation by the level of implementation of Electronic Government as of February 1, 2013, the State Management publication ^[4], at the beginning of the year the leaders in the implementation of e-government services were: in the Central Federal District - Moscow, Lipetsk and Belgorod regions, in the Northwestern Federal District - St. Petersburg, Arkhangelsk and Novgorod Regions, Southern Federal District - Rostov, Astrakhan Regions and Krasnodar Territory, in the North Caucasus Federal District - KBR, Dagestan and Stavropol Territory, in the Volga Federal District - Nizhny Novgorod and Samara regions, as well as Tatarstan, in the Ural Federal District - Tyumen and Sverdlovsk regions, in the Siberian Federal District - Trans-Baikal, Krasnoyarsk Territory, in the Far Eastern Federal District - EAO, Khabarovsk Territory, Yakutia.

State Management, February 2013

See also: Full version of the rating

2012: State Management: Level of e-government implementation

Rating of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation by the level of implementation of Electronic Government as of April 1, 2012, published by the publication "GosManagement," indicates that the level of development of electronic services is leading in the Central Federal District - Moscow, Lipetsk region and Belgorod region, in the Southern Federal District - Krasnodar Territory, Rostov and Volgograd regions, in the North Caucasus Federal District - KBR, Stavropol Territory and Dagestan, in the Volga Federal District - Nizhny Novgorod Region, Tatarstan and Samara Region, in the Ural Federal District - Tyumen region, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug and Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, in the Siberian Federal District - Omsk Oblast, Trans-Baikal Territory, Tomsk Oblast, in the Far Eastern Federal District - EAO, Sakhalin Oblast, Khabarovsk Krai.

2011

IRIO: Regional Readiness Index for the Information Society

"Digital inequality" of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, which is described in detail in the annual reports of the Institute for the Development of the Information Society (Institute for the Development of the Information Society (IRIO)). In fact, this means that due to historical, economic, geographical, managerial and other reasons, the level of penetration of certain high technologies from region to region is seriously different.

Regional Information Society Readiness Index

Institute for Information Society Development, IRIO
View rating in full

The most complete reflection of the situation with regional informatization in the Russian Federation is presented in the Index of Readiness of the Regions of Russia for the Information Society, which has been published by the IRIO since 2005. The index is a measure of how prepared regions are for large-scale use of ICT for socio-economic development. It is calculated on the basis of indicators characterizing the development factors of the information society (human capital, economic environment and ICT infrastructure), as well as the use of ICT in six areas (public and municipal administration, education, health, business, culture, households).

According to the latest Index, based on data for 2009-2010, information inequality among the subjects of the Russian Federation is still quite serious. The top ten regions with the maximum number of points included Moscow, St. Petersburg, Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, Tomsk Region, Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug, Tyumen Region, Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, Murmansk Region, Chuvashia and the Republic of Karelia. At the same time, at the very end of the index list are such regions as, for example, the Kursk region, the Tambov region, Kalmykia, Tuva, Dagestan, Ingushetia and others.

"Digital inequality" in numbers

Institute for Information Society Development, IRIO, 2011

The goals of the new state program "Information Society," among other things, are to reduce the digital inequality of the regions, the development of e-government services and the further development of the ICT market.

NAIRIT: Innovative activity of the regions

According to the 2011 Regional Innovation Activity Rating, prepared by the National Association for Innovation and Information Technology Development (NAIRIT, Moscow has once again become the leader in innovation activity. For the first time, compared to previous studies, the gap between the capital and its closest pursuers in the rating began to decline to 15%. The second place was taken by the Republic of Tatarstan (last year 4th place in the ranking). The region has the largest special economic zone in Russia, 4 industrial parks, technopolis, 14 technology parks, and so on.

Innovation Activity Rating Summary Table

NAIRIT, 2011

The highest growth rates of innovative activity in 2011 were demonstrated by the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, which was able to rise by 25 positions in the ranking at once. Elements of innovative infrastructure are actively being created in the region. Funding for scientific and innovative areas has increased significantly. The region has significant innovation potential. Also, a high increase in activity in the innovation sphere (by 10 positions) was noted in the Kemerovo and Belgorod regions.

The main "losers" of the rating should include the Moscow region (a drop in the rating by 27 positions), the Kamchatka Territory (a drop in the rating by 12 positions) and the Voronezh region (11 positions). In general, approximately 9% of its participants managed to maintain their positions in the ranking. About 42% of the regions increased their activity. 49%, on the contrary, showed results lower than last year. At the same time, the number of regions in the category "Low innovative activity" remained unchanged compared to last year. The number of regions in the category "High innovative activity" increased by only one participant. As a result, the total indicator of innovation activity for 2011 turned out to be almost the same level (1.5% higher) as the same indicator for 2010.

Notes