Kiri

IMAPS v1.2.0 Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service Recommendations  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations Disclaimer 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 document. 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. © European Union, 2020 IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 2 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 PRINCIPLES ......................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 RECOMMENDATIONS OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................. 5 2. SERVICE DELIVERY (D).............................................................................................................................. 6 2.1 SCORING TABLE ................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 9 3. SERVICE CONSUMPTION (C) .................................................................................................................. 19 3.1 SCORING TABLE ................................................................................................................................. 19 3.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 20 4. SERVICE MANAGEMENT (B)................................................................................................................... 24 4.1 SCORING TABLE ................................................................................................................................. 24 4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 25 IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 3 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations Table of Abbreviations Acronym Description ABB Architectural Building Block CAMSS Common Assessment Method for Standards and Specifications CarTool Cartography Tool DIGIT Directorate-General for Informatics EC European Commission EIF European Interoperability Framework EIRA European Interoperability Reference Architecture EU European Union IMAPS Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service IMM Interoperability Maturity Model ISA Interoperability Services for Public Administrations IQAT Interoperability Quick Assessment Toolkit MS Member State PA Public Administration IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 4 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations 1. Introduction The main objective of the Interoperability Maturity Assessment of Public Services (IMAPS) is to provide insight into how digital public services can improve their behavioural interoperability maturity. After filling in the online questionnaire, the respondent receives a PDF with advice on how to improve the behavioural interoperability of his digital public service. This report presents how these recommendations are generated. 1.1 Principles The following five principles are applied to generate recommendations:  Principle 1: Each semantic interoperability attribute differentiates between at least two maturity levels;  Principle 2: The improvement tables provide recommendations on how to improve maturity gradually for a specific interoperability attribute;  Principle 3: When a digital public service does not yet reach the maximum level for a specific interoperability attribute, a recommendation is given to make the step towards the next interoperability level;  Principle 4: When a digital public service successfully attains the maximum maturity level for a interoperability attribute, no recommendation is given1;  Principle 5: When the maturity improvement is not based on specific interoperability characteristics per level, a sliding scale (e.g. from less to more) is used. In this scenario, a generic recommendation (not maturity level specific) is given to improve the maturity further along the sliding scale. 1.2 Recommendations overview  For each improvement step, the recommendation tables in the following chapters show:  The question the recommendation relates to;  The assessed maturity level;  The next maturity level to be reached through improvement2;  The recommendation as to how to reach the next maturity level. 1 The reason for this is that in this case- according to the model- the service is already implementing a semantic interoperability attribute in a way that it corresponds to best practice. There are no direct recommendations to improve further 2 With the exception when this is considered a sliding scale IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 5 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations 2. Service Delivery (D) 2.1 Scoring Table Table 1: Service Delivery scoring model Opportunistic Item Ad hoc (1) Essential (3) Sustainable (4) Seamless (5) (2) The public service publishes data in non- proprietary formats with The public The public semantic The public service service The public service metadata / service does publishes publishes data publishes data in D1 ontologies (e.g. not publish data in non- in structured, structured, non- (70%) rdf, linked open open data, structured proprietary proprietary formats data) while it could formats (e.g. formats (e.g. (e.g. csv, json) pdf, jpeg) MS Excel) Not applicable, open data are not relevant for the solution No, the digital Fully, the data public service exchange is is only using entirely based proprietary Partly, some (open) on existing standards and semantic standards are (open) semantic D2 is not used for data standards and (30%) leveraging exchange, combined specifications existing with proprietary Not applicable, (open) standards there is no semantic machine-to- standards for machine data exchange interfacing Fully & adaptable, there is detailed information on data privacy No, there is available and the Partly, there is no Fully, there is detailed user can manage limited D3 information information on data (some of his) information on (25%) on data privacy available at data privacy data privacy privacy national level settings online available available Not applicable, the digital public service does not require personal data (e.g. only information IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 6 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations provisioning, search functionality) Fully, the entire digital public No, the digital service (from public service Partly, some pages initiation to D4 is only and/or documentation outcome, (25%) available in a is available in multiple including all single languages documentation) language is available in multiple languages Yes, part of a Yes, part of a publicly publicly and Yes, part of a and online online catalogue discoverable catalogue discoverable Yes, part of a available to a and includes a public catalogue and D5 publicly No restricted service description includes a public (25%) available user group (including information service catalogue (e.g. such as contact details, description partners) provider, preconditions based on and required input) standards such as CPSV-AP Yes, formalised Yes, login ones e.g. EU authentication Login based on D6 mechanism Single sign-on (15%) (username, principle password) No, not applicable Yes, there is a certification procedure No, there is available for the no end users D7 certification Not applicable, (10%) procedure certification is available for not required for the end users users to access the digital public service Multiple digital (including interactive One digital and D8 One digital Multiple digital and digital one traditional (25%) channel traditional channels collaboration channel M2M) and traditional channels IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 7 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations Fully, pre-filling is used for all data fields that Partly, pre-filling is are digitally No, while this D9 used but only for some available would be (25%) data fields that are Not applicable, possible digitally available the digital public service does not require data entries Fully, there is detailed information on No, there is rules & no processes information available before, on rules & during and/or processes after usage of available Partly, there is limited the digital public before, during information on rules & service and / or after D10 processes available Not applicable, usage of the (20%) before, during and / or the digital public digital public after usage of the service does not service. This digital public service need to provide information insight into resides administrative somewhere rules and else (i.e. is not processes (e.g. imminently only information discoverable) provisioning, search functionality) Yes, feedback is possible through a digital channel No, the digital Yes, feedback (e.g. email, public service is possible Yes, feedback is website, chat). D11 does not through a possible through a In addition, the (10%) provide for physical digital channel (e.g. digital public feedback channel (e.g. email, website, chat) service offers possibilities phone, postal) insight into feedback and/or reviews from other end users Fully, the digital public service is No, the digital Partly, the digital compliant with D12 public service public service provides an accessibility (10%) is not equally some accessibility standard such as accessible features Web Content Accessibility IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 8 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations (WAI) Guidelines 2.0, level AA, ISO/IEC 40500:2012 Not applicable, the digital public service does not utilize a graphical user interface Yes, there are No, there are no D13 restrictions to restrictions to (10%) use the digital use the digital public service public service 2.2. Recommendations The table below presents the respective recommendation to each option in IMAPS questionnaire. As mentioned above, the purpose of the recommendations is to propose the needed actions to be taken by the public service owners in order to achieve a higher level of interoperability maturity. In case the selected option is associated to “Seamless level (5)”, then no action is required from the public service owners and the recommendation is by default “Congratulations, you are at the Seamless level”. Table 2: Service Delivery Recommendations Question Addressed Next Level Recommendation Level D1. In which format does Ad hoc (1) Opportunistic Currently, the public service does your digital public service (2) not publish its open data. Consider publish its open data? publishing data in a non-structured format e.g. pdf, jpeg to improve the semantic behavioural interoperability of your digital public service with the external environment. Opportunistic Essential (3) Currently, your public service (2) publishes data in non-structured formats (e.g. pdf, jpeg). Consider delivering open data using structured formats such as MS Excel, csv to improve the semantic behavioural interoperability of your public service by investigating further these formats using the Semantic Interoperability Maturity IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 9 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations Assessment of a Public Service (SIMAPS). Essential (3) Sustainable Currently, your public service (4) publishes data in structured, proprietary formats (e.g. MS-Excel). Consider delivering open data using non-proprietary formats (e.g. csv, json) to improve the semantic behavioural interoperability of your public service by investigating further these formats using the Semantic Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (SIMAPS). Sustainable Seamless (5) Currently, your public service (4) publishes data in structured, non- proprietary formats such as csv, json. Consider publishing your data in non-proprietary formats with semantic metadata / ontologies (e.g. rdf, linked open data) to achieve a higher level of semantic behavioural interoperability by investigating further the semantic formats of your data delivered using the Semantic Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (SIMAPS). D2. To what extent are Ad hoc (1) Sustainable Currently, the digital public service is existing semantic (4) only using proprietary standards and standards and is not leveraging existing (open) specifications used for semantic standards for data data exchange? exchange. Consider using partly some semantic standards for data exchange and investigating them further using the Semantic Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (SIMAPS). Sustainable Seamless (5) Currently, the digital public service is (4) using some (open) semantic standards are used for data exchange, combined with proprietary standards. Investigate if it will be possible for your service to move towards a situation where the data exchange is entirely based on IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 10 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations existing (open) semantic standards and specifications. Consider investigating further these standards via the Semantic Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (SIMAPS). D3. Are data privacy Ad hoc (1) Essential (3) Currently, end users are not considerations provided with any information on transparent to the user data privacy. This is however (such as scope of data essential in fostering users’ trust in stored, purpose of usage the digital public service. Map all of data, rights to request information that would be beneficial changes or lodge to end users and communicate complaints, applicable these via the available channels. data privacy regulation)? Consider investigating further the maturity of the legal requirements of your public service via Legal Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (LIMAPS). Essential (3) Sustainable Currently, end users are only (4) provided with a subset of information on their data privacy. Map all information that would be beneficial to end users and focus on closing the gaps to ensure full transparency. Consider investigating further the maturity of the legal requirements of your public service via Legal Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (LIMAPS). Sustainable Seamless (5) Your digital public service provides (4) detailed information on data privacy to users. However it is currently not possible for the user to manage (some of this) data privacy information online. his is though considered a desirable end state. As a first step, analyse which fields are important for the end user to manage and assess further the maturity of the legal requirements of your public service via Legal Interoperability Maturity IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 11 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations Assessment of a Public Service (LIMAPS). D4. To what extent is Ad hoc (1) Sustainable Your digital public service is not multilingualism (4) multilingual. Consider at a minimum supported? offering a multi-lingual interface. Offer it in one or several languages which best reflect the composition of your user community. Sustainable Seamless (5) Currently, some of the pages and/or (4) documentation are multilingual. Whilst this is a good starting point, you may consider providing the entire service (including functional and technical documentation) in multiple languages. Consider collaborating with pan-European peers to spread burden, streamline functionalities and make multilingualism an integral part of your service. You can further investigate the extent of multilingual data delivery and consumption using the Semantic Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (SIMAPS) and the Technical Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (TIMAPS). D5. Is the digital public Ad hoc (1) Opportunistic Currently, your digital public service service included in a (2) is not registered in a Service service catalogue? Catalogue. Registering your public service within a catalogue is recommended to promote and increase the usage of the service. Opportunistic Essential (3) Your digital public service is (2) registered in a catalogue only accessible to a restricted user group. Consider leveraging a publicly available catalogue to reach a larger target audience. Consider investigating further the discoverability of the public service (inclusion in a catalogue) from all Interoperability views (L, O, S, T) using the IMAPS specialisations IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 12 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations (LIMAPS, OIMAPS, SIMAPS, TIMAPS). Essential (3) Sustainable Your digital public service is (4) registered in a publicly available catalogue but is not discoverable online. Ensuring online discoverability is important to promote the machine-to-machine consumption of the digital public service. Consider investigating further the discoverability of the public service (inclusion in a catalogue) from all Interoperability views (L, O, S, T) using the IMAPS specialisations (LIMAPS, OIMAPS, SIMAPS, TIMAPS). Sustainable Seamless (5) Your digital public service is (4) registered in a publicly and online discoverable catalogue and includes a public service description. However, at this moment you are not (fully) leveraging standards such as CPSV-AP. Adopting these standards will help in the delivery of interoperable public service descriptions and group services according to life or business events. Consider investigating further the discoverability of the public service (inclusion in a catalogue) from all Interoperability views (L, O, S, T) using the IMAPS specialisations (LIMAPS, OIMAPS, SIMAPS, TIMAPS). D6. Are there any Ad hoc (1) Sustainable Currently, the digital public service is authenticaton (4) using a login mechanism for users' mechanisms in place for authentication. Consider using people identification? formalised authantication mechanisms such as EU Login to achieve a better interoperability of your service. You can further investigate the authentication mechanisms and the technical means in place for people identification using the Technical Interoperability Maturity of a Public Service (TIMAPS). IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 13 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations D7. Has the digital public Ad hoc (1) Sustainable You are providing your digital public service defined a (4) service towards the end users certification procedure? without a certification procedure. As a result, you create the risk of interconnections not working properly e.g. in terms of security, governance, technological and semantic interoperability and availability. Consider developing a formalised certification procedure in order to ensure your service can be delivered in a stable and safe manner to end users by investigating further the certification procedures via Organisational Interoperability Maturity Assessment of Public Service (OIMAPS). D8. Through which Ad hoc (1) Essential (3) Not all end users will be able to use delivery channels is the your service due to the fact only one digital public service digital channel is available as access made available to the point to it. In order to ensure end user(s)? accessibility to all end users, the addition of a traditional channel would be beneficial. Consider investigating further the digital channels you can use (e.g. web portals) via the Technical Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (TIMAPS). Essential (3) Sustainable Currently, the public service is using (4) one digital and one traditional channel for its delivery. In addition to one digital and one traditional channel, your service could improve its accessibility by adding more digital channels. Consider investigating further the digital channels you can use (e.g. web portals) via the Technical Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (TIMAPS). Sustainable Seamless (5) Currently, the public service is using (4) multiple digital and traditional channel for its delivery. Consider IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 14 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations investigating further the multiple digital channels, including interactive digital collaboration M2M via the Technical Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (TIMAPS). D9. Does the digital Ad hoc (1) Sustainable Currently, your service does not public service use pre- (4) require pre-filling or does not make filling for digitally use of pre-filling. If the former is the available data fields? case, periodically evaluate whether pre-filling is not becoming relevant as your service evolves. For both cases, consult peer practices in order to make sure that you do not miss out on opportunities to pre-fill. Sustainable Seamless (5) Your service pre-fills selected, but (4) not all data fields which would be electronically available. Pre-filling is one of the strongest manifestations of interoperability as it adds significant value to users in terms of reducing user burden and speeding up the service request process. Within your administration, pre-filling minimises the risk of erroneous data entries. Map all information that would be electronically available and design your service to consume it electronically using the Technical Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (TIMAPS) and the Organisational Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (OIMAPS). D10. Are the Ad hoc (1) Sustainable Currently, your public service does administrative rules and (4) not provide information on rules & processes underlying the processes to its end users. This may digital public service negatively impact the perception of (such as decision your service and might lead to mechanisms, lead times, wrong assumptions and/or information sources expectations of end users. Map all used, reporting information that would be beneficial obligations) transparent to end users (such as decision to the user(s)? mechanisms, lead times, and IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 15 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations reporting obligations) and communicate these via the available channels. Consider using the Organisational Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (OIMAPS) to further investigate the mechanisms of the underlying processes. Sustainable Seamless (5) Currently, your service is providing (4) limited information on rules & processes. Map all information that would be beneficial to end users (such as decision mechanisms, lead times, and reporting obligations) and communicate these via the available channels. Consider using the Organisational Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (OIMAPS) to further investigate the mechanisms of the underlying processes. D11. Can users give Ad hoc (1) Essential (3) At this moment your digital public feedback on the quality service does not provide the of the digital public possibility to give feedback. This is service? though beneficial to capture information on areas for improvement and/or insight into the particular strengths of the digital public service. Ensure you have a physical and/or digital channel available to capture this information and/or address complaints. Consider using the Organisational Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (OIMAPS) to further examine other similar aspects of service performance and user experience. Essential (3) Sustainable Your digital public service has a (4) physical feedback mechanism available to users (e.g. phone, postal). Consider adding a digital channel to capture feedback. Options are a dedicated e-mail address, functionality via the website or a live chat function. Having a digital feedback channel IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 16 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations reduces end user effort and likely enhances the amount and detail of feedback you will receive. Consider using the Organisational Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (OIMAPS) to further examine other similar aspects of service performance and user experience. Sustainable Seamless (5) Currently, your digital public service (4) offers the possibility for feedback. It would be beneficial to provide additional insights into the (anonymised) feedback from other end users. This way, end users will have a clear view of the quality of the functionalities offered, their limitations and are able to learn from each other’s user experiences. Consider using the Organisational Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (OIMAPS) to further examine other similar aspects of service performance and user experience. D12. Is the digital public Ad hoc (1) Sustainable Currently, your digital public service service accessible to (4) is not equally accessible to all end people with (e.g. visual, users. Implement accessibility auditory, physical, features to make navigation, cognitive) disabilities at a information and interaction with the comparable level to other digital public service convenient for users? people with disabilities. Consider an accessibility standard such as Web Content Accessibility (WAI) Guidelines 2.0, level AA for this purpose. IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 17 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations Sustainable Seamless (5) Although your digital public services (4) provides some accessibility features, it is not fully compliant with an accessibility standard such as Web Content Accessibility (WAI) Guidelines 2.0, level AA. Work towards implementing an accessibility standard to the full extent to ensure your digital public service can obtain the conformance (compliance) logo. You can use the Semantic Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (SIMAPS) to investigate the extent of accessibility features provided by the digital public service to its end users. D13. Are there any Ad hoc (1) Seamless (5) At this moment there are restriction restrictions to non- for non- residents or foreigners residents or foreigners using the digital public service. for using the digital Determine how many users are public service? potentially impacted by this and draft a plan to ensure cross border service delivery by opening up the digital public service to foreign users (requiring e.g. alternative authentication mechanisms). Consider using the Organisational Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (OIMAPS) to further examine the level of administrative interaction of the service with other services, businesses, end users, etc. IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 18 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations 3. Service Consumption (C) 3.1 Scoring Table Table 3: Service Consumption scoring model Item Ad hoc (1) Opportunistic Essential (3) Sustainable (4) Seamless (5) (2) C1 Fully manually Mainly Mix of manual Mainly digitally, Fully digitally (60%) manually, and digital some manually some digitally consumption C2 Most consumed A selection of (Nearly) all (40%) services are consumed consumed self-produced, services are services are while relevant reused reused services are available for reuse C3 No, the digital Yes, the digital (50%) public service public service has does not use in place legal legal means to requirements handle the and/or legal service mechanisms to consumption handle the service consumption C4 Data is only More than half More than half More than half of (50%) collected of the total of the total data the total data data handled handled is handled is accessed reported (and is analysed (and (and consequently consequently consequently collected collected, collected) and accessed) accessed and reported) C5 No score (%) C6 No, the digital Yes, the digital (60%) public service public service does not consumes consume services from services from different different administrative administrative levels (e.g. levels. services from different MS, services from different organisations) IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 19 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations C7 No, updates Partly, some Fully, all relevant (40%) require manual updates require updates are intervention manual received from public intervention automatically service staff or from public end user(s) service staff or Not applicable, end user(s), such while others are subscriptions are received not considered automatically relevant 3.2 Recommendations The table below presents the respective recommendation to each option in IMAPS questionnaire. As mentioned above, the purpose of the recommendations is to propose the needed actions to be taken by the public service owners in order to achieve a higher level of interoperability maturity. In case the selected option is associated to “Seamless level (5)”, then no action is required from the public service owners and the recommendation is by default “Congratulations, you are at the Seamless level”. Table 4: Service Consumption Recommendations Question Addressed Next Level Recommendation Level C1. How does Ad hoc (1) Opportunistic You are currently consuming all the services the digital (2) manually. You could enhance your public service interoperability by ‘digitalizing’ the currently consumption further. This will create benefits consume the in the areas of data quality, throughput time, services costs and interoperability. Try to find ways to (manually interact more digitally with related versus organisations. digitally)? Opportunistic Essential (3) You are currently consuming most of the (2) services manually. You could enhance your interoperability by ‘digitalizing’ the consumption further. This will create benefits in the areas of data quality, throughput time, costs and interoperability. Fully digital consumption of services also enables straight through processing and/or real-time processing. Try to find ways to interact more digitally with related organisations sing the Technical Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (TIMAPS) and the Organisational Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (OIMAPS). IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 20 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations Essential (3) Sustainable You are currently consuming some of the (4) services manually. You could enhance your interoperability by ‘digitalizing’ the consumption further. This will create benefits in the areas of data quality, throughput time, costs and interoperability. Fully digital consumption of services also enables straight through processing and/or real-time processing. Try to find ways to interact more digitally with related organisations sing the Technical Interoperbility Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (TIMAPS) and the Organisational Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (OIMAPS). Sustainable Seamless (5) You are currently consuming most of the (4) services digitally. You could enhance your interoperability by ‘digitalizing’ the consumption further. This will create benefits in the areas of data quality, throughput time, costs and interoperability. Fully digital consumption of services also enables straight through processing and/or real-time processing. Try to find ways to interact more digitally with related organisations sing the Technical Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (TIMAPS) and the Organisational Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (OIMAPS). C2. Does the Ad hoc (1) Sustainable You are currently not consuming all relevant digital public (4) services from other public administrations service reuse whilst they are available for reuse. This shows or self-produce that you are not making use of existing services consumed to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of services? your own digital public service. Elaborate why this is the case. Before producing your own services, always take the time to map existing ones to possibly adapt them for your own purposes. Understand how you can improve your view on which services are being provided by other organisations using the Technical Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (TIMAPS). Sustainable Seamless (5) Currently, your digital public service reuses a (4) selection of consumed services. This shows that you are not making use of existing services to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of your own digital public service. Before IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 21 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations producing your own services, always take the time to map existing ones to possibly adapt them for your own purposes. Understand how you can improve your view on which services are being provided by other organisations using the Technical Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (TIMAPS). C3. Does the Ad hoc (1) Seamless (5) Currently, your digital public service does not digital public have in place legal means to handle the service service have in consumption. Legal requirements or any other place any legal legal mechanisms ensure a secure consumption means to of data and services from other public services handle the and enable a smoother service consumption. service Consider put in place legal means e.g. regulated consumption? rules to facilitate the service consumption. C4. Please Ad hoc (1) Essential (3) Currently, your public service only collects the indicate how data that are consumed, without handle them you handle the further. Consider accessing and reusing further data that your the data collected from other public services. digital public The more the integration of public data to the service public service, the better for establishing consumes. smooth interoperation among them. Essential (3) Sustainable Currently, more than half of the total data (4) handled is accessed. Consider reusing further the data collected from other public services. The more the integration of public data to the public service, the better for establishing smooth interoperation among them. Consider using the Semantic Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (SIMAPS) to further investigate how your digital public service can handle the data collected and consumed from other services. Sustainable Seamless (5) Currently, more than half of the total data (4) handled is reported. Consider analysing and reusing further the data collected from other public services. The more the integration of public data to the public service, the better for establishing smooth interoperation among them. Consider using the Semantic Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (SIMAPS) to further investigate how your digital public service can handle the data collected and consumed from other services. IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 22 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations C6. Does the Ad hoc (1) Seamless (5) Currently, the digital public service does not digital public consume services from other administrative service levels. Expanding the boundaries of the consume organisational relationships between the public services from service and the consuming services is very different important for the organisational administrative interoperability of a public service. Consider levels (e.g. consuming gradually services from different from different organisations or from different MS. The more MS, from the different public administrations that can different use the data, information, knowledge organisations)? delivered, the greater becomes the ability of interoperability and interconnection of the public service with its end users. C7. Does the Ad hoc (1) Sustainable Currently, all updates require manual digital public (4) intervention. This means manual effort and service potentially quality issues. Determine the subscribe to business case for improving the automatic automatic processing of updates in terms of efficiency, updates of quality, responsiveness and security. Start with services (e.g. (life) events that have the highest impact on life events) to the functioning of the digital public service. trigger its Consider investigating further the automatic execution updates of the consumed services. and/or update Sustainable Seamless (5) Currently, your digital public service still relies information? (4) on some manual intervention when it receives updates. This means manual effort and potentially quality issues. Determine the business case for improving the automatic processing of updates in term of efficiency, quality, responsiveness and security. Proceed with (life) events that have the highest impact on the functioning of the digital public service. Consider investigating further the automatic updates of the consumed services via the Technical Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (TIMAPS). IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 23 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations 4. Service Management (B) 4.1 Scoring Table Table 5: Service Management scoring model Item Ad hoc (1) Opportunistic Essential (3) Sustainable (4) Seamless (5) (2) B1 The integrated The integrated Yes, to a Yes, both the (10%) public service public service formalised, integrated is not is compliant to common, trans- public service compliant to a custom European and the any reference national model model (e.g. consumed model SEMIC model services are for e-payments) compliant to a reference model (custom and/or formalised) B2 No A methodology A common A methodology (15%) methodologies is used for methodology is is used for are used for implementing used for implementing implementing data implementing data and data management data metadata management or metadata management management nor metadata management, and is and at least one management but it is not compliant to a of them is compliant to a common compliant to common standard common standard standards B3 For none For one For two For three For all (20%) interoperability interoperability interoperability interoperability layer layers layers layers B4 Not compliant Some parts of All parts of the (15%) the digital digital public public service service are are compliant compliant with with some EIRA EIRA views views B5 Through none Less than half Half of the All of the above (20%) of the above of the above above options options options options B6 For none For one For two For three For all (20%) interoperability interoperability interoperability interoperability layer layers layers layers B7 Through none Through one of Through two of Through three Through all of (40%) of the above the above the above of the above the above options options options options options B8 No, there is no Yes, there is an Yes, there is a (20%) security profile ad-hoc security security profile established profile following a IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 24 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations specific semantic model B9 There are no Data protection Data protection (20%) measures in is handled is handled under place for data under custom formalised protection policies and regulations e.g. regulations GDPR Not applicable B10 No Yes, but Yes, with (20%) without monitoring monitoring compliance and compliance triggering procedures for corrective actions when required B11 No, they are Yes, they are Yes, they are (100%) not clearly partially fully defined defined defined 4.2 Recommendations The table below presents the respective recommendation to each option in IMAPS questionnaire. As mentioned above, the purpose of the recommendations is to propose the needed actions to be taken by the public service owners in order to achieve a higher level of interoperability maturity. In case the selected option is associated to “Seamless level (5)”, then no action is required from the public service owners and the recommendation is by default “Congratulations, you are at the Seamless level”. Table 6: Service Management Recommendations Question Addressed Next Level Recommendation Level B1. To what extent Ad hoc (1) Essential (3) Currently, the integrated public service is the integrated public not compliant to any reference model. service has been Using common architectural frameworks modelled based on a ensures that the administration is reference leveraging best practices and designs a architecture digital public service that is interoperable framework? with other public services. Consider using a custom national model as a reference architecture for the integrated public service. Essential (3) Sustainable Currently, the integrated public service is (4) compliant to a custom national model. Using common architectural frameworks ensures that the administration is leveraging best practices and designs a IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 25 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations digital public service that is interoperable with other public services. Consider using a formalised, common, trans-European model as a reference architecture for the integrated public service. You can further investigate the reference service models using the Organisational Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (OIMAPS) and the Semantic Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (SIMAPS). Sustainable Seamless (5) Currently, the integrated public service is (4) compliant to a formalised, common, trans-European model. Using common architectural frameworks ensures that the administration is leveraging best practices and designs a digital public service that is interoperable with other public services. Consider having both the integrated public service and the consumed services are compliant to a reference model (custom and/or formalised). You can further investigate the reference service models using the Organisational Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (OIMAPS) and the Semantic Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (SIMAPS). B2. Do you have Ad hoc (1) Essential (3) Currently, your digital public service does processes in place to not use methodologies for implementing implement data and data management nor metadata metadata management. Having in place such management? methodologies would enable better readiness of the public service data to be aligned with other implementations of data. Consider gradually using a methodology for implementing data management or metadata management. Essential (3) Sustainable Your digital public service is adequately (4) mature to follow a certain methodology to perform data management. However, considering a commonly standardised methodology would enable better readiness of the public service data to be aligned with other implementations of data. Consider using the Semantic IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 26 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (SIMAPS) to further investigate the methodologies available for data and metadata management. Sustainable Seamless (5) Your digital public service is adequately (4) mature to follow a certain methodology to perform data management. However, considering a commonly standardised methodology would enable better readiness of the public service data to be aligned with other implementations of data. Consider using the Semantic Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (SIMAPS) to further investigate the methodologies available for data and metadata management. B3. For which of the Ad hoc (1) Opportunistic Currently, your digital public service does following layers (2) not take into consideration none of the (Legal, Technical, recommendations of EIF. Consider Organisational, gradually taking into consideration some Semantic) the of the EIF recommendations e.g. of recommendations of Semantic Interoperability to improve the EIF have been taken interoperability of your public service. into consideration? Opportunistic Essential (3) Currently, your digital public service takes (2) into consideration the recommendations of EIF only for one interoperability layer. Consider gradually taking into consideration the EIF recommendations of two layers to improve the interoperability of your public service. You can further investigate the EIF layers (L, O, S, T) in the IMAPS specialisations. Essential (3) Sustainable Currently, your digital public service takes (4) into consideration the recommendations of EIF for two interoperability layers. Consider gradually taking into consideration the EIF recommendations of more layers to improve the interoperability of your public service. You can further investigate the EIF layers (L, O, S, T) in the IMAPS specialisations. Sustainable Seamless (5) Currently, your digital public service takes (4) into consideration the recommendations of EIF for three interoperability layers. IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 27 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations Consider taking into consideration the EIF recommendations of all interoperability layers to improve the interoperability of your public service. You can further investigate the EIF layers (L, O, S, T) in the IMAPS specialisations. B4. Is your digital Ad hoc (1) Sustainable Your digital public service is not public service (4) compliant with any EIRA view. This compliant to any of means that there is no part of your public the EIRA views? service that is compliant to EIRA ABBs. Consider applying the EIRA views at least at some parts of your service to make it more interoperable. You can get further inspiration for the EIRA views (L, O, S, T) using the IMAPS specialisations (LIMAPS, OIMAPS, SIMAPS, TIMAPS). Sustainable Seamless (5) Your digital public service is partially (4) compliant with some EIRA views. This means that some parts of your public service are compliant to some EIRA ABBs. Consider applying the EIRA views to all parts of your service to make it more interoperable. You can get further inspiration for the EIRA views (L, O, S, T) using the IMAPS specialisations (LIMAPS, OIMAPS, SIMAPS, TIMAPS). B5. Which of the Ad hoc (1) Essential (3) Currently, your digital public service only following provides the Change Management procedures are in Process to validate the consistency of the place to validate the data, information and knowledge consistency of the managed which is not adequate. Consider data, information put in place at least two of the proposed and knowledge processes to monitor the performance exchanged/managed and the data quality of your service. You by the public can take further inspiration for these service? processes via the IMAPS specialisations (LIMAPS, OIMAPS, SIMAPS, TIMAPS).  Change Essential (3) Sustainable Currently, your digital public service is not Management (4) mature enough as it provides less than Process half of the proposed processes to validate  Conformance the consistency the data, information and Testing knowledge managed. Consider put in  Business place at least half of the proposed Continuity Plan processes to achieve a higher level of behavioural interoperability. You can take further inspiration for these processes via IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 28 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations  Disaster the IMAPS specialisations (LIMAPS, Recovery Plan OIMAPS, SIMAPS, TIMAPS).  Performance Testing  Data Quality Assurance (Activities)  Certification Process Sustainable Seamless (5) Currently, your digital public service is (4) mature enough and provides half of the proposed processes to validate the consistency the data, information and knowledge managed. Consider gradually put in place all of the proposed processes to achieve a higher level of behavioural interoperability. You can take further inspiration for these processes via the IMAPS specialisations (LIMAPS, OIMAPS, SIMAPS, TIMAPS). B6. For which of the Ad hoc (1) Opportunistic Currently, your digital public service does following (2) not consider a catalogue of specifications interoperability and standards for none of the layers (Legal, interoperability layers. This is not Technical, considered a good practice for the Organisational, behavioural interoperability of your Semantic)do you service. Consider gradually having a consider a catalogue catalogue of specifications and standards of specifications and of at least one interoperability layer. standards? Opportunistic Essential (3) Currently, your digital public service is not (2) mature enough as it considers a catalogue of specifications and standards for only one interoperability layer. Consider gradually having a catalogue of specifications and standards of two interoperability layers (L, O, S, T). Essential (3) Sustainable Currently, your digital public service is not (4) mature enough as it considers a catalogue of specifications and standards for two interoperability layers. Consider gradually having a catalogue of specifications and standards of three interoperability layers (L, O, S, T). Sustainable Seamless (5) Currently, your digital public service is (4) mature enough and considers a catalogue of specifications and standards for three interoperability layers. Consider gradually having a catalogue of specifications and IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 29 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations standards of all interoperability layers (L, O, S, T) B7. Please provide Ad hoc (1) Opportunistic Currently, your digital public service does insight if and how (2) not share components and knowledge the digital public with the external environment. Work service shares towards reuse and sharing on four areas: components and - Provisioning of open Web-API services knowledge with the - Sharing source code and/or external downloadable software components environment. (including required licensing) - Sharing documentation - Provisioning of knowledge (direct Q&A support). Opportunistic Essential (3) Currently, your digital public service (2) shares components and knowledge with the external environment through one of the proposed options. Work towards reuse and sharing on four areas: - Provisioning of open Web-API services - Sharing source code and/or downloadable software components (including required licensing) - Sharing documentation - Provisioning of knowledge (direct Q&A support). Consider using the Organisational Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (OIMAPS) and the Technical Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (TIMAPS) to further investigate the interaction of the service with its external environment. Essential (3) Sustainable Currently, your digital public service (4) shares components and knowledge with the external environment through two of the proposed options. Work towards reuse and sharing on four areas: - Provisioning of open Web-API services - Sharing source code and/or downloadable software components (including required licensing) - Sharing documentation - Provisioning of knowledge (direct Q&A support). Consider using the Organisational Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (OIMAPS) and the IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 30 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations Technical Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (TIMAPS) to further investigate the interaction of the service with its external environment. Sustainable Seamless (5) Currently, your digital public service (4) shares components and knowledge with the external environment through three of the proposed options. Work towards reuse and sharing on four areas: - Provisioning of open Web-API services - Sharing source code and/or downloadable software components (including required licensing) - Sharing documentation - Provisioning of knowledge (direct Q&A support). Consider using the Organisational Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (OIMAPS) and the Technical Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (TIMAPS) to further investigate the interaction of the service with its external environment. B8. Is there a Ad hoc (1) Sustainable Currently, there is no security profile security profile (4) established within your public service. A established? security profile is a set of rights and restrictions that can be associated with a user or group of users. The security profile determines the actions (such as viewing, creating, and editing) that a user can perform on various resources, such as sourcing documents and master data. Consider establishing a security profile based on ad-hoc rules and rights. Sustainable Seamless (5) Currently, there is an ad-hoc security (4) profile established within your public service. Consider establishing a security profile based on a specific semantic model which includes a detailed service process description of its security choreography or workflow. You can get inspiration via the Technical Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (TIMAPS). B9. How is data Ad hoc (1) Sustainable Currently, your digital public service does protection handled? (4) not have any measures in place for data protection. Data protection ensures IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 31 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations What measures are transparency and integrity of the data in place? processed and collected, therefore it is necessary to have policies in place to handle them. Consider using custom data policies and regulations to handle data protection. Sustainable Seamless (5) Currently, your digital public service (4) handles data protection with custom policies and regulations. Consider using formalised regulations e.g. GDPR to handle the data protection within your service, as it provides a set of rules and regulations that governs the use of personal data. You can further investigate the measures to handle data protection via the Legal Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (LIMAPS), the Semantic Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (SIMAPS) and the Technical Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (TIMAPS). B10. Is the digital Ad hoc (1) Sustainable Currently, your digital public service is not public service (4) using Service Level Agreements (SLAs) to subject to a Service make the expected service performance Level Agreements? transparent and predictable for users. Ensuring SLAs and institutionalizing a Service Level Management process is considered a good practice and helps the organisation to steer on service stability and outcome. Sustainable Seamless (5) As part of the Service Level Management (4) process, good practice organisations monitor the compliance monthly and provide reports to their users to indicate compliance or provide an overview of the corrective actions that were taken to restore the service. Consider using the Legal Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (LIMAPS) to further investigate the legal requirements of the public service. B11. Are all terms Ad hoc (1) Sustainable Currently, the terms and conditions of the and conditions of (4) digital public service operation are not the digital public clearly defined to its end users. Consider service operation partially defining the legal terms and IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 32 of 33  IMAPS version 1.2.0 recommendations clearly and explicitly conditions of your public service using a defined? public service description or a license. Sustainable Seamless (5) Currently, the terms and conditions of the (4) digital public service operation are partially defined to its end users. Consider fully defining the legal terms and conditions of your public service using a public service description or a license. You can use the Legal Interoperability Maturity Assessment of a Public Service (LIMAPS) to further investigate how to make clear the terms and conditions of the public service to the end users. IMAPS v1.2.0 Recommendations Page 33 of 33  Minu omavalitsus – paremad kohalikud teenused üle Eesti! Rahandusministeerium Eesmärk Meie eesmärk on aidata kaasa omavalitsuste teenuste paremaks muutumisele üle Eesti. Selleks jagame veebilehel ca 300 kriteeriumi kaudu ülevaadet kohalike omavalitsuste teenuste olukorrast. Veebilehel loodud võimalused • Omavalitsused saavad tervikliku ja kompaktse ülevaate enda olukorrast, võrrelda ennast teistega ja sisendit poliitikate kujundamiseks. • Valitsusasutused saavad omavalitsuseti ülevaate ja sisendi valdkondliku poliitika kujundamiseks (sh sekkumis- ja toetusmeetmete kavandamiseks). • Veebileht kasvatab ühiskondliku teadlikkust ja seeläbi elanike võimalusi kohaliku poliitika kujundamisel osaleda. Kokku 16 teenusvaldkonda Metoodika • Metoodikat aitas välja töötada Geomedia OÜ ja RAKE koos üle saja valdkondliku eksperdi ja huvigrupi liikmega (rahastatud Euroopa Sotsiaalfondist). • Veebilehel on info aastate 2016, 2017 ja 2018 kohta. Sügisel lisandub 2019 seis. • Hindamiseks vajalikud andmed pärinevad riiklikest registritest, omavalitsuste seas läbi viidud uuringust ja elanike rahuloluküsitlusest. Mida rohkem kriteeriumitest täidetakse, seda kõrgem teenustase Kriteeriumitest täidetud Tase 90% 9 Eeskujulik 60% 8 30% 7 Edasijõudnud 90% 6 Teenustase tõuseb 1 võrra kui on 60% 5 täidetud 50% eeskujuliku taseme kriteeriumitest. 30% 4 90% 3 Teenustase tõuseb 1 võrra kui on täidetud 50% eeskujuliku taseme Baas 60% 2 kriteeriumitest. 30% 1 Teenustase tõuseb 1 võrra kui on täidetud 50% edasijõudnud taseme <30% 0 kriteeriumitest. Ülevaade veebilehest minuomavalitsus.fin.ee [email protected]  Raimo Reiman Edasised tööd • September • November • TARA liidestus • Soft launch • Rollivahetus • Komisjoni statistika edastamine • Kooskõlastusring v1 • Detsember • Kommentaarid • Katkiste linkide tuvastamine • Võimalik majaväline testimine • Meeldetuletused • Oktoober • I KV 2021 • Artiklite kategoriseerimine • TARU sisu üle toomine • Artiklite otsing • Automaatkontrollid • Kooskõlastusring v2 • Artiklite loomine ja kustutamine  ATN 08.09.2020 päevakava • RIA tellitud rahulolu-uuringu tulemused (Raimo Reiman) • RIA Artiklivaramu arenduste ajakavast (Raimo Reiman) • Otseste avalike teenuste kvaliteedinäitajate esitamise juhise uuendamine (Kutt Kommel) • Omavalitsuste teenuste veebilehe minuomavalitsus.fin.ee tutvustus (Kaie Küngas) • Teave 08.10.2020 Infopäeva kohta (RIA teadlikkuse toetusskeemist) (Alar Teras) • IMAPS uuringu tutvustus Otseste avalike teenuste kvaliteedinäitajate esitamise juhise uuendamine Kutt Kommel nõunik 08.09.2020 Kvaliteedinäitajad • Osutamiste arv (kordades) • Aasta rahulolu (%) • Otsene ajakulu kasutajatele (h) • Kogu ajakulu kasutajatele (päeva) Kanalid Proaktiivne E-post E-iseteenindus Telefon Eesti.ee (isikustatud vaade) Tekstisõnum Chat/Chat bot Tavapost Kõnerobot Teenindus büroos Sotsiaalmeedia Kasutaja juures Veebileht/portaal Nutirakendus/ mobiilirakendus Ei ole kvaliteedinäitajate seas Halduskulud Aitäh! Kutt Kommel [email protected] 08.09.2020  Avalike teenuste nõukogu koosoleku protokoll (08.09.2020) 23.09.2020 nr 26-6/19-0137/5826 Tallinn Algus: Lõpp: Juhatas: Kutt Kommel Protokollis: Kutt Kommel Võtsid osa: Kutt Kommel (MKM), Helena Lepp(MKM), Liivi Karpištšenko (MKM), Alar Teras (MKM), Aet Tummeleht (VäM), Merle Männik (KuM), Liis Didvig (JuM), Mait Metelitsa (VäM), Eneken Lipp (RaM), Erkki Jakobson (HTM), Tiina Ellervee (HTM), Liisi Seene (JuM), Urve Pastarus (RIA), Sirli Kalbus (MeM), Pille-Liis Milvere (RM), Kristiin Hunt (SoM), Anneli Laansoo (SoM), Kaire Karp (RK), Marit Altvälja (KeM), Tatjana Kiilo (HTM), Liis Getter Mandel (RIK) Puudusid: Puudumisest teatas Kristel Ilumäe (KaM), Ülle Johanson (SiM), Merje Frey (RaM) Kutsutud: Sander Aasna (EMTA), Karl Annus (RaM), Kärt Karus (MKM), Raimo Reiman (RIA), Kaie Küngas (RM) Päevakord: 1. RIA tellitud rahulolu-uuringu tulemused (Raimo Reiman) 2. RIA Artiklivaramu arenduste ajakavast (Raimo Reiman) 3. Teenuste kvaliteedinäitajate esitamise juhise uuendamine (Kutt Kommel) 4. Omavalitsuste teenuste veebilehe minuomavalitsus.fin.ee tutvustus (Kaie Küngas, Karl Annus) 5. Teave 08.10.2020 Infopäeva kohta (RIA teadlikkuse toetusskeemist) (Alar Teras) 6. IMAPS uuringu teave teenuseomanikele 1. RIA tellitud rahulolu-uuringu tulemused KUULATI: Raimo Reiman andis ülevaate RIA teenusekasutajate rahulolu-uuringust. (slaidid ei ole lisatud) OTSUSTATI: Võeti teadmiseks  2 2. RIA Artiklivaramu arenduste ajakavast KUULATI: Raimo Reiman andis ülevaate Artiklivaramu arenduste ajakavast. (slaidid lisatud) OTSUSTATI: Võeti teadmiseks 3. Teenuste kvaliteedinäitajate esitamise juhise uuendamine KUULATI: Kutt Kommel andis ülevaate teenuste kvaliteedinäitajate esitamise juhise muudatustest. Kvaliteedinäitajatest võetakse välja teenusekanalitega seotud halduskulude statistika. Riigiteenuste kataloogi kantakse edaspidi ainult osutamiste arv (kordades), aasta rahulolu (%), otsene ajakulu kasutajatele (h), kogu ajakulu kasutajatele (päevades) (lisatud protokollile) OTSUSTATI: Ministeeriumide koordinaatorid annavad tagasisidet muudatuste kohta. 4. Omavalitsuste teenuste veebilehe minuomavalitsus.fin.ee tutvustus KUULATI: Kaie Küngas ja Karl Annus tutvustasid minuomavalitsus.fin.ee veebilehte ja omavalitsuste statistikat. (slaidid lisatud) OTSUSTATI: Võeti teadmiseks 5. Teave 08.10.2020 Infopäeva kohta KUULATI: Alar Teras andis edasi info 08.10 toimuva infopäeva kohta. Teave infopäeva kohta on saadaval aadressil https://081020koostookogudesem.publicon.ee/et/avaleht/ OTSUSTATI: Võeti teadmiseks 6. IMAPS uuringu teave teenuseomanikele KUULATI: Kutt Kommel tutvustas IMAPS uuringut teenuste koordinaatoritele. Info uuringu kohta on saadetud koordinaatoritele e-postile. OTSUSTATI: Võeti teadmiseks  3 (allkirjastatud digitaalselt) (allkirjastatud digitaalselt) Kutt Kommel Kutt Kommel Koosoleku juhataja Protokollija