Quality assessment of electronic state and municipal services using the example of the ministry of agriculture of the Russian Federation

Abstract

The article discusses the features of the provision of public services in electronic form. The dynamics of the provision of public services in the Republic of Tatarstan is given. A review of the existing methodologies for assessing the quality of the provision of electronic public services is given. The authors' methodology for assessing the quality of the provision of state and municipal services in electronic form is proposed. An authorized executive body has been identified which is responsible for organizing the assessment of the quality of services. Formulas of individual indicators of the technique are developed. As an example, the assessment of the provision of the public service "Providing information obtained in the course of accounting for reclaimed land" is calculated. A polygon of the effectiveness of the provision of state and municipal services in electronic form is proposed. Measures to eliminate identified deficiencies in the provision of services are proposed. The authors make the conclusion about the importance of assessing the quality of services and the relevance of the proposed methodology.

Advanced digital transformations for food security

“…The following key directions for the development of digital production are distinguished: the formation of technological groundwork [15,[21][22][23] and research competencies; personnel and education [16,17]; normative regulation; information security; information infrastructure. Now the use of information technology in the agricultural sector involves the use of not only computers.…”

Assessment of Digital Maturity of Agricultural Enterprises

“…This can involve the use of artificial intelligence technologies, the Internet of things, "big data", etc. [10], as well as receiving services using information and telecommunication technologies, including the portal of state and municipal services [8].…”

A Framework for Public eServices Transparency

“…Bertot et al, 2010;Ekaabi et al, 2020;European Commission, 2020;Foley & Alfonso, 2009;Gouscos et al, 2007;Karna & Gupta, 2012;Khan et al, 2020;Y. Li & Shang, 2020;Lips, 2010Lips, , 2012Lips et al, 2010;Ntaliani et al, 2010;Ramessur, 2009;Sabucedo et al, 2009;Safiullin et al, 2020;Stančić et al, 2017;Venkatesh et al, 2016;Voss, 2000;Weerakkody et al, 2019) (Cognini et al, 2014;Tan et al, 2013) Service completion: Notification for service completion (successful, unsuccessful, cancelled, incomplete) (Bhattacharya et al, 2012;European Commission, 2020) Activities: Which activities, tasks and administrative procedures are part of the service (already carried on and that need to be completed) (Cognini et al, 2014;Corradini et al, 2009Corradini et al, , 2010Limba & Gulevičiūtė, 2013) Public officials: Who is responsible for the service and/or for each task, activity, or procedure (Cognini et al, 2014;Corradini et al, 2009;Karna & Gupta, 2012) Decisions: Who made them, which algorithms, data and models were used, what were the premisses to reach the final decision, and how is the decision justified (Kim & Moon, 2021;M. Li, 2011;Limba & Gulevičiūtė, 2013) Complaints and inquiries: Which complaints and inquiries were made, and what is their status (answered, solved, ….)…”