|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Gertrude Muguzi | CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS | 2.6 | Two organisations, one research institution and one international NGO validated the claims in this application. However, there is no evidence of consultation outside of government in developing the initiative. |
|
|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Bernadette Leon | CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS | 1.8 | Difficult to make a judgement - it appears that the nomination as done by a government committee, but with no civil society input. The initiative also appears to be government driven with limited to no NGO partnership. |
|
|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Florence Thibault | CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS | 1.8 | Only each Ministry engaged in the National Action Plan of Albania. No civil society partners. A few letters with no real validation of claims |
|
|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Bibhu Prasad Sahu | CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS | 2.2 | No mention of consultation with CSOs before nomination. But attached documents for validation of claim. Could have consult with CSOs, and media and mention in the application. |
|
|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Tiago Peixoto | CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS | 2.0 | No evidence of partnering or consulting CSOs in the process. |
|
|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Bernadette Leon | STRENGTH AND INNOVATION IN OPEN GOVERNMENT APPROACHES | 4.5 | This on-line portal for public service recruitment processes was targeted to raise peoples trust in the recruitment processes of the public service and to move to a transparent and efficient process of recruitment - a valuable innovation responding to a trust-deficit problem in the country. |
|
|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Tiago Peixoto | STRENGTH AND INNOVATION IN OPEN GOVERNMENT APPROACHES | 3.2 | The project is basically an e-government solution for the hiring of civil servants. While there is some transparency given to the process (through the publishing), which may have benefits, it is not evident how this makes government more accountable. More transparency on the selection process in itself would be a significant advance. |
|
|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Florence Thibault | STRENGTH AND INNOVATION IN OPEN GOVERNMENT APPROACHES | 2.5 | There is no feed back from the target population here, except to be an applicant. All the population of the country is concerned because all the population want more transparency in recruitment. But the special target population is more reduced ans we don't exactly what they think about that. It's probably very good but we don't have indicator to appreciate. |
|
|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Gertrude Muguzi | STRENGTH AND INNOVATION IN OPEN GOVERNMENT APPROACHES | 3.2 | While this initiative is more about improving service delivery and efficiency and effectiveness in government and its primary role does not come across as greater transparency to the public, it does make good use of technology for transparency to achieve its objective. |
|
|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Bibhu Prasad Sahu | STRENGTH AND INNOVATION IN OPEN GOVERNMENT APPROACHES | 3.2 | Insufficient evidence of compelling facts. Justifications and cases are unclear and hence need to provide concrete case, sufficient information and data which make the case credential. |
|
|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Bernadette Leon | EVIDENCE OF RESULTS | 2.8 | At most this innovation respond to one or two of the outcomes - it improves access to information and citizens are able to submit queries and complaints regarding the recruitment process. The quality of the recruitment process has improved for those who use the system in that they are able to track progress online...a significant improvement.
|
|
|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Gertrude Muguzi | EVIDENCE OF RESULTS | 2.8 | Evidence provided shows that access to information on the public recruitment process has clearly improved and this has the potential to increase the quality of personnel within the entire public service. However whether this actually ends up improving the quality of performance by public servants is dependent on many other factors as well and is much longer term incremental process. |
|
|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Tiago Peixoto | EVIDENCE OF RESULTS | 3.8 | It is not clear how two of the outcomes were achieved, notably (i) " Citizens have ways to actively participate in the design and delivery of public services, and (ii) Citizens have mechanisms to monitor and oversee public works and services
|
|
|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Bibhu Prasad Sahu | EVIDENCE OF RESULTS | 3.4 | No evidence (information and facts) of improving quality of services. Citizens and CSOs active participation in the online recruitment process demonstrated. Unclear of scope of citizen participation in monitoring and oversee. So need to provide more facts if available or create a system as per the OGP norms. |
|
|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Florence Thibault | EVIDENCE OF RESULTS | 2.8 | As before, we don't now the part of the vacancies in the public administration is concerned by this recruitment and the number of winners is not very high. It's probably interisting for each applicant in order to see where is his (her) application (result 1) but he doesn't now if the winners are realy better than him (diploma, sexe, parent in administration...). Result 2 is probably true. Nothing about results 3 and 4 |
|
|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Florence Thibault | SUSTAINABILITY | 4.3 | It's a public project and there is no problem here, except to appreciate the part of public vacancies concerned. Considering the goal of the project, they have to improve the transparency of recruitment with better indicators for their communication with civil society. |
|
|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Bernadette Leon | SUSTAINABILITY | 3.0 | The submission does not provide information on how scale up will be done and how risks will be managed - risks are identified but no information provided on how this will be managed. |
|
|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Tiago Peixoto | SUSTAINABILITY | 4.1 | The project seems to be institutionalized, however it does not present clear evidence on how to avoid reversing such process. |
|
|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Bibhu Prasad Sahu | SUSTAINABILITY | 2.9 | No such clear cut evidence of road map (strategy) for make the initiative sustainable. Could have design a strategic plan for make this programme sustainable. No mention of probable risks and mitigation strategy. |
|
|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Gertrude Muguzi | SUSTAINABILITY | 3.9 | Given that this initiative is operationalising a law, potential for insitutionalisation is very high if not already achieved. Two challenges were listed as well as what needs to be done to address them although no articulated plan for how or when this will be done. |
|
|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Florence Thibault | SPECIAL RECOGNITION | 0.0 | That's not a goal of the project wich is for all the population |
|
|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Gertrude Muguzi | SPECIAL RECOGNITION | 0.0 | There is no mention of minority groups in the application. |
|
|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Bibhu Prasad Sahu | SPECIAL RECOGNITION | 0.0 | Insufficient evidence, no CSO participation demonstrated, outcomes are not satisfactory and sustainable approach not clear. |
|
|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Bernadette Leon | SPECIAL RECOGNITION | 5.0 | Difficult to say - the access to employment in the public service will be improved for youth and women who apply for jobs online |
|
|
| Albania Team | 60.8 | Tiago Peixoto | SPECIAL RECOGNITION | 0.0 | No evidence that it has improved access by vulnerable groups. |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Tania Sanchez | CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS | 1.9 | The consultation process is somewhat ambiguously described (although there was not quite a lot of room to explain with detail). The initiative is implemented solely by the government agency. Presented 2 letters of validation |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Justine Dupuys | CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS | 3.4 | The initiative was not jointly implemented but there was a mechanism of selection and nomination with different partners and a debate online |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Virginia Pardo | CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS | 2.0 | Se tiene el aval de la postulación de 2 organizaciones (CIPPEC y PuntoGov). No se realizo propuesta en conjunto con Soc. Civil. Se muestra alguna evidencia que se consultó previamente para la postulación, pero no se puede verificar bien alcance de convocados. |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Tiago Peixoto | CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS | 2.7 | No, it mentions it consulted "organos" but do not specifiy who contributed to the consultation. |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Alvaro Ramirez Alujas | CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS | 3.5 | Existe evidencia suficiente sobre el apoyo de otras organizaciones no gubernamentales en avalar la iniciativa presentada (CIPPEC y Punto Gov). Además, la postulación de la iniciativa ha sido el resultado de un proceso participativo para la selección, por parte del Grupo de Trabajo de Gobierno Abierto en Argentina. |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Alvaro Ramirez Alujas | STRENGTH AND INNOVATION IN OPEN GOVERNMENT APPROACHES | 3.5 | Si bien la iniciativa se relaciona directamente con la administración del sistema electoral y no necesariamente con la idea de mejoramiento de servicios públicos* (eje temático de esta convocatoria), cumple con incorporar la idea de uso y reutilización de la información pública, su accesibilidad y las posibilidades de control y monitoreo del proceso electoral (favorece la transparencia, la inclusión y acceso a datos públicos; y eventualmente, a la participación e interacción con los ciudadanos por la vía de herramientas digitales).
(*) La convocatoria para el OGP Awards define como eje para el 2015 el "mostrar cómo las iniciativas de gobierno abierto se han traducido en mejoras concretas en la prestación de servicios públicos, por ejemplo, programas de bienestar económico, salud, educación, agua, carreteras, seguridad pública, etc. OGP ha elegido este tema para 2015 en reconocimiento del hecho de que los servicios públicos son la interfaz más común entre los ciudadanos y el gobierno, y que los gobiernos deben garantizar la transparencia, rendición de cuentas y capacidad de respuesta en su diseño y ejecución. Buena calidad y servicios públicos eficaces responden a las necesidades de las personas, incluidos los grupos vulnerables, y forman la base del desarrollo inclusivo". |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Justine Dupuys | STRENGTH AND INNOVATION IN OPEN GOVERNMENT APPROACHES | 2.6 | The initiative looks like an improvement of website more than an OGP initiative. If the DINE made a strong effort to release a lot of important information and open data on election process , it appears to be a top-down approach and the target population have a passive role. |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Virginia Pardo | STRENGTH AND INNOVATION IN OPEN GOVERNMENT APPROACHES | 3.2 | Propuesta que fortalece incremento al acceso a la información publica, rendición de cuentas y se basa en tecnología para la transparencia. Iniciativa enfocada en la transparencia en la gestión mediante la publicación y acceso a la información por parte de la ciudadanía, factor innovador de la misma débil. |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Tania Sanchez | STRENGTH AND INNOVATION IN OPEN GOVERNMENT APPROACHES | 3.4 | The initiative makes a strong case of the need to publish disaggregated open data on political/ elections finance in order to encourage and facilitate citizen control of the electoral process; it stresses the fact that access to the electoral information is universal, and adapted for the visually and auditive challenged public. |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Tiago Peixoto | STRENGTH AND INNOVATION IN OPEN GOVERNMENT APPROACHES | 3.5 | It does make a convincing case for making electoral information more transparent, which is extremely important. However there is no relationship with public services (it should not have anyway). This question penalizes initiatives as this one that - albeit important - do not have a direct impact on service delivery. |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Tania Sanchez | EVIDENCE OF RESULTS | 2.7 | The initiative describes the type of information that has been published for the first time in this country, but does not necessarily provide evidence of having reached the population. |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Tiago Peixoto | EVIDENCE OF RESULTS | 2.8 | No, this is about electoral processes transparency. As such, sit should not bear any direct impact on service delivery, particularly in the short term. |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Virginia Pardo | EVIDENCE OF RESULTS | 4.4 | Se comprueba la existencia del sitio Web con la información disponible. No se tiene evidencia sobre cantidad de accesos, uso y valoración por parte de los interesados. Si hay +23.000 seguidores en Twitter pero no se menciona como parte de la propuesta. |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Alvaro Ramirez Alujas | EVIDENCE OF RESULTS | 2.8 | Se presenta un detalle de los beneficios esperados de la iniciativa pero no se adjunta mayor información sobre el potencial impacto y resultados de la misma en términos de lo que se entiende por "servicio público" (el video que acompaña la postulación entrega información adicional pero no es suficiente y falta mayor fundamentación - como indicadores y/o métricas que permitan relevar su potencial y beneficios concretos hacia la ciudadanía más allá de lo que un sistema de administración electoral debe contemplar como base - y en lo relativo a la aplicación de teconología y/o digitalización de ciertos procesos o entrega de información). |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Justine Dupuys | EVIDENCE OF RESULTS | 3.7 | The platform improves access to information for citizens and provides a better accountability on election but it shows little evidence of achieving an important interaction between government and citizenship and on the control the civil society can operate based on this information |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Virginia Pardo | SUSTAINABILITY | 4.8 | Se detalla como forma de sostenibilidad convenios específicos con ONGs vinculadas a temas electorales. Sumando a la institucionalidad dada por la propia DINE, mas vinculado con Datos Abiertos. |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Alvaro Ramirez Alujas | SUSTAINABILITY | 4.0 | De acuerdo a la información disponible en la Web y en los antecedentes presentados en la postulación, se trata de una iniciativa en actual desarrollo e institucionalización, y muestra un interesante caso de facilitar el acceso a datos y a los procesos ligados al sistema electoral. |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Justine Dupuys | SUSTAINABILITY | 3.5 | this initiative is institutionalized and have been implemented during the last election process in Argentina but there is no plan to improve the tools or to scale-up the initiative |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Tania Sanchez | SUSTAINABILITY | 3.6 | Describes the institutional arrangements that have been made, including creating certain departments within the agency to be responsible for continuing to produce and publish data, and partnering with civil society to further develop the initiative. But, does not provide details on how they will deal with challenges. |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Tiago Peixoto | SUSTAINABILITY | 4.6 | Yes, there are compelling arguments to make it believe that the initiative will continue to exist. |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Tiago Peixoto | SPECIAL RECOGNITION | 0.0 | No, since it is related to electoral process it does not guarantee improved service delivery access and / or outcomes, at least in the short term, and not directly. |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Virginia Pardo | SPECIAL RECOGNITION | 0.0 | Iniciativa que no aplica directamente a poblaciones vulnerables o sectores específicos de la población que requieren especial atención. |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Alvaro Ramirez Alujas | SPECIAL RECOGNITION | 0.0 | Dado que se trata de una iniciativa que facilita y hace más transparente, accesible e incluyente el sistema de administración electoral en Argentina, ello no necesariamente se relaciona con el mejoramiento en la entrega y/o provisión de servicios públicos * (en la forma tradicional de entenderlo) y en su potencial impacto en la calidad de vida o bienestar de las personas (sino más bien en la mejora de las vías para perfeccionar la democracia, sustentar procesos político-electorales que puedan ser monitoreados desde la sociedad, y ejercer control social en dicho ámbito).
(*) La convocatoria para el OGP Awards define como eje para el 2015 el "mostrar cómo las iniciativas de gobierno abierto se han traducido en mejoras concretas en la prestación de servicios públicos, por ejemplo, programas de bienestar económico, salud, educación, agua, carreteras, seguridad pública, etc. OGP ha elegido este tema para 2015 en reconocimiento del hecho de que los servicios públicos son la interfaz más común entre los ciudadanos y el gobierno, y que los gobiernos deben garantizar la transparencia, rendición de cuentas y capacidad de respuesta en su diseño y ejecución. Buena calidad y servicios públicos eficaces responden a las necesidades de las personas, incluidos los grupos vulnerables, y forman la base del desarrollo inclusivo". |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Tania Sanchez | SPECIAL RECOGNITION | 0.0 | It is not targeted for a vulnerable population; does not provide evidence of improvement, but rather describes the amount and type of information being published and how this should help to increase trust on the electoral institutions and processes. |
|
|
| Argentina Team | 66.6 | Justine Dupuys | SPECIAL RECOGNITION | 0.0 | In spite of the mention of improving the inclusion of vulnerable population, the initiative does not demonstrate that it successfully permitted this inclusion. |