Imptact Assessment JnNURMs E-Governance Reforms 20412

ABOUT THE BOOK
The Government of India is keen to understand the nature and quantum of impact created by e-Government projects that have been implemented by state and national agencies under the National e-Governance Plan (NeGP). The Department of Information Technology (DIT), Government of India as the nodal coordinating agency for the NeGP is directed to carry out an impact assessment study of mature state and national projects that have been implemented in India. The book presents an overall view of the impact of varying degrees of computerization in the service delivery of four ULBS-in New Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad and Kolkata from the perspective of the citizens and businesses using the municipal services. The Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA) served as the technical advisor for the Pvt. Ltd. This book consists of two parts PART I: Report prepared by the Center for Electronic Governance, IIMA and PART II: Report prepared by Nielsen ORG Centre for Social Research. The book is also available in the public domain on the DIT web site at http://www.mit.gov.in
Impact Assessment of JnNURMs e-Governance Reforms 2010
Department of Information Technology Ministry of Communications and IT Government of India Electronics Niketan, 6 CGO Complex, Lodhi Road New Delhi- 110003 www.mit.gov.in
Department of Information Technology Ministry of Communications and Information Technology Government of India
Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010
Assessment of Delivery of Key Services: The Citizens Perspective
Based on Survey of Citizens in 4 Urban Local Bodies (Municipalities) in Four States of India
Commissioned by
ABOUT THE BOOK

The Government of India is keen to understand the nature and quantum of impact created by e-Government projects that have been implemented by state and national agencies under the National e-Governance Plan (NeGP). The Department of Information Technology (DIT), Government of India as the nodal coordinating agency for the NeGP is directed to carry out an impact assessment study of mature state and national projects that have been implemented in India. The book presents an overall view of the impact of varying degrees of computerization in the service delivery of four ULBS-in New Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad and Kolkata from the perspective of the citizens and businesses using the municipal services. The Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA) served as the technical advisor for the Pvt. Ltd. This book consists of two parts PART I: Report prepared by the Center for Electronic Governance, IIMA and PART II: Report prepared by Nielsen ORG Centre for Social Research. The book is also available in the public domain on the DIT web site at http://www.mit.gov.in
Impact Assessment of JnNURMs e-Governance Reforms 2010
Department of Information Technology Ministry of Communications and IT Government of India Electronics Niketan, 6 CGO Complex, Lodhi Road New Delhi- 110003 www.mit.gov.in
Copyright 2010 Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology.
No part of this report may be reproduced in any publication or for any commercial purpose without prior permission from the copyright holder.
Department of Information Technology Ministry of Communications and Information Technology Electronics Niketan, 6 CGO Complex, Lodhi Road New Delhi 110 003 www.mit.gov.in
Indian Institute of Management Vastrapur, Ahmedabad 380 015
Printed by: Nutech Photolithographers Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-20
Project Team
Department of Information Technology
Mr. Abhishek Singh, Director, Department of Information Technology Mr. Anurag Goyal, Director, Department of Information Technology Ms. Vineeta Dixit, Principal Consultant, NeGP-Project Management Unit Ms. Sulakshana Bhaacharya, Consultant, NeGP-Project Management Unit Ms. Shiy Varkey, Assistant Manager, NeGP-Project Management Unit
Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad

Prof. Subhash Bhatnagar, Study Coordinator Prof. T.P. Rama Rao Ms. Nupur Singh Ms. Anuradha Parekh
Acknowledgements
The team from IIMA would like to acknowledge the contribution of the Department of Information Technology (DIT), Government of India, which funded the study. Mr. Abhishek Singh, Director, DIT and Ms. Sulakshana Bhaacharya, Consultant, PMU were involved at dierent stages of the study. We are thankful to Mr. Anurag Goyal, Director, DIT, Ms. Vineeta Dixit, Principal Consultant, PMU and Ms. Shiy Varkey, Assistant Manager, PMU for their contribution to this study.
Preface
The Government of India is keen to understand the nature and quantum of impact created by e-Governance projects that have been implemented by state and national agencies under the National e-Governance Plan (NeGP). The Department of Information Technology (DIT), Government of India as the nodal coordinating agency for the NeGP is directed to carry out an impact assessment study of mature state and national projects that have been implemented in India. The assessment is to focus on the nature and quantum of impact on users (citizens and businesses). Assessment of impact on other stakeholders such as the department implementing the project was not taken up. As a part of the rst phase of assessment studies, three state-level e-Government projects vehicle registration, property registration and land records were selected for assessment in twelve states across India. Three nationallevel projects implemented by the Income Tax department, the Ministry of Corporate Aairs (MCA), and the issue of passport by Regional Passport Oces were also assessed in 2008. The report is available on the DIT website. Impact assessment of municipalities under JnNURM e-Governance Project, Impact Assessment of the Commercial Taxes project in ve states and Baseline Study of the e-District project were taken up in the current cycle of assessment studies. The Department of Information Technology (DIT) empanelled market research (MR) agencies for carrying out the eld work. Each agency was assigned the task of assessing the impact of the respective projects and preparing an individual report for each project. The Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA) served as the technical advisor for the proposed study. A team from IIMA worked closely with the team from DIT in the implementation of the assessment study and provided feedback to the MR agencies at key points in the study. The eld survey of citizens in ve states was carried out by AC Nielsen ORG-MARG Pvt. Ltd. This book consists of two parts PART I: Report prepared by IIMA and PART II: Report prepared by Nielsen ORG Centre for Social Research. The book is also available in the public domain on the DIT web site.
PART I
Report by Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (Page No 7 to 48)
Executive Summary
Assessment of Delivery of Key Services: The Citizens Perspective The report presents an overall view of the impact of varying degrees of computerization in the service delivery of four ULBS-in New Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad and Kolkata from the perspective of the citizens and businesses using the municipal services. This report is based on the Market Research agency report which provides a detailed analysis of impact for each ULB for each service on a variety of parameters which were included in the questionnaires administered to users of manual and computerized services. An overall conclusion on the impact of computerization in the 4 ULBs is one of marginal impact on the users. Amongst the services, there was moderate positive impact on clients in Renewal of Licenses and payment of Property Tax and Utility Bills. Important services like issue of Birth Certicates show hardly any improvement from the users perspective. While, there is some reduction in bribery, there is hardly any improvement in other elements of cost such as number of trips and waiting timeacross services and ULBs. Post computerization the performance varies widely on these parameters. All the ULBs assessed in the study had started to replace the erstwhile manual system almost a decade back in a phased manner. Most of the ULBs have automated their backend systems and put in work ow for many of the services to be able to deliver the services on line through assisted counters in service centers. The MR agency has observed that the transaction time for processing an application for service at the counter has reduced- a user can be processed in a maximum of 2-3 minutes for many services. However, this improvement in productivity does not result in benet in terms of time and cost saved for the consumers. Users reporting on their counter experience complained of long queues at the counters and long waiting time. Therefore the operations of a center have to be beer managed. The number of service counters that are operational must match the demand. The investment in creating new counters is not large in comparison to the benets that result for the clients. The queues have to be managed well. If more services can be oered through portals by computerizing end-to-end process of delivery including document submission, payment and delivery of digitally signed documents, and citizens are incentivized to use the portal, the work load on physical service center will automatically reduce. Qualitative feedback from clients suggests that the new way of working of the system in some of the services across many ULBs is not clear to many clients. Such clients therefore opt for using agents rather than availing the service themselves. There is need to create an awareness through campaigns to explain to the consumers how the new system is designed to reduce service access costs, improve quality and governance for those who avail the service themselves, as was done by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation(GHMC). The focus of computerization seems to have been on automation rather than on re-engineering processes.
An analysis of aributes that are seen to be important by the respondents of the 4 ULBs indicates that aributes related to governance and quality need to be improved across all the ULBs. Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures is mentioned in New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) and Brihannanana Mumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC). Corruption in the working of the system is mentioned in 3 of the 4 ULBs for most of the services oered by the ULBs. Further computerization of the ULBs under the JNNURM should aim to provide all municipal services end-to-end through a portal aer simplifying procedures, and automating information ow and work ow to process a request for a service.
Abbreviations and Acronyms

BMC CFC CSCs DIT G2B G2C G2G GHMC IIMA IT JNNURM KMC MR Agencies NDMC NeGP NIC NMMP PMU RFP ULB Brihanna Mumbai Municipal Corporation Citizen Facilitation Centre Common Service Centres Department of Information Technology Government to Business Government to Citizen Government to Government Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad Information Technology Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission Kolkata Municipal Corporation Market Research Agencies New Delhi Municipal Coporation National e-Governance Plan National Informatics Centre National Mission Mode Programme Program Management Unit Request for Proposal Urban Local Body
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................... 4 Preface................................................................................................................................................. 5 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 9 Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................................................... 11 Preamble ........................................................................................................................................... 15 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Role of IIMA in The Assessment Study............................................................................. 17 Status of Computerization of ULBs Assessed in The Study ........................................... 18 Research Methodology ......................................................................................................... 19 Sampling Methodology and Sample Size .......................................................................... 19 Field Work and Data Quality............................................................................................... 21 Analysis of Survey Data ....................................................................................................... 23 Cost Element Wise Impact ................................................................................................... 25 7.1 7.2 Prole of Respondents ............................................................................................... 25 Costs of Availing Service ............................................................................................ 25 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.3 7.2.4 8. Number of Trips ............................................................................................. 25 Waiting Time (In Minutes) ........................................................................... 27 Elapsed Time .................................................................................................. 28 Proportion Paying Bribe (%) ........................................................................ 29
Service Wise Impact ............................................................................................................ 30 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 Birth Certicate ........................................................................................................... 30 Payment of Property Tax and Utility Bills .............................................................. 30 Issue of New Trade License ....................................................................................... 31 Renewal of Trade License .......................................................................................... 33 Redressal of Grievances ............................................................................................. 34
9. 10.
Learnings for Future Implementation of E-Governance ................................................. 36 Limitations of The Study ...................................................................................................... 40
List of Tables
Table 1: Service Categories............................................................................................................. 19 Table 2: Framework of The Study ................................................................................................. 20 Table 3: Sampling Units And Sample Sizes ................................................................................. 22 Table 4: Reasons for Additional Trips .......................................................................................... 37 Table 5: Reasons for Long Wait ..................................................................................................... 37 Table 6: Important Aributes Across ULBs And Services (By % of Responses) .................... 39
List of Figures
Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Number of Trips .......................................................................................................... 26 Waiting Time (In Minutes) ........................................................................................ 27 Elapsed Time (In Days) .............................................................................................. 28 Proportion Paying Bribes (%).................................................................................... 29 Purpose of Obtaining A Birth Certicate ................................................................ 30 Birth Certicate .......................................................................................................... .31 Payment of Property Tax And Utility Bills ............................................................. 32 Issue of New Trade License ....................................................................................... 33 Renewal of Trade License .......................................................................................... 34
Figure 10: Redressal of Grievances ............................................................................................. 35
List of Annexure
Annexure I Annexure II Annexure III Annexure IV Service Delivery Process ................................................................................ 41 Outline of The Survey Instrument ............................................................... 43 Prole of Respondents for Each ULB ........................................................... 44 Frequency Distribution for Number of Trips ............................................... 48
Preamble
In view of the proposed roll out of the ambitious National e-Governance Program (NeGP), the Government of India was keen to understand the nature and quantum of impact created by e-government projects that had already been implemented by local, state and national Government agencies. In the rst phase of the assessment program initiated in 2008, the Department of Information Technology (DIT) had commissioned impact assessment studies of nearly forty mature e-Governance projects implemented by state and central agencies. Reports analyzing the impact on the basis of these studies were put out in the public domain. These reports were also discussed in workshops organized by IIM Ahmedabad in November 2009 in which many of the representatives of the agencies which were assessed had participated. These workshops provided a forum for discussing the validity of the results and also provided inputs for improving the conceptualization and design of new projects. For the second phase of assessment initiated in 2009, the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA) was contracted by the Department of IT, Government of India to become a knowledge Partner. Projects covering four ULBs; collection of commercial taxes in ten states and a base line survey for e-district program in ve states were taken up in the 2nd phase. This report covers the assessment of delivery of services by Urban Local Bodies (ULB) in four states. As per the 2001 population census the urban population in India constitutes 27.8% of the total population of the country. A large number of services are provided to millions of citizens residing in the urban areas by the municipalities. The National e-Governance Plan (NeGP), Government of India includes a National Mission Mode Programme (NMMP) for e-Governance in municipalities. The NMMP intends to carry out e-Governance in municipalities on a nation-wide basis and has now been included as a part of the Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM). The entire project is divided into two components rst the Urban Infrastructure and Governance (UIG) component and second consists of Basic Services to the Poor. The project envisages covering Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) in 35 mission identied cities. The overall structure for the NMMP scheme has been divided into three tiers i.e. Centre, State and Urban Local Body (ULB) level. NMMP, in its current form, envisages covering all ULBs in class 1 cities (423 in total) during the period 2006-07 to 2010-11. The total outlay of the project is Rs. 7870 million. Major objectives of the JnNURM project include : to improve eciency and eectiveness in interaction between local-government and its citizens and other stakeholders; to bring about transparency and accountability in the governance of urban local bodies; to enhance interface between urban local bodies and citizens; and help improve delivery of services to citizens. During the rst phase, eight (8) civic services / management functions have been selected to
be taken up in 35 Mission cities identied covering approximately 80 ULBs. These mission cities have been so identied on the basis of having a population of 10 lakhs or more as per the 2001 census. The 8 major services delivered under this project are: Registration and issue of birth and death certicate; Payment of property tax, Utility Bills and Management of Utilities that come under ULBs; Grievances and suggestions; Building plan approvals; Procurement and monitoring of projects; Health programs; Accounting system and Personnel Information System. Two sets of mandatory reforms are proposed to be undertaken. The core reforms at ULB level aims at process re-engineering through deployment of technology to enable more ecient, reliable and timely services in a transparent manner. The other set consists of State level reforms. The IIMA report presents an overall view of the impact of varying degrees of computerization in the service delivery of four ULBs-in New Delhi; Mumbai, Hyderabad and Kolkata from the perspective of the citizens and businesses using the municipal services. This report has been compiled on the basis of a detailed report submied by the MR agency. The MR agency report provides detailed analysis of impact for each ULB for each service on a variety of parameters which were included in the questionnaires administered to users of manual and computerized services. The two report should therefore be seen together for an in depth understanding of the impact.
__________ 1 Source: Website of Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, hp://jnnurm.nic.in/ 2 Source: Website of Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, hp://jnnurm.nic.in/
1.Role of IIMA in the Assessment Study

In its advisory role, IIMA was involved in providing inputs to the DIT and the Market Research agencies over the entire life cycle of the study. IIMAs eort was directed at ensuring that a consistent framework was used across ULBs; the MR agency understood the renements to the assessment framework made for the 2nd phase; good quality data was collected; impact could be estimated accurately; results could be projected to the entire population; results could be compared across dierent ULBs; and overall conclusions could be drawn on the impact of e-Governance. The following inputs were provided at important stages of the study: IIMA had developed a framework for assessment covering the key dimensions on which impact on citizens (users of a service) would be measured. On the basis of this framework, a template of the survey instrument for the e-District study was developed by IIMA and provided to the MR agency. IIMA provided a framework for assessment covering the key dimensions on which impact on citizens (users of a service) was to be measured. The framework was similar to the one used in Phase I studies. The scope of the study was marginally widened to get an understanding of the reasons why clients made each trip (in case additional number of trips were made); or paid bribes or used agents. The MR agencies were le free to add any items beyond those specied in the framework in designing the survey instrument. The MR agency was asked to submit a proposal for the study of four ULBs based on the proposed framework. The proposal was discussed in a meeting held in IIMA which was aended by representatives of DIT, IIMA team and the MR Agency team. The IIMA team provided feedback on the proposal including the survey instrument for each ULB to ensure that the survey complied with the proposed framework. Guidelines were framed for the sampling methodology to be used by the MR agencies to determine a sampling plan and the sample size. Design of a sampling plan and sample size was reviewed by the IIMA team and feedback was provided on selection of locations from where respondents were to be selected. Templates were provided for analysis of data to ensure that for each project the key impacts were reported. Formats for a set of tables were provided for reporting data on impact with the associated levels of signicance. Tables were also specied to ascertain adherence to the proposed sampling plan and to assess the response rate. Agencies
17
were asked to report on data quality by performing analysis to check internal consistency of results Feedback was provided in several rounds on the tables for correctness of computation, and unacceptable in level of accuracy. A format was provided for the reports to be submied by the agency, outlining dierent sections that were to be included. Agencies were free to include any additional material that advanced the understanding of the extent of impact or the reasons for a certain kind of impact. Feedback was provided on the report. On the basis of the MR agency report and some further analysis of raw data IIMA has compiled this report to highlight service wise and location wise impact of computerization in 4 ULBs, The report includes a discussion of some lessons for further computerization of the ULBs.
simpler BMC provides multiple service delivery channels. Citizens can make payments; online through the BMC website using ITZ cash cards, at registered SIFY internet cafes across the city, ITZ cash service providers, CFCs and via SMS. Facility of ling grievances and suggestions is available on BMC website as well as at the CFCs. This service is currently provided only by two ULBs (BMC and GHMC) amongst the surveyed states. Citizens in Kolkata can now access several computerized services at the head oce of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC), borough oces in dierent wards as well as through recently opened e-CSCs. KMC is the only ULB amongst others surveyed which provides the service for Mutation of Property. Also there is integration done between the Hospitals, maternity homes, clinics, crematoriums, burial grounds, license centres etc and KMC borough oces through a Central data centre. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) provides the facility of downloading online forms for birth/death registration. Citizens have the facility of checking whether their name is registered or not through the website and thus geing their records updated. Payments of Utility Bills can be done online. Citizens can also avail services at the e-Seva Kendras set up at various places. Grievances and suggestions can led online with the GHMC website and the status of the complaint led can be tracked online too. Also searching of Trade Identication Number (TIN) is available on its website. The New Delhi Municipal Corporation
2.Status of Computerization of ULBs Assessed in The Study

At present most of the citizen services oered by the municipalities in all the four states have been computerized under the JNNURM project. The Brihannanana Mumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) has established computerized Citizen Facilitation centres (CFCs) in every ward for additional convenience to the citizens. These CFCs are enabled with multiple counters and electronic queuing system. To make the payment of property tax and water tax bills
3
_____ The Market Research Agency undertaking the survey was ORG Centre for Social Research, A division of the Nielson Company
18
(NDMC) which caters to a small population oers the facility of obtaining online forms for services like birth/death registration and geing a building approval. Also additional citizen service centres called the Palika Suvidha Kendras (PSKs) have been set up to provide few services such as collection of birth/death certicates and making Utility Bill payments. Table 1 below provides a detailed description of the computerized services oered by each ULB. Annexure I provides a brief description of procedures for availing dierent services in
framework had been used in phase I of the Impact Assessment Studies. 4.Sampling Methodology and Sample Size The basic survey instrument was prepared by the Market Research Agency incorporating the key dimensions in the measurement framework for each ULB in the local language of the state. The questionnaire was pre-tested on 20 respondents in each ULB between February & March 2009 and modied on the basis of feedback. A
Table 1: Service Categories Category of Service Transaction (w/o verication) Transaction (requiring verication of documents) Transaction (requiring personal interface/ eld visits/ verications) Grievance Redressal System BMC Utility Bill Payment, Trade License Renewal Birth Certicate, Death Certicate GHMC KMC NDMC Utility Bill Payment Birth Certicate, Death Certicate Building Approval
Utility Bill Payment, Utility Bill Trade License Payment, Trade Renewal License - Renewal Birth Certicate, Death Certicate Birth Certicate, Death Certicate
Trade License - New
Trade License New, Building Approval Grievance
Trade License New, Building Approval, Mutation
Grievance
the manual and the computerized system.
3.Research Methodology
For the purposes of analyzing the impact of the computerized system the unit of analysis was the catchment or service area of each ULB that was assessed. The research methodology used for the study is discussed below. A measurement framework identifying key areas of direct and indirect economic impact on citizens, and indicators on which qualitative impact can be measured (see Table 2) was used. The
common questionnaire was prepared for capturing responses on the manual system for all services in the ULBs. A separate questionnaire was designed for each computerized service taking into account the variation in the steps to be followed and the level of complexity involved. An outline of the survey instrument used and the sections included are given in Annexure II Given that a sample size of 800 per city had been agreed upon, the sampling methodology for the impact assessment was designed in such a way as to provide
19
Table 2: Framework of the Study Cost of Availing Service Measured Directly Number of trips made for the service Average travel cost of making each trip Average waiting time in each trip Estimate of wage loss due to time spent in availing the service Total time elapsed in availing service Amount paid as bribe to functionaries Amount paid to agents to facilitate service Overall Assessment Preference for manual versus computerized systems Composite score: Measured on a 5-point scale factoring in the key aributes of a delivery system that are seen as being important by users Quality of Service: Interaction with sta, complaint handling, privacy, accuracy measured on a 5-point scale Satisfaction with the location of the service delivery center/oce Convenience of working hours of the service delivery center/oce Overall aitude of the functionaries in terms of courteousness and friendliness Timeliness of response to queries by clients Satisfaction with the mechanism for complaint handling and problem resolution Perception about the condentiality and security of data Satisfaction with the overall quality of service Quality of Governance: Transparency, participation, accountability, corruption measured on a 5-point scale Level of corruption in the current working system Awareness about the citizen charter Adherence of the time frame for service delivery (elapsed time) to that specied in citizens charter Financial loss due to delay in availing the service Type/kind of nancial loss incurred due to delay in availing the service Extent to which government ocials can be held accountable for their actions Whether the rules and procedures are simple and stated clearly Whether the agency takes responsibility for the information shared Does the agency provide any feedback and what is the quality of response to queries? Perception about the overall quality of governance
accurate estimates of cost of access and other variables collectively for all the sampled municipalities of a city. For the purpose of this study, of the sample was done at the levels: ULBs/ municipalities in geographical units within each clustering following each city, ULB and
wards within each geographical unit. For a given sample size, increasing the number of wards from which samples were drawn was seen to be capturing the maximum amount of variability on factors that determine the service delivery performance4. For detailed explanation see the Phase I Impact Assessment Report5.
20
In each city one ULB was selected for purpose of the survey. This selection was done based on the activity levels or population covered by each of them. The total sample size for each ULB was 800 respondents across computerized and manual services in each city. This provided statistically valid samples at 95% Condence Level and 5 % margin of error for each of computerized and manual services. In each city, the administrative area of each ULB was divided into 4 geographical units. The population in each ward for each of these units was obtained through secondary sources and arranged in descending order for each geographical unit. Population was taken as a proxy for activity levels in the ward. The median value of ward population for each geographic unit was obtained and one ward from each half was taken up for survey. Therefore a total of 8 wards were selected from each city. In each selected ward, all service oces were picked up for survey (tracer); boosters were taken if required through a house-to-house systematic random survey in each selected ward for each service. Proportionate allocation for each service was done in each selected centre per ULB to the total sample size of 800 depending upon the volume of transaction of that service in
__________ 4
that centre. Accordingly respondents were chosen through tracer interview6 from these selected centres. In cities/ULBs like Kolkata/ KMC that have gone for eGovernance of more complicated citizen centric services like mutation and building approvals, the sample for these are further sub-divided to include representative interviews from agents/middlemen who are involved in facilitation of such services. Since the manual service is not available anymore for the assessed services in the ULBs, the only way of interviewing the respondents to assess performance of the erstwhile manual system was through the recall method. In this method, the survey team essentially interviewed only those users who had availed services of the manual system at least once, prior to using the computerized system. Table 3 lists the actual number of users surveyed (inclusive of the intermediaries surveyed) in each state and the number of sampling units from which these were drawn. 5.Field Work and Data Quality A 3 day training session was organized by the MR agency in the month of April 2009 in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Hyderabad
Sample size is determined by the desired eect size that we would like to be able to statistically detect with the desired precision (power) needed for the study. Eect size is used to measure the magnitude of impact (of computerization, in this case) and can be computed as the standardized dierence between two means. Eect sizes can be dened as small (between 0 and 0.2), medium (> 0.2 and <= 0.5), and large (>= 0.8). The primary criterion for determining sample size in an impact analysis is the ability to detect an impact of a desired magnitude with a high degree of condence the Minimum Detectable Eect (MDE). In other words if we believe an impact of a certain magnitude has policy relevance, then we should have the statistical power to test whether or not it is statistically dierent from zero. The smaller the MDE, the more likely we will be able to detect smaller impacts. The MDE depends on: The expected variance of the impact estimate; The assumed signicance level (selected to reduce Type 1 error), typically assumed to be 95%); The assumed power level (selected to reduce Type 2 error). The typical level chosen is 80%. At this level we would have a 80 percent chance of detecting an eect as big as the MDE.
5 Department of Information technology, Government of India 2008. Impact assessment of e-governance projects. hp://www.mit.gov.in/ download/ImpactAssessmentReportDra.pdf. Accesses April 11, 2009. 6 Tracer Survey is a technique wherein a survey team is employed for a period of time at the delivery centre to obtain the names and addresses of ALL persons who visit the centre during those days. These names and addresses of people are entered into a rost-er. Once the number of required people are obtained (typically these would be 5 times the sample size), this activity would be discontinued; the survey team would then do a systematic random sampling on the names of the people who have been entered into the roster, and would visit these sampled households to administer the questionnaire on them.
21
Table 3: Sampling Units and Sample Sizes ULB Service Proposed Sample Size Actual Sample Size Total Manual Utility Bill Payment Trade License - Renewal Birth Certicate BMC Death Certicate Trade License - New Mutation Grievance Total Utility Bill Payment Trade License - Renewal Birth Certicate Death Certicate GHMC Trade License - New Building Approval Mutation Grievance Total Utility Bill Payment Trade License - Renewal Birth Certicate Death Certicate KMC Trade License - New Building Approval Mutation Casual Permission Total Utility Bill Payment Trade License - Renewal Birth Certicate NDMC Death Certicate Trade License - New Building Approval Booking of Barat Ghar Total 20 10 800 100 200 20 20 5 800 670 45 34 800 510 310 64 800 392 504 107 149 42 121 2 60 985 578 273 241 184 251 83 7 53 1,670 199 162 159 141 100 20 20 801 662 4 84 21 7 40 818 261 67 94 33 65 2 36 558 392 174 213 180 195 71 7 33 1,265 99 82 75 75 50 10 10 401 327 4 44 11 7 10 403 Total Computerized 243 40 55 9 56 24 427 186 99 28 4 56 12 20 405 100 80 84 66 50 10 10 400 335 40 10 30 415
for supervisors and investigators to brief them about the project and the conduct of the survey. One observer from PMU, DIT was present at the brieng centre. A mock testing exercise was also conducted at the end of the brieng among all interviewers
and supervisors. A Fieldwork Instruction manual was prepared in the local language of the ULB as a reference guide. As per the report of the MR agency, eld investigators were accompanied by the supervisor for 25% of the calls. Supervisors performed
22
various checks at each stage to assess the data accuracy. At the end of each day, the supervisor checked all lled up schedules and data formats for consistency, and to ensure that there were no data gaps. The eld executives monitored the performance of the surveyors based on daily reports, visited the survey sites to observe quality of data being gathered and ecacy of the supervisors, checked about 10% of the completed interviews for each eld team randomly and also organized debrieng and feedback sessions, whenever required. As soon as the survey was completed for 50 respondents in each centre, the questionnaires and data formats were sent to Delhi research oce, where a team of coders went through the questionnaires for consistency checks and coding, to prepare the schedules for data entry. The coding teams were provided with 1 day training. A team of 10 coders and 2 coding supervisors undertook the scrutiny and coding activity. The analysis team from the ORG Centre for Social Research prepared the Data entry program in CS Pro, which has in built consistency checks. The programme was checked, validated & nalized with 2% questionnaires. Data entry was undertaken in Delhi using the nalized version of the data entry programme. In spite of the elaborate process put in place by the MR agency, several data errors were discovered by the IIMA team, which were corrected later. There were some problems encountered during the survey in terms of obtaining adequate samples for each service. For services like application for new Trade license and death certicate the sample size at one of the ULBs like NDMC was
too small for any statistical analysis (See Table 3). For example the eld team in Delhi could not nd enough respondents either at the NDMC centres or at the ward levels who had come to apply fresh for a Traders License or had just applied for one. Similarly for death registration, the sample size was small for NDMC, BMC and GHMC (only computerized for BMC and GHMC). None of the leading section questions or those pertaining to the key issues of enquiry in the study like costs, governance and service quality had problems of low responses.
6.Analysis of Survey Data

The MR agency submied a report providing an assessment of the citizen impact on the following dimensions for each of the four ULBs for key services oered by them: Factors contributing to cost of access (number of trips needed, waiting time, travel costs, payment of bribes) Elapsed time (total time taken for receipt of nal document) Quality of service assessed along aributes such as responsiveness of sta, convenience of location of oce and work timings, and facilities at the service center. Quality of governance assessed on aributes such as transparency, reduced corruption, fairness of treatment, quality of feedback and level of accountability. Overall impact measure (preference between manual and computerized systems) A single composite rating on a ve point scale of improvements perceived aer
23
computerization. Respondents were asked to rate the improvements on a common set of twenty aributes covering cost of access, convenience, quality of delivery, and quality of governance. For each project the respondents were also asked to select the three most desirable aributes. Based on the responses on desirability, a weighting scheme was generated for each of the twenty aributes reecting the importance of the aribute. Using the weighting scheme and the responses on a 5-point scale, a single composite score for improvement was generated.
Monetized cost of access by adding travel cost, wage loss and bribe payments. Using the analysis provided in the MR agency report, the following sections present a comparative picture of the performance of the four ULBs in two ways: Cost element-wise impact: An aggregate picture of overall impact for a given project covering all dimensions across all states. Service-wise impact: Variation across ULBs of the impact on each of the above dimensions for a given service.
24
7.Cost Element Wise Impact

7.1Prole of Respondents
An analysis of the prole of respondents from all the four ULBs reveals that users are primarily in the age bracket of 30 years or more. The proportion of younger respondents (below 30) varies from 0-33% for dierent services in the 4 ULBs. GHMC has a distinctly younger user group of users for every service, particularly for the computerized delivery. In terms of education levels the sample in NDMC is very largely literate (at least matriculation) whereas in other 3 ULBs the proportion of semi literates is signicant- varies from 5 to 51%. There are hardly any illiterate users in the4 ULBs sample except in 2 services in GHMC where the proportion is touching 10%. In NDMC the respondents are largely from lower middle and middle income groups and very few are poor or from the labor class. In KMC the sample is largely poor (with income less than Rs. 5000 per month) and in BMC and GHMC somewhat less so. BMC has the largest proportions of labor as the occupation of the respondents varying from 14 to 44% for non Trade services. The sample is predominantly males in KMC, BMC and GHMC, whereas in NDMC nearly 30% of the respondents are females. (See detailed tables for each ULB in (Annexure III). Even though the respondents were chosen from urban municipal areas in all the states, some variations were observed in their prole. a particular ULB. Unlike many previous projects/services that were assessed, there seems to be no signicant reduction in the number of trips aer computerization. There has been a marginal reduction in the number of trips across all ULBs for services such as Utility Bill payment and Renewal of Traders license. However, the number of trips has increased across all ULBs for issue of a new Trade license post computerization. This is due to an additional trip to the State Industries Commission Oce needed to procure the Type of Business Certicate. Malfunctioning of computers, checking the application status are other reasons for citizens to make a trip. The increase in trips may also be due to the increased level of activity in the years that computerization has been in place. For services such as obtaining a Birth Certicate, except in BMC the number of trips has increased as compared to the manual system. In BMC aer obtaining the certicate from the CFC counter the applicant can get it signed from the medical ocer present at the CFC center on the same day. In other ULBs this procedure generally requires one more trip as the medical ocer sits in another department/oce of the ULB. Respondents indicated that additional trips are required to collect information on procedures, non-submission of documents at the rst time, and due to absence of ocial required for authentication. The number of trips should not be more than one for payments of Utility Bills (property tax, electricity, water tax etc) and for collection of certicates for Birth and
7.2Costs of Availing Service

7.2.1Number of Trips Figure 1 below presents the number of trips averaged over all the users for a service in
25
Death. The chart in (Annexure IV) presents the proportion of respondents availing a birth certicate in 1, 2, 3 or 4 trips in the 4 ULBs aer computerization. Only in BMC and KMC, 50-60% respondents could do it in one trip, whereas in other ULBs hardly a few could get a Birth Certicate in one trip. For other complex services the trips should not be more than 2 (1 for submission of forms and documents and 1 for collection of the required certicate).
Simple process reforms and eective supervision at delivery centers can reduce the number of trips and bring about a great deal of improvement. Process reform (clear information on procedures, reducing number of steps in the delivery of a service, quick information ow between dierent agencies) has to be a priority in the next phase of computerization. Ideally, if the services can be designed to be delivered from a Portal and citizens are incentivized to use
Figure 1: Number of Trips7
Manual
__________ 7
Computerised
The colored bars in all the gures (1 to 10) represent the values of manual and computerized system.
26
the Portal, there need not be any trips to an oce for most of the simple services. This will reduce the burden at the counters for people without easy access to the Internet. 7.2.2Waiting Time (In Minutes) Figure 2 presents the average waiting time in minutes for each trip made for the service. Overall, the waiting time is high (40-85 minutes) in most services in manual delivery. Similar wait time was reported for land records, transport and property registration services assessed in phase I. Computerization has reduced the wait by 15-50% for Utility Bill Payments across
ULBs. Filing grievances on the portal reduces the wait time to zero and makes tracking of complaints easier. However, for services such as obtaining Birth Certicate the impact of computerization on wait time has been negative i.e. in 3 ULBs the wait time has gone up. In Issue and Renewal of Trade license, the impact is marginal except in KMC where a signicant reduction has been achieved. Some of the reasons cited for long wait at the counters are large number of applicants, non-functional counters as well as frequent system breakdown-problems that can be xed through beer operational management. Since some ULB have been
Figure 2: Waiting Time (In Minutes)
Manual
Computerised
27
able to reduce the average wait time to 30 minutes for dierent types of service, it should be possible for others to achieve similar results. 7.2.3Elapsed Time Figure 3 presents the elapsed time in days between application for a service and its nal delivery. Overall, the average elapsed time has increased aer computerization for most services across all ULBs. The only
due to the integration of information ow between the hospitals, maternity homes, clinics, crematoriums, burial grounds, license centers etc and KMC borough oces through a Central Data Centre8. In other ULBs because of poor communication between the hospitals and ULBs the applicant needs to make multiple trips to the hospital to expedite the process. For procuring a new Trade license which is a complex service (involving any steps) the
Figure 3: Elapsed Time (In Days)
Manual
Computerised
improvements are a one day reduction in Birth Certicate in BMC and a signicant reduction in Renewal of Trade licenses across all ULBs. The data shows a great deal of variability in elapsed time for Birth Registration ranging from 3 to 8 days across ULBs aer computerization. Ability of KMC to deliver a Birth Certicate in 2-3 days is
__________ 8
average elapsed time in the computerized system ranges from 10 to 20 days. As compared to the manual system elapsed time has in fact increased. The primary reason for the increase is due to the mandatory submission of the type of service delivery certicate to be obtained from the State Industries Department.
Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Reforming governance systems in Kolkata, hp://www.metropolis.org/metropolis/sites/default/les/ comisiones/2009-2011/c2/Case%20Study%20Kolkaa.pdf. Accessed Feb 20, 2010.
28
7.2.4Proportion Paying Bribe (%) The incidence of bribe is spread across all services in specic ULBs in the manual system. There is a signicant lowering of bribes aer computerization in the ULBs where the bribery in the manual system was high. In general, post computerization the incidence of bribery is low except in the issue of Trade license in BMC and KMC and in Renewal of Trade license in GHMC (See Figure 4). The reasons cited for payment of bribes are: expediting the process of service delivery, to enable service to be provided out of turn and to inuence the functionaries to manipulate record in favor
of citizen. Therefore if process reform is carried out, which makes the system more ecient and takes away discretion to delay or deny service from the functionaries, bribery can be reduced. Proportion of bribery (corruption) for making Utility Bill payments in the manual system was very low in all ULBs apart from GHMC. Post computerization incidence of bribe has almost been eliminated. Opening up of multiple delivery centers, multiple payment options in few ULBs and ecient queue management (BMC) has made oces more client-friendly and reduced the need to expedite delivery.
Figure 4: Proportion Paying Bribes (%)
Manual
Computerised
29
8.Service Wise Impact

8.1Birth Certicate
Nearly 16% of all respondents had obtained a Birth Certicate in either the manual or computerized mode. Birth Certicate is a valued service as it is required for employment and for other economic activities such as applying for a loan. The gure 5 below analyzes the reasons for which a Birth Certicate is obtained. the fact that a large proportion of citizens amongst all users seek a Birth Certicate the impact of computerization is insignicant. Process reform in terms of improved sharing and transfer of information from maternity homes/hospitals to the municipalities needs to be implemented to improve performance on the hard elements of costs such as wait time and number of trips.
Figure 5: Purpose of Obtaining A Birth Certicate
The impact of computerization is very marginal across the 4 ULBs on all the elements that constitute the cost of accessing the service for a citizen (See Figure 6 below). The waiting time reported below is the total wait for all the trips that were made. GHMC seems to have improved the perception of governance and quality. Major contribution to the improved perception is the signicant reduction in bribery (17% to 4 %) as well use of intermediaries. (40%to 4 %). Given
8.2Payment of Property Tax and Utility Bills

Almost 46% of all respondents paid property tax or Utility Bill in a manual or computerized mode across the ULBs. However, for this largest group of users, the impact of computerization is marginal across ULBs. Some reduction in waiting time (ranging from 16%-50%) has been possible across the 4 ULBs but on all other
30
Figure 6: Birth Certicate
parameters the performance of the manual and computerized system is equally poor (See Figure 7 below). Bribery is not a signicant problem in 3 ULBs. In GHMC computerization has helped eliminate bribery and that is why composite score of GHMC has improved.
8.3Issue of New Trade License

Application for New Trade license is the second most used service at 3 of the ULBs barring the NDMC. Nearly 16% of all respondents in 3 ULBs used the service. The service is more complex that payment of a
bill and the user is a Trader/ businessman (See Annexure III). However the impact of the computerized system has been marginal across the three ULBs as indicated in Figure 8 below. Impact in terms of cost of availing service (no of trips, waiting time and elapsed time) has been negligible. Only GHMC shows a signicant reduction in the percentage of users paying bribes (from 24% to 3 %) and also a reduction in the use of intermediaries (from 45% to 7 %). This is why GHMC scores much beer on the perception of quality and governance as compared to other ULBs.
31
Figure 7: Payment of Property Tax and Utility Bills
Manual
Computerised
32
Figure 8: Issue of New Trade License.
Manual
Computerised
8.4Renewal of Trade License

Application for Renewal of Trade license is the second most used service at 3 of the ULBs barring the NDMC. Nearly 16% of all respondents in 3 ULBs used the service (See Annexure III). Computerization has created a modest positive impact on most of the performance parameters assessed in the study. There was marginal reduction
in number of trips, a moderate reduction in total waiting times, and a signicant reduction in elapsed time. Bribery and proportion using intermediaries has also been reduced signicantly and eliminated in some cases (See Figure 9). Across the ULBs there is improved perception of quality, governance and the composite overall performance. GHMC shows the maximum improvement because the manual delivery
33
Figure 9: Renewal of Trade License
Manual
Computerised
was rated as poor on many dimensions. Ideally, Renewal should be possible through a web portal obviating the need for a visit to the oce.
8.5Redressal of Grievances
The results presented in Figure 10 suggest that the impact of computerization on
initiating the Redressal of a Grievance has been signicant for both the ULBs. Waiting time has been eliminated and bribery has been reduced. However, the resolution of Grievances has not improved as indicated by longer elapsed times. GHMC seems to have improved the perception of quality and governance.
34
Figure 10: Redressal of Grievances
Manual
Computerised
35
9.Learnings for Future Implementation of e-Governance

An overall conclusion on the impact of computerization in the 4 ULBs is one of marginal impact on the users. Amongst the services, there was moderate positive impact on clients in Renewal of Licenses and payment of Property tax and Utility Bills. Important services like issue of Birth Certicates show hardly any improvement from the users perspective. While, bribery has been reduced in some cases, there is hardly any improvement in other elements of cost such as number of trips and waiting time across services and ULBs. Post computerization the performance varies widely on these parameters whereas IT enabled process reforms and standardization should have produced a more even performance. All the ULBs assessed in the study had started to replace the erstwhile manual system almost a decade back in a phased manner. Most of the ULBs have automated their backend systems and put in work ow for many of the services to be able to deliver the services on line through assisted counters in service centers. The MR agency has observed in its report that the transaction time for processing of applications for services has reduced for the ULBs to a considerable extent. For example, the MR agency eld sta observed that at the counters each user can be processed by the ULB counter assistant in a maximum of 2-3 minutes for many services. However, the improvement in productivity in processing does not result in benet in terms of time and cost saved for the consumers. Users reporting on their counter experience complained of long queues at the counters and long waiting times. Long queues were also observed by investigators during the surveys-explaining why the benet of internal eciency in the ULB is not being transferred to the consumer. Table 4 below presents the reasons for additional trips across all services. Long queues are cited as a reason for every service by a large proportion of users. Providing adequate number of counters can take care of the problem. A well designed portal can allow download of applications, checking status and conveying the procedure for obtaining a service in clear manner to obviate the need for making a trip. Table 5 presents the reasons for long wait at the center in the manual and computerized systems across all services. Too many customers, non working counters, poorly trained sta is the main reasons cited by the users. Improved operational management can take care of some of these reasons There are many types of actions that can improve the impact on clients: The operations of a center have to be beer managed. This means that the number of service counters that are operational must match the demand. The investment in creating new counters is not large in comparison to the benets that result for the clients. The queues have to be managed well. If more services can be oered through portals by computerizing end-to-end process of delivery including document submission, payment and delivery of digitally signed documents, and citizens
36
Table 4: Reasons For Additional Trips9 Reasons for Additional Trips (% of responses) Services Birth Certicate N=86 Processing time at the oce All documents/forms were not submied the rst time To collect information on procedures and required documents To obtain application form Power failure/equipment breakdown at the service area. Long queues Absence of ocial required for authentication To check application status 9 30 20 28 100 63 35 45 61 18 8 56 4 39 76 13 92 24 22 Utility Bill N=64 New Trade License N=114 Trade Grievances License Renewal N=39 N=45 49
Table 5: Reasons For Long Wait10 Reasons Long wait at the center (% of responses) Services Birth Certicate N=101 Many counters were not working There were too many customers in the service area Sta do not appear to be well trained , so are slow at processing application Frequent system/equipment breakdown 73 78 77 26 Utility Bill N=31 10 58 13 26 New Trade License N=35 57 26 6 40 100 58 58 Trade License Renewal N=22 Grievances
N=12
incentivized to use the portal the work load on physical service center will automatically reduce. As discussed in the previous section, in case of more complex services such as mutation, Building Approvals, New Traders Licenses and Grievances,
__________ 9
the client has hardly experienced any improvement. Providing qualitative feedback, clients reported that they did not understand the new way of working of the system in some of the services across many ULBs. Many clients therefore opt for using agents rather than availing the service themselves. A possible solution
In the survey questionnaire the respondents were asked to identify reasons for making additional trips to the centre for a particular service (if no of trips =>3). This was a multiple response question. N is addition of the manual and computerized samples for each service of all 4 ULBs. 10 In the survey questionnaire the respondents were asked to identify reasons for long waiting time at the center particular service. This was a multiple response question. N is addition of the manual and computerized samples for each service of all 4 ULBs.
37
is to create an awareness campaign explaining to the consumers how the new system is designed to reduce service access costs, improve quality and governance for those who avail the service themselves. Some eorts were made at GHMC, through an awareness campaign among the clients highlighting the benets of the computerized process over the manual system. Moreover, the GHMC website is used to educate the users including options of search and nd, and preparation of system generated dummy certicates for birth and death registration. The process of awareness creation has reduced the usage of intermediaries for most services across GHMC. There is need for reengineering processes for the delivery of services. A comparison of the computerized and the manual system for each of the services shows that there is not much dierence between the two so far as the client is concerned. The entire focus of improving delivery times is through automation. Until and unless there is a reduction in steps in the processes needed to service a clients application, it is dicult to impact the cost to the client. One of the important information gathered in the survey was users response on which three of the twenty aributes of service delivery (read out from the survey instrument) were considered important by the users of each project in dierent states. Table 6 depicts the data from these responses in terms of the aributes that were found to be more important for each type of project across states. The rst learning
is that users perception of what is important varies with the projects and states. Therefore, user participation in the design of the delivery system prior to its implementation is extremely important. Consultation with the users is seldom done. There are ve aributes which are considered important in 4-5 states by users of two of the three services. An analysis of aributes that are seen to be important by the respondents of the 4 ULBs indicates that aributes related to governance and quality need to be improved across all the ULBs. Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures is mentioned in NDMC and BMC. Corruption in the working of the system is mentioned in 3 of the 4 ULBs for most of the services oered by the ULBs. As reported earlier, corruption is one area where some improvements have occurred in many of the ULBs. In subsequent computerization greater emphasis needs to be paid on reducing the discretion of civil servants in processing requests for services and also in making the rules and procedures simple and transparent. Factors related to quality of service are also mentioned in all the ULBs. These are areas where it is easy to make improvements. For example, queue management is mentioned in 3 of the 4 ULBs. Queue management can be done by puing a simple electronic system of displaying a token number that is due for processing at any counter. It is interesting to note that the cost of availing services is not seen to be important in ULB services, whereas in many other services that were assessed last year, cost was considered to be quite important. The primary reason is that ULB services are available locally within a city and therefore cost of travel is not as
38
large as for other services where long travel is involved.
Table 6: Important Aributes Across ULBs and Services (by % of Responses)

Services Birth Certicate Utility Bill New Trade License Trade License Renewal Grievances
NDMC Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Ability to complain Management of queuing system Legibility of print outs Location of service center Total BMC Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Communication by department on progress Accountability of ocers Corruption of working system Convenience of working hours Design and layout of application form Responsiveness of functionaries Legibility of print outs Durability of certicates Eort in document preparation Total KMC Corruption of working system Accountability of ocers Ability to complain Management of queuing system Total GHMC Corruption of working system Dependence of intermediaries Security of data Management of queuing system Location of service center Durability of certicates Responsiveness of functionaries Costs of availing service Total 25.47 39.62 31.13 96.22 22.31 22.31 35.90 30.51 111.03 30.99 27.84 27.32 86.15 32.37 25.43 27.75 85.55 21.21 21.21 27.27 30.30 99.99 52.00 33.33 34.67 120 37.37 36.36 40.40 36.36 150.49 48.00 42.00 36.00 126 34.15 40.24 39.02 113.41 22.22 20.00 17.78 17.78 22.22 22.22 20.00 142.22 21.96 20.56 22.43 64.95 10.63 22.22 20.63 80.46 26.98 30.30 22.73 25.76 78.79 20.59 23.53 23.53 26.47 94.12 45.45 25.00 25.00 27.27 122.72 54.60 26.07 34.05 114.72
(%) based on number of responses
Quality of governance
Quality of service
Cost of availing service
39
10.Limitations of The Study

The sample size for new Trade licenses in NDMC was very small; inadequate for any statistical analysis. The eld team of the MR agency in Delhi could not nd enough respondents who had applied for a Traders license either at the NDMC centers or at the ward level. Similarly for Death Registration, the sample size was small for NDMC for both modes of delivery and for computerized services in BMC and GHMC. A few limitations of the study should be recognized while interpreting the results. First, in the absence of any benchmark surveys of the existing manual system, the study relied on recall for eliciting experience with manual delivery of the service. In some cases, manual systems were completely replaced by the current computerized system about 8-10 years back and in other cases the frequency with which users avail a service might be very low. This might make recalling experience with the manual system challenging for users. However, it is not clear in which direction, if any, this might bias the results. Second, although all eort was made to ensure that the sampled users were representative of the broader population, a complete list of users was not always available from delivery centers that were selected in the sample. Geing a list of users that had used services in the manual system was even more dicult. Therefore, a sampling frame could not always be drawn for randomly selecting respondents. In such cases respondents were picked up randomly by using a house to house survey. Third, because of the sensitivity of certain questions, it was dicult to get respondents to answer some questions. In particular, eliciting data on bribery was dicult in some ULBs, particularly if agents were used.
40
Annexure I: Service Delivery Process

Service levels Obtaining a new Birth Certicate (BC) Computerized Process Service levels
Service
Manual Process
Birth Registration
Obtaining a new Birth Certicate (BC)
User has to obtain BC from the hospital and present it to the same ward municipality oce where the hospital is located within 21 days of the babys birth.
User had to get a BC from the hospital usually a month aer the babys discharge from the hospital.
This certicate had to be deposited with the ULB within a month from the date of obtaining it by the applicant themselves. During this time, the hospital sends the backup le related to the birth of the baby to the concerned ULB area oce. Along with this Birth Certicate, a form specifying requirement for the Birth Certicate has to be lled in and provided by the applicant at the ULB oce. These set of documents has to be deposited at the counter (sometimes specied, sometimes a common counter at the ULB oce).
On acceptance of the certicate by the ULB a message was sent across to the hospital conrming the birth.
Generally a new BC was obtained between 15-20 days aer a conrmation is received from the hospital. The original Birth Certicate is obtained from the counter aer within 7 days of this application.
Once the conrmation is given by the hospital to the ULB, date was then given to the applicant for collection of the BC. Oen the applicant had to personally visit the hospitals to expedite the process and carry the conrmation to the ULB.
[In this process, even though the applicant was ocially not required to meet any Ocer in the department, quite oen the expeditiousness of the process depended directly upon whether and how many times the applicant met the concerned ocials at the ULB oce and the hospital] Geing a copy of the BC
[In this process, the applicant need not visit any other ocial apart from the counter assistant.]
Geing a copy of the BC
[Process wise there is no major dierence across the 4 ULBs surveyed in obtaining this certicate or its copies. As far as the Citizens Charter of the ULBs are concerned, there are some dierences in the time limit for geing the services] Applicant has to go to the counter at any area oce and apply for a copy of the Birth Certicate aer lling in the appropriate form.
For obtaining a copy of the BC the applicant had to go to the ULB counter at the same area oce from where the original Birth Certicate was obtained and apply for copies of the certicates.
The ocials at the counter would search for the certicate manually which would take between 15-30 days ocially.
The Birth Certicate copies are given to the applicant from the counter aer allowing for searching time, which is generally processing time for the computer. However, these copies need to be authenticated by an Ocer who sits in a dierent oce of the Department, located at dierential distances from the ULB oces.
The applicant would be asked to come and collect the same copies from the oce aer this period of time and then get the same certied from the concerned Ocer, who sat at the head oce of the ULB.
41
42
Service levels Application for grievance can be made either at the ULB website or at the particular ward oce in which the applicant stays. Grievances can also be lodged at CFCs (BMC) and eSeva kendras (GHMC). If applied through the website, the application procedure ends with the generation of a complaint number which acts as a reference for future tracking. For physically applying, the applicant needs to visit the ward oce (or CFC or eSeva in that ward oce as the case maybe) and register for grievance redress in a prescribed form at the ward oce counter. Once the grievance is lodged the applicant is provided with a date at the counter within which the maer would be resolved. Computerized Process Service levels The complaint would be resolved depending upon the volume of pending unresolved complaints with the ward oce at that time. The complaint is resolved between 3 -21 days from the date of registering this complaint depending on the nature of grievance. The license could be obtained in 15-20 days aer the application was led with the ULB with the necessary documents. To le an application for new Trade license the applicant Once the can obtain the form either from the ULB oce or download verication process is it from the website. over the A type of business certicate got from the state industries applicants commission is to be led along with the form. are given Within 3-15 days of submission of form the applicant is the Trade subject is subject to a verication procedure depending on license approval. the nature of business. This is [For more restricted categories of business, the verication generally process generally occurs toward the later of these 3-15 days done cycle. For such businesses also, there may be more than one within 7 round of verication by dierent departments.] days of the verication. Applicant gets demand notes from the ULBs for the Renewal. Applicant can go to the ULB registered counters or the kiosks designated by the ULBs for accepting these payments (Palika Suvidha Kendras for NDMC, Citizen Facilitation Centres for BMC, eKolkata service centre for KMC and eSeva/Rajiv Centres for GHMC) with these bills. Payment can be made at the counter with the bill then and there. Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010
Service
Manual Process
Grievances
[Process is similar at BMC and GHMC; guiding timelines for resolving the complaints are also similar]
Applicant had to visit the same locality ULB ward oce in whose jurisdiction the complaint would fall and register the complaint with the concerned ocer there.
New Traders License To obtain a new Trade license the applicant had to rst apply with State Industries Commission. [Process of obtaining This was done to get a type of business the license is similar certicate. at all three ULBs This process took about a month aer the surveyed, including application was led, as it was the duty of the ULB guidelines State Industries Commission to conduct the on time limits verication process. for obtaining the licenses] Once the verication was completed and the necessary no-objection-certicates obtained, the applicant could go to the ULB and apply for a new license.
Trade License Renewal
Applicant used to receive demand notes from the ULBs for Renewal.
Thereaer they had to go to the ward oces of the ULBs and their designated counters for making the payments.
At these ward oces; there would be one counter where the bill was veried manually from les kept as records for the applicant.
[Process wise there is no dierence across the ULBs surveyed in making Renewal payments for Traders Licenses including timelines for service access/ delivery]
The applicant had to then deposit the veried bill and make necessary cash payments at the designated counter.
Annexure II: Outline of The Survey Instrument
Section No. Dealing with questions related to 1 Identication of respondents: Name, address, status of the respondents, village/city, taluka and district where he/she belongs to, residential address of the respondent and status in the family. Awareness of the respondent regarding the computerized services: Duration and source of awareness, actual user prole from the household at the computerized centre Services Availed: Incidence of services availed and date of actual availing of the service Costs of Availing Service: Distance, usual mode of travel, number of trips, travel time and cost of each trip, waiting time, wage loss, service charges, errors in documents, number of trips, incidence of bribes, amount of bribe paid, purpose of paying bribes, payments made to intermediaries, total payments made, level of anxiety in order to obtain the service Overall Assessment: Perception about improvement in 22 of attributes related to costs, service quality and governance regarding manual vis--vis computerized systems, ranking of 3 most important attributes out of the above, preference or otherwise of the computerized land records centre vis--vis the manual land records centre Perception of the user about quality of governance and quality of service Perception of user about eGovernance: General statements to understand the level of liking or otherwise of the respondent to the eGovernance system Respondent Prole: Gender, education, income, occupation, type of house
3 4
6 7 8
43
Annexure III: Prole of Respondents for Each ULB Prole of Respondents New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) NDMC Services Background Characteristics Birth Certicate M Number of Respondents Age (in years) (%) Less than 30 30-40 40 or more Gender (%) Male Female Education (%) Illiterate Schooled Matric and above Occupation (%) Cultivation/laborer/ worker Executive /clerical Businessman Dependent/student Other Monthly Income (%) Less than Rs. 5000 Rs. 5000-10000 Rs. 10000-30000 Rs. 30000 or more 4.5 18 52 25 10 31 51 7.7 9.1 9.1 55 27 0 0 70 30 0 44 11 44 0 0 7.1 93 0 29 68 3.4 1.5 25 65 8.5 2.3 43 18 4.5 32 5.1 54 5.1 5.1 31 9.1 27 27 9.1 27 20 10 50 0 20 22 22 44 11 0 0 18 75 7.1 0 0.9 45 12 17 25 3 38 15 22 22 4.5 14 82 0 13 87 0 9.1 91 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 1.2 8.2 91 2.1 4.8 93 66 34 69 31 73 27 70 30 89 11 93 7.1 64 36 73 28 0 61 39 13 67 21 9.1 64 27 0 30 70 22 22 56 3.6 21 75 22 44 33 31 35 35 44 C 39 Death Certicate M 11 C 10 Building Approval M 9 C 28 Utility Bill Payment M 326 C 331
44
Prole of Respondents Brihannanana Mumbai Municipal Corporation

BMC Services
Background Characteristics Number of Respondents Age (in years) (%) Less than 30 30-40 40 or more Gender (%) Male Female Education (%) Illiterate Schooled Matric and above Occupation (%) Cultivation/laborer/worker Executive /clerical Businessman Dependent/student Other Monthly Income (%) Less than Rs. 5000 Rs. 5000-10000 Rs. 10000-30000 Rs. 30000 or more
Birth Certicate M 90 C 53
Death Certicate M 31 C 9
Grievance M 34 C 21
Utility Bill Payment M 214 C 201
Trade license new M 63 C 51
Trade license Renewal M 66 C 40
10 42 48 82 18 0 39 61 26 13 36 7.8 18 16 58 21 5.6
25 49 26 83 17 0 28 72 23 23 26 7.5 21 19 49 32 0
9.7 19 71 87 13 0 29 71 16 16 36 13 19 6.5 65 29 0
11 44 44 89 11 0 22 78 44 22 11 0 22 33 56 11 0
8.8 41 50 88 12 0 26 74 18 38 24 15 5.9 12 56 21 12
14 33 52 86 14 4.8 14 81 14 24 24 19 19 14 19 57 9.5
26 29 46 86 14 2.8 29 68 15 18 36 12 19 19 52 28 1.9
18 34 47 88 12 4 29 67 21 21 31 12 14 23 42 31 4
13 33 54 97 3.2 0 24 76 4.8 7.9 81 1.6 4.8 4.8 49 46 0
18 35 47 98 2 0 26 75 2 5.9 84 0 7.8 16 43 37 3.9
17 26 58 97 3 0 29 71 1.5 11 82 1.5 4.5 3 56 41 0
7.5 23 70 100 0 0 43 58 7.5 2.5 83 0 7.5 10 53 33 5
45
Prole of Respondents Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC)

KMC Services
Background Characteristic
Birth Certicate
M C
Death Mutation Certicate

M C M C
Utility Bill Payment

M C
Trade license new

M C
Trade license Renewal

M C
Number of Respondents Age (in years) (%) Less than 30 30-40 40 or more Gender (%) Male Female Education (%) Illiterate Schooled Matric and above Occupation (%) Cultivation/laborer/worker Executive /clerical Businessman Dependent/student Other Monthly Income (%) Less than Rs. 5000 Rs. 5000-10000 Rs. 10000-30000 Rs. 30000 or more
75
84
75
66
10
10
99
100
50
50
82
80
19 37 44 51 49 2.7 48 49 2.7 1.3 36 8 52 64 24 12 0
33 46 20 51 49 2.4 51 46 1.2 6 33 3.6 56 64 19 11 6
13 29 57 71 29 4 49 47 0 11 33 20 36 65 27 5.3 2.7
23 46 32 65 35 7.6 41 52 1.5 20 32 9.1 38 83 6.1 9.1 1.5
0 0 100 90 10 0 0 100 0 0 20 70 10 10 50 20 20
0 0 100 100 0 0 10 90 0 20 40 40 0 40 40 20 0
2 12 86 86 14 2 35 63 0 7.1 30 43 19 58 29 8.1 5.1
10 28 62 78 22 0 26 74 0 8 40 26 26 48 29 19 4
6 28 66 98 2 4 30 66 0 0 1000 0 0 62 24 12 2
22 32 46 98 2 0 28 72 0 0 1000 0 0 68 26 2 4
3.7 34 62 95 4.9 0 34 66 0 0 98 0 2.4 76 22 1.2 1.2
10 39 51 98 2.5 0 30 70 0 0 99 1.3 0 51 40 6.3 2.5
46
Role of Respondents Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC)

GHMC Services
Background Characteristic
Birth Certicate M C
Death Building Certicate approval M C M C
Utility Bill Payment M C
Trade license new M C
Trade license Renewal M C
Grievances
Number of Respondents Age (in years) (%) Less than 30 30-40 40 or more Gender (%) Male Female Education (%) Illiterate Schooled Matric and above Occupation (%) Cultivation/laborer/worker Executive /clerical Businessman Dependent/student Other Monthly Income (%) Less than Rs. 5000 Rs. 5000-10000 Rs. 10000-30000 Rs. 30000 or more
212
28
180
71
12 390 186
194
55
173
92
33
20
15 31 54 86 14 9.9 21 69 7.5 6.1 63 8.5 15 24 31 37 9
29 54 18 82 18 7.1 21 71 7.1 3.6 68 3.6 18 14 39 46 0
15 42 43 84 16 8.9 18 73 3.3 8.3 61 12 16 16 41 42 1.7
25 50 25 0 100 25 25 50 0 0 0 0 100 0 100 0 0
8.5 34 58 80 20 11 27 62 7 4.2 52 14 23 28 35 34 2.8
42 25 33 67 33 0 17 83 0 50 25 25 0 0 0 83 17
15 38 47 87 13 7.4 20 73 5.4 5.4 68 9 13 17 30 45 8.2
26 31 44 84 16 6.5 19 75 11 13 44 13 18 24 39 33 4.8
16.5 45 38 89 11 5.2 19.1 76 4.1 6 74 8 8.2 7.2 26.3 54 13
38 51 11 98 2 0 9 91 0 4 96 0 0 0 9.1 69.1 22
16 45 39 90 10 4.6 19 77 2.9 3.5 79 6.9 8.1 7.5 28 57 7.5
24 57 20 95 5.4 0 17 83 0 1.1 98 1.1 0 1.1 13 78 7.6 39 61 91 9.1 3 12 85 0 3 76 3 18 0 18 79 3 10 90 95 5 0 5 95 0 5 35 0 60 0 5 90 5
47
Annexure IV: Frequency Distribution For Number of Trips Birth Certicate
48
PART II
Report by Nielsen, ORG Centre for Social Research (Page No 49 to 382)
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................53 1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................62 2. Sampling and Interviewing Protocol, Questionnaire Design, Survey constraints and Data Management issues ..........................................................................71 3. Service-wise analysis on costs, service quality and governance .....................................76 4. Desegregated Analysis ........................................................................................................130 5. Conclusions and the Way Forward ....................................................................................131 Annexure Annexure 1. Survey Questionnaires for users of the services provided through e-governance under JnNURM 1.1 Mutation of property and building approvals .................................................135 1.2 birth and death registration ................................................................................149 1.3 Application for grievances ..................................................................................165 1.4 Property tax, water tax and electricity bill payments ....................................176 1.5 Traders license......................................................................................................187 1.6 For Manual Services only ....................................................................................200 Annexure 2. Detailed Scores for each service in each ULB ............................................209 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Table 2.6 Table 2.7 Table 2.8 Birth Certicate ........................................................................................211 Death Certicate ......................................................................................214 Utility Payments ......................................................................................217 Grievance ..................................................................................................221 Renewal of Traders License....................................................................222 New Traders License ...............................................................................225 Mutation ...................................................................................................228 Building Approval ...................................................................................229
Annexure 3. Prole of Intermediaries ................................................................................233 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 3.8 Table 4.1 : Table 4.2 : Table 4.3: Table 4.4: Table 4.5: Table 4.6 : Birth Registration.....................................................................................235 Death Registration ...................................................................................236 Building Approval ..................................................................................237 Payments Property, Water and electricity ........................................237 Mutation ..................................................................................................238 Grievances ................................................................................................238 Trades License New ............................................................................239 Trades License Renewal ......................................................................240 Prole of the respondents (Intermediary) (M) ....................................242 Cost to client (Me ans and Standard Errors) (M) ................................243 Service Quality Issues: Proportions (M)...............................................243 Governance and Corruption Issues (M)...............................................244 Role of Intermediaries (M) .....................................................................244 Most Important Aributes of the services (M) ...................................244
Annexure 4. Desegregated Analysis ...................................................................................247 Table Delhi ...................................................................................................................249 Table Hyderabad ...........................................................................................................270 Table Kolkaa ................................................................................................................305 Table Mumbai ................................................................................................................347
Executive Summary
Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India has launched the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Commission (JNNURM) on 03.12.2005 to encourage cities to initiate steps to bring about improvement in the existing service levels in a nancially sustainable manner. As part of the mandatory reforms, each ULB is expected to initiate and achieve under the Urban Infrastructure and Governance Plan, e-governance of basic citizen centric services, primarily related to payment of utility bills, trade licenses issue and renewal, issue of birth and death certicates, assessment and mutation of property and building plan approvals and lodging of grievances. The present study, conducted among users (clients) of these services in the four ULBs of NDMC, BMC, KMC and GHMC, seeks to assess the impact of computerization on the performance of the delivery mechanisms of these services in terms of costs of accessing the services, service quality issues and governance issues. Moreover, it also tries to understand user preferences and responses to overall assessment of the services, meaning combinations of all parameters related to service quality and governance, both in the manual and computerized services. A sample of about 800 clients (users of the services) were surveyed in each ULB (1650 for GHMC) to elicit their responses on the impact of eGovernance services in their respective ULBs vis--vis the earlier manual system. The sample was split more or less equally between the manual and the computerized system users (as the manual system was not operational anymore) and a recall method was applied to understand the dierence in impact between the two service delivery modes. For GHMC however, the number of manual respondents was about three times that of the computerized respondents. The proles of respondents across all services between the manual and computerized modes at all the ULBs were mostly similar in terms of age, sex, religion, income earned, occupation and type of houses dwelt in. Structured questionnaires were canvassed with respondents in each of these services, which were prepared by AC Nielsen and veed by IIM Ahmedabad and DIT. Appropriate quality checks were built in to ensure data sanctity. The data was entered using CSPro and analyzed using STATA soware. The following Box E.1 provides comparable information on the four ULBs studied, aer our interactions with the respondents and the ULB ocials. Box E.1: Basic ULB information NDMC: catering to the lowest area and population amongst all the study ULBs, NDMC is politically one of the most important urban bodies in the country, as it houses the political class of the country. Extremely well funded by dierent agencies for most projects, NDMC has brought about eGovernance initiatives in payment of utility bills,
53
issue of birth and death certicates, building approvals and issue of new and old traders licenses. These services can be accessed at the ULB charge oces as well as the Palika Suvidha Kendras (apart from for building approvals and traders license issue). Almost all service centres in NDMC are very clean with proper lighting and comfortable waiting areas, though there is no proper queuing system at the smaller centres. However, ratio of sta manning service centers to number of applicants is low, resulting in long queues even for simple payment related services. However since NDMC has the lowest volume of population to cater to compared to the other study ULBs, the length of queue/volume of congestion at the centers is quite low in comparison to the other ULBs. NIC has set up and maintains the dierent backend portals for the computerized services. The level of awareness amongst the ocials contacted for eGovernance services under JnNURM and its possible sources of funding were low. BMC: BMC is one of the few municipal corporations in India which has succeeded in simultaneously converting all manual processes of utility bill and license fee collection into computerized processes. To make the services convenient for citizens, the entire Mumbai city has been classied into 24 wards on the basis of population and a CFC has been established in each of these wards. The CFCs are functional from Monday to Friday from 9 am to 4 pm, with employees operating in 2 shis; 9 am to 3 pm and 10 am to 4 pm. The counters are operational throughout this time with at least 1 or 2 counters operating during lunch time to ensure that no service user has to wait during this time. The CFCs have state-of-the-art illumination systems with proper seating arrangements for applicants, so that discomture to the clients can be minimized during their stay there. In terms of functioning, BMC CFCs are most orderly in terms of queue management and tackling congestion at the centers. An electronic token-based queue management system exists which leads to low waiting time and beer management of applicants. There are three components of services provided at the CFCs. 1. First time service- birth certicate, death certicate, copy of birth/ death certicate, issuing new license etc. 2. 3. Repeated service- renewing license, property and water tax payment etc. Registering complaints
NIC State unit Maharashtra has set up and maintains the dierent backend portals for the computerized services. The level of awareness and dedication amongst the ocials contacted for eGovernance services under JnNURM and its dierent sub-projects seemed to be high. KMC: The KMC administrative setup consists of its Head Oce (2 borough oces) and 13 other borough oces (boroughs are agglomeration of wards). Apart from these, KMC services can be accessed at 2 recently opened e-Kolkata Citizen Service Centres (CSCs) that have been modeled in line with the CFCs at BMC. Several key citizen services can be
54
accessed at the counters of the KMC, either at the HO, or at the borough oces or at the CSCs. At all these centres of citizen interaction, the KMC has put up the Citizens Charter prominently, including names of contact ocials, duration time for obtaining a service and other relevant process details. The main services that can be accessed are payment of utility bills, issue of birth and death certicates, building approvals, mutation and issue of new and old traders licenses. In terms of ambience most of the borough oces of KMC do not have the standards of amenities for consumer convenience as compared to NDMC and KMC. While the centers are illuminated mostly, there are enormous queues with hardly adequate siing arrangements, even in the KMC HQ. As far as the borough oces are concerned, the conditions are even worse, with some of them not having even workable basic amenities like public conveniences. Also, during the survey, sta absenteeism was noted to a considerable extent, with many counters not working, leading to enormous queues even for the simple payment services. PWC has set up and maintains the dierent backend portals for the computerized services, through a contract with KMC. The level of awareness and dedication amongst the ocials contacted for eGovernance services under JnNURM and its dierent sub-projects seemed to be high. GHMC: GHMC is one of the largest ULBs in the country, aer merging 12 municipalities and 8 gram Panchayats from Rangareddy district with the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation has been divided into ve zones (south, east, north, west and central zones), 17 circles and 150 wards. The services of the ULB can be accessed at its ward oces and at the e-Seva centres in the ULB administrative areas (exclusively for the utility payments). The main eGovernance services that can be accessed at the ward oces are issue of birth and death certicates, building approvals and issue of new and old traders licenses. In terms of ambience most of the GHMC oces and e-Seva centers do have siing arrangements for customers, but they are far less than required; leading to enormous queues at these centres. NIC State unit Andhra Pradesh has set up and maintains the dierent backend portals for the computerized services. The level of awareness and dedication amongst the ocials contacted for eGovernance services under JnNURM and its dierent sub-projects seemed to be high. The following Table E.2 provides a service and parameter-wise comparative analysis for the four ULBs to indicate the levels and nature of impact due to the e-governance initiatives in the delivery of these services.
55
56
Building Approval Mutation Costs of availing service Increase in case of NDMC & GHMC. At KMC the number of trips remained same; maximum impact at NDMC (Manual across all ULBs is 2.17, for computerized 2.57). Marginal decrease in case of all ULBs due to opening up of multiple centers (Manual is 1.25, for computerized about 1.17) Increase in average number of trips in KMC (Manual is 2.6, for computerized about 2.7) Increase in case of BMC whereas decrease at GHMC; hence maximum impact at GHMC (Manual across all ULBs is 1.65, for computerized 1.72) Increase in case of all three ULBs viz. BMC, KMC & GHMC pertaining to the procurement of type of certicate and crowd in the ULB oces (Manual across all ULBs is 1.83, for computerized 2.18) Increase in case of BMC & KMC due to actual increase in the same over time. However in case of GHMC there is a decrease due to opening up of new centers. (Manual is Rs. 55.33, for computerized Rs. 38.87) Increase due to actual increase in the same over time. (Manual is Rs. 10.8, for computerized Rs. 14.2) Increase in case of BMC whereas decrease at GHMC. Increase aributes from the change in the number of trips to the two ULBs. (Manual is Rs. 44.85, for computerized Rs. 29.2) Reduced for BMC & GHMC and remained same in case of KMC; maximum impact is at BMC (Manual across all ULBs is 1.53, for computerized 1.32) Utility Payments Grievance Redressal New Traders License Traders License Renewal Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 Has increase in all ULBs viz. NDMC, KMC & GHMC due to actual increase in the same over time. (Manual across all ULBs is Rs. 30.27, for computerized Rs. 23.43) Marginal increase in case of NDMC and decrease in all other ULBs; maximum impact at GHMC. (Manual across all ULBs is Rs. 34.20, for computerized Rs. 11.58) Has decreased in all ULBs; maximum impact at GHMC aributed to the fact that the traders have to travel lesser distances due to opening of new centers. (Manual across all ULBs is Rs. 76.13, for computerized Rs. 13.33)
Table E.2: Service and parameter wise comparative impact analysis for the four ULBs
Services
Birth Registration
Death Registration
Average number of trips made
Has increased for all ULBs excepting BMC; hence the maximum impact is at BMC. (Manual across all ULBs is 1.68, for computerized 1.82).
Has increased for all ULBs excepting NDMC; maximum impact hence at NDMC (Manual across all ULBs is 1.6, for computerized 1.68).
Travel costs per trip
Has increased in all ULBs excepting GHMC; increase seems logical given the time gap between the service delivery modes, for GHMC decrease is due to opening up of new centers in the Greater Hyderabad area, thus reducing distances and travel costs for the computerized system. (Manual across all ULBs is Rs. 29.44, for computerized Rs. 30.11)
Has decreased in case of all excepting KMC. The reason being that the verifying signatures can now be obtained from the crematorium/ burial ground in case of the other ULBs thus saving time and cost. (Manual across all ULBs is Rs. 39.50, for computerized Rs. 24.70)
Services Decrease in all ULBs; maximum impact in case of NDMC. (Manual across all ULBs is 60.75 minutes, for computerized 41.78 minutes) Drastic decrease in case of both the ULBs pointing at the eciency of the grievance Redressal mechanism. (Manual across all ULBs is 68.44 minutes, for computerized 0) Decrease in case of KMC & GHMC whereas increased in case of BMC due high volumes of requisitions outweighing the provisions made for the same; maximum impact at KMC. (Manual across all ULBs is 98.37 minutes, for computerized 95.08 minutes) Decreased at KMC but increased in case of BMC & GHMC. Has decreased across ULBs; maximum impact at KMC. (Manual across all ULBs is 73.47 minutes, for computerized 53.43 minutes)
Birth Registration
Death Registration Mutation
Building Approval
Utility Payments
Grievance Redressal
New Traders License
Traders License Renewal
Total waiting time across all trips made
For both NDMC and BMC, there is a decrease. For KMC and GHMC there is an increase. Maximum impact at NDMC. (Manual across all ULBs is 59.88 minutes, for computerized 65.73 minutes)
Decrease in all excepting GHMC & BMC (marginal increase). Maximum impact at NDMC due to lower volumes of transactions. (Manual across all ULBs is 52.7 hours, for computerized 66.23 hours)
Service charge paid Has increase in all ULBs viz. NDMC, KMC & GHMC due to increase in the fees maximum increase at GHMC. Has increased in all ULBs viz. NDMC, KMC & GHMC due to increase in the fees maximum increase at GHMC. (Manual across all ULBs is Rs. 1271.43, for computerized Rs. 6120.87) Decrease in the total payment made at KMC. (Manual is Rs. 787.7, for computerized Rs. 785) Increase in charges paid at KMC
Increased for BMC; decreased for all other ULBs maximum decrease reported at GHMC.
Marginally increased for NDMC; decreased for all the other ULBs maximum decrease at GHMC.
Total payment made
Decreased for all except in case of BMC; maximum impact at GHMC. (Manual across all ULBs is Rs. 203.15, for computerized Rs. 87.23)
Decreased in all the ULBs: maximum impact at GHMC. (Manual across all ULBs is Rs. 245.63, for computerized Rs. 56.5)
Drastic decrease in case of both the ULBs; maximum impact at BMC due to presence of outliers in the reported data. (Manual across all ULBs is Rs. 1834.9, for computerized Rs. 52.6)
Has increased in case of all the three ULBs. (Manual across all ULBs is Rs. 972.5, for computerized Rs. 1474.47)
57
58
Building Approval Mutation Heavy decrease in the time elapsed at KMC due to reduction in service delivery time. (Manual is 30.575 days, for computerized 8.49 days) Increase in case of both the ULBs due to decrease in corruption but more time taken in accessing the services. (Manual across all ULBs is 5.7 days, for computerized 7.4 days) Has increased in case of all the three ULBs due to the type of service delivery certicate and crowd in the ULB oces. (Manual across all ULBs is 7.93 days, for computerized 14.93 days) Has decreased in all ULBs viz. NDMC, KMC & GHMC; maximum decrease at NDMC due to the routing of system through licensed architects. (Manual across all ULBs is 38.57 days, for computerized 6.9 days) Utility Payments Grievance Redressal New Traders License Traders License Renewal Service quality perception Increase in case of NDMC & GHC while scores not showing any change at KMC; maximum impact at GHMC. (Manual across all ULBs is 3.27, for computerized 3.47) Increase in all the ULBs; maximum impact at GHMC. (Manual across all ULBs is 3.2, for computerized 3.38) Increase in service quality perception due to the above reason. (Manual is 2.6, for computerized 2.8) Decrease in case of BMC due to increased number of trips and travel cost but increase at GHMC due to the consumers being beer o in terms of the elements discussed above. (Manual across all ULBs is 2.85, for computerized 3) Decrease in case of BMC but increase in case of KMC & GHMC; maximum impact at GHMC. (Manual across all ULBs is 3.07, for computerized 3.23) Increase in perception regarding service quality across ULBs; maximum impact at GHMC aributed to lesser trips, travel time and travel cost. (Manual across all ULBs is 3.1, for computerized 3.53) Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010
Services
Birth Registration
Death Registration
Elapsed time in availing service
Excepting BMC, there is an increase in case of all the ULBs; the increase can be aributed to the fact that there is a lag in communicating the birth details by the hospitals to the ULBs to start processing for the birth application. (Manual across all ULBs is 5.30 days, for computerized 5.75 days)
Marginal decrease among all whereas marginal increase KMC. Heavy increase at GHMC aributed to frequent machine breakdown and paucity of sta. (Manual across all ULBs is 42.25 minutes, for computerized 53.68 minutes)
Increase in all ULBs excepting KMC; maximum impact at GHMC. (Manual across all ULBs is 3.4, for computerized 3.5)
Increase in case of NDMC & KMC. Decrease in case of BMC & GHMC; maximum impact at NDMC. (Manual across all ULBs is 3.2, for computerized 3.48)
Services Governance perception Decrease in governance score in case of NDMC, KMC & whereas increase in case of GHMC primarily due to reduction in the time of service delivery. (Manual across all ULBs is 3.23, for computerized 3.27) Increase in governance score in case of all excepting KMC where the score remained same; maximum impact at GHMC. (Manual across all ULBs is 3.05, for computerized 3.25) Decrease in the score at KMC. (Manual is 2.6, for computerized 2.5) Decrease in the score in case of BMC but increase at GHMC due to lessening of corruption due to computerization. (Manual across all ULBs is 2.75, for computerized 3.1) Decrease in the governance score in case of BMC but increase in case of KMC & GHMC. (Manual across all ULBs is 2.83, for computerized 3.03) Increase across all ULBs; maximum impact at GHMC. (Manual across all ULBs is 2.93, for computerized 3.27)
Birth Registration
Death Registration Mutation
Building Approval
Utility Payments
Grievance Redressal
New Traders License
Increase in governance score in case of BMC & GHMC. Decrease evident in case of NDMC and no change in case of KMC; maximum impact in case of GHMC. (Manual across all ULBs is 3.19, for computerized 3.32)
Increase in governance score in case of all ULBs excepting BMC. (Manual across all ULBs is 2.98, for computerized 3.33)
Proportion paying bribe Increase in case of all ULBs viz. NDMC, KMC & GHMC with maximum increase in case of GHMC due to corruption during property verication and for expediting the approval process. (Manual across all ULBs is 13.77, for computerized 38.3) Decrease in case of BMC & GHMC while increase in case of NDMC. In case of KMC no such occurrences were reported either in manual or computerized system; maximum impact at GHMC. (Manual across all ULBs is 5.48, for computerized 0.62) No change reported due to the very nature of the process of mutation. (Manual is 10, for computerized 10)
For both BMC & GHMC there has been a decrease For NDMC & KMC increase has been reported aributed to facilitation of process; maximum impact in case of GHMC. (Manual across all ULBs is 5.54, for computerized 2.88)
Increase in case of all ULBs excepting GHMC again aributed to facilitation of process; maximum impact in case of GHMC. (Manual across all ULBs is 5.05, for computerized 6.03)
Decrease in case of both ULBs: maximum impact at GHMC with drastic reduction. (Manual across all ULBs is 22.35, for computerized 2.1)
Decrease in case of all ULBs; maximum impact being at GHMC all due to the process of computerization. (Manual across all ULBs is 16.29, for computerized 8.1)
Decrease in all ULBs; maximum impact at GHMC. (Manual across all ULBs is 7.37, for computerized 19.23)
59
60
Building Approval Mutation Increase at KMC due to non awareness of the respondents regarding the usage of computerized system. (Manual is 0, for computerized 100) Decrease in case of BMC & GHMC and no change in case of KMC pointing at the inability of the authorities to purge the system of intermediaries; maximum impact at GHMC. (Manual across all ULBs is 20.96, for computerized 6.4) Decrease in all ULBs, aributed to simplicity of access; maximum impact at GHMC. (Manual across all ULBs is 23.34, for computerized 2.21) No usage of intermediaries in case of BMC, both in case of manual and computerized system. GHMC has shown a drastic decrease pertaining to the multiplicity of centers for Redressal. (Manual across all ULBs is 39.39, for computerized 0) Remains same across the manual and computerized system due to the presence of architects licensed by the ULBs across NDMC, KMC & GHMC. (Manual across all ULBs is 100, for computerized 100) Decrease in case of GHMC & BMC due to kiosk based management system. Marginal increase however, in case of DMC & KMC. (Manual across all ULBs is 10.57, for computerized 1.65) Utility Payments Grievance Redressal New Traders License Traders License Renewal Overall assessment score changes Overall improvement has been reported in NDMC & GHMC whereas in KMC the score is lower due to poorer perception in governance and service quality parameters; maximum impact at GHMC. (Mean of change in score from manual to computerized is 0.30) Overall improvement has been reported in all ULBs except KMC; maximum impact at GHMC. . (Mean of change in score from manual to computerized is 0.36) Overall score of KMC shows worse o situation due to increased corruption in the computerized system. . (Mean of change in score from manual to computerized is -0.09) GHMC shows a beer o situation aributed to beer service quality and governance. BMC however shows a worse o scenario. . (Mean of change in score from manual to computerized is 0.49) All the three ULBs viz. BMC, KMC & GHMC show beer o situation; maximum impact at GHMC. . (Mean of change in score from manual to computerized is 0.72) All the three ULBs viz. BMC, KMC & GHMC show beer o situation; maximum impact at GHMC. (Mean of change in score from manual to computerized is 0.7) Impact Change from manual to computerized Values mentioned for each parameter for manual and computerized across all ULBs are the simple averages of these values for all ULBs where the service is operational. Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010
Services
Birth Registration
Death Registration
Intermediary usage
There has been a decrease in case of all ULBs, NDMC reporting no usage of intermediaries at all under both the processes. The decrease has been aributed to increased awareness due to publicity; maximum impact at GHMC. (Manual across all ULBs is 15.28, for computerized 1.96)
Decrease in case of all the three ULBs viz. BMC, KMC & GHMC; maximum impact at GHMC again aributed to awareness due to presence of the services. (Manual across all ULBs is 17.48, for computerized 4.8)
Overall improvement has been reported across all ULBs; maximum impact at GHMC. (Mean of change in score from manual to computerized is 0.45)
Overall improvement has been reported in all ULBs except BMC; maximum impact at GHMC. (Mean of change in score from manual to computerized is 0.38)
Parameter not applicable for this service
Increase or decrease
Increase or decrease from manual to computerized service
The general feeling that comes about from this assessment is that computerization of ULB services has till not made much of a dent in terms of usefulness to the client. While certain parameters of enquiry have shown improvements in the computerization process for a few services, there is no consistency whatsoever in the improvement ratios for either these parameters or these services. It seems that most of the ULBs have been able to get their backend systems automated for all services that they have started delivering on the eGovernance mode and have actually been able to reduce transaction time in the processing of applications on their part to a considerable extent. However, this benet in terms of time and cost saved for the ULBs have not been transferred to the consumers. A summary of the services that have been computerized shows that for simpler services such as payments of utility bills or renewal of trade licenses, there has still been some eect on the end clients in terms of reduced waiting time and lesser number of trips. Also obtaining of birth and death registration certicate copies have become simpler and less time consuming for the end clients. This is because once the backend process for these services becomes automated; delivering these services is really easy. For computerization of more complex services such as mutation, building approvals, new traders licenses and grievances, the end client is still almost where he or she was in the manual system in terms of service costs, corruption and issues related to usage of intermediaries. In fact for some of these services, in certain ULBs (KMC for instance, GHMC and BMC for some of these services), clients have reported that they are actually at a disadvantage with the computerized
system as they do not understand how the system works nor how they can procure their requirements under it. A simple solution on the part of these ULBs to encourage more clients to take up the process of application on their own in this case can be to launch a propaganda/advertisement mechanism on the computerization of services in the respective ULB telling consumers how it has been designed to help them to reduce service access costs with beerment in service quality and governance, provided they access the same themselves. Another point worthy of consideration is that there needs to be beer process reengineering for the services that have been computerized at the client end also for clients to realize lesser costs and beer service delivery and governance.
61
1.Introduction
1.1Introduction
Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India has launched the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Commission (JnNURM) on 03.12.2005 to encourage cities to initiate steps to bring about improvement in the existing service levels in a nancially sustainable manner. Two sub-missions namely the Urban Infrastructure and Governance and the Basic Services to the Urban Poor are comprised in the mission. The primary objective of the JnNURM is to create economically productive, ecient, equitable and responsive cities. 63 cities have been identied by the Central Government under the scheme which includes Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Hyderabad. The prerequisite for assistance under the scheme is the preparation of City Development Plan (CDP), Detailed Project Report (DPR) and drawal of time lines for implementation of urban sector reforms. A State Level Steering Commiee (SLSC) under the chairmanship of the Chief Minister in each of the states having these cities has been constituted to identify, prioritize and recommend the project proposals under JnNURM as per the guidelines. Each State Government has appointed a State Level Nodal Agency (SLNA) under JnNURM to assist the ULBs in these cities, place proposals to SLSC for approval, manage grants, release funds to ULBs, maintain revolving fund and monitor the physical & nancial progress and reforms implementation to be commied in the Memorandum of Agreement. Funds under the scheme would be released by the Central Government to the Nodal Agency which in turn would release to the Implementing Agency in the form of loan, so loan cum grant or grant.
The JnNURM promise GoI will fund these investments IF the cities and states commit to these r efor ms
Accounting reforms Urban renewal Water supply Sanitation Storm Water drains Transport projects Parking lots Heritage areas Preservation of water bodies An Incentive fund E G over n a nce Property tax with GIS User Charges Services and funds for the poor Land related reforms Decentralisation Community participation Disclosure laws
62
As per the guidelines, at least 25% (for Urban Infrastructure & Governance) & 10% (for Basic Services to the Urban Poor) of the funds released are to be recovered and ploughed into a Revolving Fund by the nodal agency for nancing of further infrastructure projects and the fund may be upgraded to a state level Infrastructure fund. As part of the mandatory reforms, each ULB is expected to initiate and achieve under the Urban Infrastructure and Governance Plan, e-governance of basic citizen centric services, primarily related to property tax payment, payment of utility bills, issue of birth and death certicates, assessment and mutation of property and building plan approvals. The basic matrix for obtaining funds for eGovernance under JnNURM has been presented below:
Corporation (BMC) Kolkata: Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) Hyderabad: Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC)
1.3Study Objectives
The study objectives can be broadly categorized as follows: To understand the process of every eGovernance service delivered by the ULB, including procedures for the same to be followed by citizens, accountability of a particular service to be provided and commied timelines for service delivery at the level of the project proponent To assess the awareness and usage of dierent eGovernance services at the ULBs amongst the end user citizens To understand the level of self usage in the system, and therefore ascertain the level of dependence on agents and intermediaries To understand the levels of motivation of using the system To understand whether computerization has had any benets in terms of reduction in time for availing services, costs of availing service, reduction in corruption, service quality beerment and beer governance To understand the perception of users regarding benets or otherwise accruing out of the computerized system
1.2The Present Study

Department of Information Technology (DIT), Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India in association with Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India has decided to conduct an impact assessment study of all citizen centric eGovernance services in the ULBs of the four cities of Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Hyderabad, that has been brought about as a result of JnNURM funds to these ULBs. The initiative is in the second phase of assessment projects initiated by DIT under the ambitious National e-Governance Programme (NeGP) of the Government of India. The ULBs to be considered under the study would be Delhi: New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) Mumbai: Brihanna Mumbai Municipal
1.4Project Prole
An initial reconnaissance of the respective ULBs has shown that the following citizen
63
centric eGovernance services are available at these ULBs. FGDs/indepth discussions were conducted with project ocials and clients during these visits and inputs were taken to nalize services for detailed study aer having a clear understanding of how these services are actually delivered on ground. New Delhi (NDMC) Municipal Corporation
atleast 1 or 2 counters operating during lunch time to ensure that no service user has to wait during this time. The functioning of the CFCs has been worked out very systematically. As soon as the citizen enters the CFC, the rst point of contact is the token counter where s/he has to tell the service which needs to be availed. The citizen is given the relevant form along with the token and asked to wait in the seating area. While the citizens wait for the token number to be displayed, they utilize this time to ll the form. As soon as any one counter is free, the token number ashes on the display and the citizen then proceeds to make the payment. Each of these counters is provided with a computer and a trained sta member who then checks the application form and matches the details with the information which gets displayed on the screen on entering the reference number. Payment is accepted here and a receipt is given to the citizen. There are three components of services provided at the CFCs. 1. First time service- birth certicate, death certicate, copy of birth/ death certicate, issuing new license etc. 2. Repeated service- renewing license, property and water tax payment etc. 3. Registering complaints The rst CFC started operating in April 2007. There are 10 CFCs which have been completely converted. In CFCs which have been completely converted to token system, special considerations are also given to senior citizens whose token numbers are given a priority over the regular citizens.
The NDMC is primarily in charge of the New Delhi municipal limits. All available centres of the ULBs have computerized services available. Services available at NDMC are shown in table (next page). Brihanna Mumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (BMC) is one of the few municipal corporations in India which has succeeded in simultaneously converting all manual processes of utility bill and license fee collection into computerized processes. Under the e-governance initiative of JnNURM, MCGM has established Citizen Facilitation Centres (CFCs) and has also tied up with internet service provider Sify and pre-paid credit card provider ITZ Cash to make the revenue collection smoother. To make the services convenient for citizens, the entire Mumbai city has been classied into 24 wards on the basis of population and a CFC has been established in each of these wards. The CFCs are functional from Monday to Friday from 9 am to 4 pm, with employees operating in 2 shis; 9 am to 3 pm and 10 am to 4 pm. The counters are operational throughout this time with
64
Services Available at NDMC Services Birth and death registration (Search/Request/ Generation of reports) Extent of mechanization Form is available both online as well as manually. For online system, citizens have the facility to indent these certicates through the website which is sent through courier to their door steps. For manual facility User has to obtain discharge slip from hospital in case of birth or death in the hospital or a doctors certicate in case of home delivery or death and approach NDMC counter with the form and the necessary slips aer a certain period of time aer birth/death to obtain the certicate. The Citizen Service Centers or PSK centers provide the citizens the facility to collect their certicates on demand instantly or within 7 days. This is made possible because the records pertaining to them have been thrown open and it is now possible for them to get necessary rectication on their records without any delay. This can be done either online or manually. In the online procedure, ll in the customer number and current bill will be displayed. Pay through credit card. NDMC Head Oce - There was a common counter for birth and death registration. The waiting time at the counters were on an average between 2-3 minutes for each user, provided, he/she had the required slips
Water and electricity bill
In the manual system one approaches the PSK with bills and pays at the counter either cash, cheque or DD. (Payments above Rs 500 are not accepted by cash) Building approvals Form for this is available online. Aer lling the form one has to approach the NDMC. There one will have to buy a Rs 25 additional form. If the building is more than 500 sq m then approval from the DUAC is required otherwise one can approach the NDMC directly with all the other documents. The form is submied to NDMC. Here the data is entered onto the computer and fee is calculated (according to the plot area, no. of oors). Aer submission of the fees to NDMC, site inspection is done and an agenda is prepared stating the approval or rejection of the building.
There was a common counter for payment of water and electricity bill as combined bill can be paid for both. The waiting time was 5 minutes which was required to generate the receipt
65
Services Available at BMC Services Extent of mechanization Experience at the counter during visit A citizen had come to the CFC to get his wifes birth certicate. Since the year of birth was 1957, i.e.; before 1996, the issuing of the certicate took almost 20 days since the CFC sta rst needs to get the physical records from the particular hospital where the birth took place and then prepare the certicate. The applicant in this case had been in the CFC for more than an hour since the address printed in the birth certicate was incomplete. In such cases the applicant has to provide an authentic proof of address to rectify the address.
Birth and death certicate (original and copies)
For birth and death certicates, the citizen need make only one visit but has to go to the health ocer who signs the certicates and is available in the same building. All births during or aer 1996 have been converted to online database, in which case the certicate can be issued on the spot. But for births before 1996, the CFC sta has to get the physical records from the hospital where the birth took place and then prepare the certicate which takes two to three weeks. In case of birth and death certicates, the applicant is rst shown one copy to verify the particulars and if any changes are required. Only on verication of the applicant, another copy is issued. Each copy is charged Rs. 22. There are cases when the citizens apply for birth/ death certicates but do not turn up to collect in which case the certicates are sent to their residence by courier aer waiting for a month.
Trade Licenses (new and renewal)
For issuing new licenses for shops, hospitals, trade, etc., the applicant has to make more than one visit. The rst visit is for depositing money for applying for issuing a license based on which the concerned department is notied to physically verify the application. Based on the outcome of the inspection the application is accepted or rejected stating reasons. If the application is accepted then a challan is sent to the applicant who then again comes to the CFC to deposit the amount required and is issued a license on the spot. For renewal, BMC sends the challan of the renewal fees to the traders address and the trader can come to the CFC and deposit the same with the fees on the spot.
There was one case where the shop owner had come to get the shop license renewed, aer he had failed to pay the previous 4 renewal bills. For this, he had to rst contact the concerned ocial for calculating the exact amount and once the license was issued, he had to again get the license certicate signed from the concerned ocial. This took almost 20 minutes for him.
Water tax and property tax payment
For utility bill payment, like water tax and current demand bill on property tax, time taken is very less (5-10 minutes per transaction at the counter) since the citizen has to contact only one person at the counter who accepts the money and provides a receipt.
For these payments, citizens contacted have reported that the average waiting time was 10 minutes and it took another 5 to 10 minutes at the counter for making the payment and geing the receipt.
66
Grievances and suggestions
Facility available on BMC site as well as the CFCs. There is a complaint ocer who is responsible for understanding and registering the complaints of the citizens. Complaints may be in any category like sanitation, garbage disposal, water problems, fallen trees, etc.
The other CFCs where token system is yet to be installed have the traditional queue system. But the task is made easier since it is a single window operation. Here the citizens have to wait in the queue for their turn. To make the payment of property tax and water tax bills simpler, BMC has tied up with 500 ITZcash service providers and 200 Sify internet cafes across the city. The sole objective of this service is to provide out of working hours service for citizens who cannot access the CFCs from 9 am to 4 pm. These service providers have been strategically located in market areas and also in areas where people may need to travel long distance to avail of the CFC facility. These service providers are allowed to charge Rs. 10 per successful transaction including the rate of printing the receipt. All such centres are not functional as yet and MCGM is hopeful that they will start functioning within the next one or two months. Payment of property tax and water tax can be done online through the BMC website using ITZ cash cards. The receipt can be printed right aer payment. Property tax and water tax can also be paid via sms using the ITZ Cash cards. In such cases, the receipt is sent to the citizen through courier.
Of the total revenue, about 90% is received through CFCs, 8% through cyber CFCs (including ITZ Cash counters) and 2% through sms. BMC is now in the process of publicizing the cyber CFCs and online payment gateways to reduce the load on regular CFCs and in the long run, completely do away with citizens interaction with BMC sta. Average waiting time in queue/ waiting area is 5 to 10 minutes. But this time increases during March and December when there are deadlines for property tax payments. During such times, the queue is very long and citizens also have to wait in direct sun since the CFC building cannot accommodate so many people. Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) The KMC has set up an ambitious plan of restructuring its citizen interface governance setup by computerizing many of its back-end operations in the recent past. The KMC administrative setup consists of its Head Oce (2 borough oces) and 13 other borough oces (boroughs are agglomeration of wards). Apart from these, KMC services can be accessed at 2 recently opened eKolkata Citizen Service Centres (CSCs) that have been modeled in line with the CFCs at BMC. Several key citizen services can be accessed at the counters of the KMC, either at the
67
HO, or at the borough oces or at the CSCs. At all these centres of citizen interaction, the KMC has put up the Citizens Charter prominently, including names of contact of-
cials, duration time for obtaining a service and other relevant process details. The details are presented below:
Services Available at KMC Services Extent of mechanization Experience at the counter during visit KMC HO: We did not nd any citizen who had turned up for mutation during our visit to KMC. Agents were present at the counter during our visit.
Simple Mutation, due to succession
Form A-42 has to be lled up and a fee of Rs. 100 has to be deposited with relevant documents. Application has to be submied to the designated counter for mutation of the Assessment Collection oce concerned. Time limit for providing the service is 7 working days. Form A-42 has to be lled up and a fee of Rs. 100 has to be deposited with relevant documents. Application has to be submied to the designated counter for mutation of the Assessment Collection oce concerned. Time limit for providing the service is 15 working days. Form A-42 has to be lled up and a fee of Rs. 300 has to be deposited with relevant documents. Application has to be submied to the designated counter for mutation of the Assessment Collection oce concerned. Time limit for providing the service is 60 working days. Building approvals need to be done in prescribed forms through a LBA (Licensed Building Approver). List of such LBAs are available with the KMC. The necessary forms are to be submied manually to the LBAs. The procedure is clearly mentioned in the Citizens Charter, displayed prominently in the KMC oces and citizen centres. For issuing new licenses for shops, hospitals, trade, etc., the applicant has to make at least two visits. The rst visit is for depositing money for applying for issuing a license based on which the concerned department is notied to physically verify the application. Based on the outcome of the inspection the application is accepted or rejected stating reasons. If the application is accepted then a Tax Demand Receipt (TDR) is sent to the applicant who then again comes to the concerned KMC borough oce to deposit the amount required and is issued a license aer the payment. For renewal, KMC sends the TDR of the renewal fees to the traders address and the trader can come to the KMC borough oces and deposit the same with the fees on the spot.
Mutation due to transfer
Mutation cum Separation/amalgamation
Building approvals
Trade Licenses (new and renewal)
There was one case where the shop owner had come to get the shop license renewed, aer he had failed to pay the previous 3 renewal bills. KMC had sent him an aggregated TDR for the time he has not been paying his demand. The respondent replied that with this new initiative, it had become much easier for the citizens to deposit their TDRs at KMC; earlier they had to rely on agents to do the same.
68
Property tax payment
For current demand bill on property tax, time taken is very less (3-4 minutes per transaction at the counter). KMC sends these current demand receipts to the addresses of the citizens and citizens have to pay the same at the KMC counters.
For these payments, citizens contacted have reported that the average waiting time was 5 minutes and it took another 3-4 minutes at the counter for making the payment and geing the receipt.
Birth and Death Registration
User has to obtain discharge slip from hospital/cremation/burial ground for birth/death and approach KMC counter with the form and the necessary slips aer a certain period of time aer birth/death to obtain the certicate.
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) The services are available at the GHMC HO,
Circle oces and the eSeva kendras. Additionally these can be accessed on the GHMC website, and transactions can be made also if the user has a debit or a credit card.
Services Available at GHMC Services Birth and death registration (Search/ Request/ Generation of reports) Extent of mechanization Form is available both online as well as manually. For online system, citizens have the facility to indent these certicates through the website which is sent through courier to their door steps. For manual facility User has to obtain discharge slip from hospital/cremation/burial ground for birth/ death and approach GHMC counter with the form and the necessary slips aer a certain period of time aer birth/death to obtain the certicate. The Citizen Service Centers or eSeva centers provide the citizens the facility to collect their certicates on demand instantly. This is made possible because the records pertaining to them have been thrown open and it is now possible for them to get necessary rectication on their records without any delay. Form can be obtained and submied online along with the payment through credit or debit cards, provided it is only for the current demand period. Self assessment of property tax can be made only for the current period. For forms in the supplementary period (arrear bill), user needs to approach GHMC and raise the supplementary bill at the GHMC counters, and pay the same at a separate counter in GHMC. Current period bills can also be submied at the eSeva kendras or at GHMC HO or circle oces at the counters. Experience at the counter during visit GHMC Head Oce - The centre was well illuminated, spacious and clean. There were separate counters for birth and death registration. The waiting time at the counters were on an average between 2-3 minutes for each user, provided, he/she had the required slips
Payment of Property tax
eSeva Kendras: Well illuminated spacious online centres of the Government of AP wherein utility bills can be paid. The counters are single window counters wherein any utility bill, like electricity bills, water bills, property tax bills can be paid. The average waiting time at the counter is about a minute. Queues are typically long towards the morning and aernoon.
69
Grievances and suggestions
Department-wise itemized grievance topics are present in the GHMC website. There are also dedicated counters at GHMC HO and the circle oces for registering a complaint. Each complaint has a timeline for being aended to, and if it is not aended to in that period, it goes to the senior ocer of the department. By this process, the complaint goes to the ofce of the Municipal Commissioner within 30 days of its lodging provided it has not been aended to during that period. Searching of Trade Identication Number (TIN) is available at the GHMC website as well as the manual counters. Renewal of trade licenses, by payment of renewal fees can be made at the GHMC centres and the eSeva kendras. The GHMC sends the renewal bills to the individual traders at their addresses and traders can come and pay their bills at these centres.
GHMC Centre: Several people had come with complaints related to dierent departments. There is a downloadable form that needs to be lled up with the appropriate grievance wrien on it and submitted manually at the GHMC centres. This form can also be submied online to the GHMC website. eSeva kendras: The trade license renewalKfees can be paid at the eSeva counters; typical counter handling time is about 3-4 minutes at each counter.
Trade License
70
2.Sampling and Interviewing Protocol, Questionnaire Design, Survey constraints and Data Management issues
2.1
Sample Size and Stratication

1. The crucial task in any sample survey is to decide the desired level of disaggregation of the universe under study to sub universes for the estimation purposes and arrive at a sample size at certain disaggregation levels 2. The total sample size for each ULB was 800 respondents across computerized and manual services in each city. This gave us statistically valid samples at 95% CL and 5 % margin of error for each of computerized and manual services. 3. In each city, the administrative area of each ULB was divided into 4 geographical units. 4. The population in each ward for each of these units was obtained through secondary sources and arranged in descending order for each geographical unit. Population is taken as a proxy for activity levels in the ward. 5. The median value of ward population for each geographic unit was obtained and one ward from each half was taken up for survey. 6. In each selected ward, all service of-
ces were picked up for survey (tracer); boosters were taken if required through a house-to-house systematic random survey in each selected ward for each service.
2.2 Sample Allocation among respondents

Proportionate allocation for each service would be done in each selected centre per ULB to the total sample size of 800 depending upon the volume of transaction of that service in that centre. Accordingly respondents would be chosen through tracer interview1 from these selected centres. In cities/ULBs like Kolkata/KMC that have gone for eGovernance of more complicated citizen centric services like mutation and building approvals, the sample for these would be further sub-divided to include representative interviews from agents/ middlemen who are involved in facilitation of such services. Since the manual service is not available anymore for the services mentioned above in the ULBs, the only way of interviewing the respondents to make a comparative assessment between the present computerized system and the erstwhile manual system is through the recall method. In this method,
_________________ 1 Tracer Survey is a technique wherein a survey team is employed for a period of time at the delivery centre to obtain the names and addresses of ALL persons who visit the centre during those days. These names and addresses of people are entered into a roster. Once the number of required people are obtained (typically these would be 5 times the sample size), this activity would be discontinued; the survey team would then do a systematic random sampling on the names of the people who have been entered into the roster, and would visit these sampled households to administer the questionnaire on them.
71
the survey team would be essentially interviewing only those users who would have availed of the manual system at least once, prior to his interaction with the computerized system.
main survey, instructions for recording responses and coding etc.. The manual was translated into Hindi, Marathi, Bengali and Telegu and distributed to each eld personnel before they were sent for survey. The actual survey was conducted in the months of May- June 2009.
2.3Field Formation, Training and Protocols

8 Supervisors and 40 interviewers from our panel of investigators/supervisors were trained over a period of 3 days in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Hyderabad at preselected brieng centres. The training was conducted in the month of April 2009. All eld personnel were taken from our panel of eld persons who have been working with us on similar projects continuously over the last three years. The brieng was conducted just before start of eldwork in the respective centres. Research professionals, Field Executives and one observer from EPMU, DIT (preferably) were present at the briefing centre. A mock testing exercise was also conducted at the end of the brieng centre among all interviewers and supervisors. A Fieldwork Instruction manual was prepared which set the benchmark standard for dierent activities discussed above. The study brief, understanding of the study among the research professionals, and the clarications presented to investigators/supervisors during the two-day brieng was transformed into this Instruction manual. The manual was prepared as a reference guide for investigators/supervisors to refer to whenever they faced a problem during survey, and it included validation of behavioural conduct for investigators and supervisors, professional conduct, communication and reporting, respondent selection criteria, eldwork monitoring protocol during the
2.4Maintaining Quality Standards

Quality control is a continuous process during all phases of the study. The quality of translated questionnaires, training imparted to the investigators and supervisors, quality of training manual and eld methodology instructions note determined the quality of the data to a great extent. Scrutiny of questionnaires: Each Supervisor will accompanied investigators for 25% of calls in each day. All schedules completed during a day were scrutinized on the same day by the supervisor. The Supervisor was responsible for the scrutiny with special emphasis on logical checks and interrelations between responses to various questions in dierent sections. On the basis of the same, he took decision, if necessary, on cancellation of the interview. The Supervisor also undertook 10% back checks of selected portions of questionnaires randomly for all Investigators in his team, in order to assess the data accuracy. At the end of each day, the Supervisor checked all lled up schedules and data formats for consistency, and to ensure that there were no data gaps. Regular Monitoring: The Field executives monitored the performance of the supervisors. The supervisors obtained a performance sheet from the investigators on a daily basis. The Field Executives also visited the
72
survey sites to observe quality of data being gathered and ecacy of the supervisors. He also checked about 10% of the completed interviews for each eld team randomly. The Field executives also organized debrieng and feed back sessions, whenever required. Involvement of researcher: The research professionals were also involved during the eldwork of all phases and interacted with investigators, supervisors and the eld executives to have a detailed account of how the quality of eldwork is being monitored. A feedback session was also conducted by the researcher with all the eld teams to gather insights on the actual eld situation and sharing of experiences/ problems and arriving at solutions. Data management Management of data during the main survey assumes importance for the data to be of good quality. Coding and scrutiny Coding and scrutiny of all questionnaires and formats were undertaken parallel to the main survey, for questions that are not pre-coded. As soon as the survey data was lled up for 50 respondents in each centre, the questionnaires and data formats were sent back to Delhi research oce, where a team of coders went through the questionnaires for consistency checks and coding, to prepare the schedules for data entry. A Coding manual was prepared and used for this purpose. All Questionnaires were manually scrutinized before data entry. The coding and scrutiny was undertaken with regular debrieng and monitoring by Research and Analysis teams.
The coding teams were provided with 1 day training for undertaking the work. A team of 10 coders and 2 Coding Supervisors undertook the scrutiny and coding activity. All questionnaires were scrutinized in the oce based on the Scrutiny note. Dra codes were prepared from 10% data and circulated among all teams for coding of semi-structured questions. Open ended responses were translated into English and re-coded. Data entry The analysis team from the ORG Centre for Social Research prepared the Data entry program in CS Pro, which has in built consistency checks. The programme was checked, validated & nalized with 2% questionnaires. Data entry was undertaken in Delhi using the nalized version of the data entry programme. The data entry was undertaken through continuous interaction with the Research and Analysis Teams.
2.5The Survey Instrument

The basic survey instrument was prepared by AC Nielsen, to ne-tune depending upon the ground conditions prevailing in each city and for each project where the survey was to be conducted. The ground conditions were investigated through a pre-testing exercise, wherein 20 respondents at each of the above cities were interviewed between February and March 2009, to understand whether the questions suited their prole, as well as the services for which it was being canvassed. The nal questionnaire so prepared was discussed and nalized with IIMA and DIT before the start of the survey.
73
Box 2.1.: Description of the Survey Instrument Section No. 1 Dealing with questions related to Identication of respondents: Name, address, status of the respondents, village/city, taluka and district where he/she belongs to, residential address of the respondent and status in the family. Awareness of the respondent regarding the computerised services: Duration and source of awareness, actual user prole from the household at the computerised centre Services Availed: Incidence of services availed and date of actual availing of the service Costs of Availing Service: Distance, usual mode of travel, number of trips, travel time and cost of each trip, waiting time, wage loss, service charges, errors in documents, number of trips, incidence of bribes, amount of bribe paid, purpose of paying bribes, payments made to intermediaries, total payments made, level of anxiety in order to obtain the service Overall Assessment: Perception about improvement in 22 of attributes related to costs, service quality and governance regarding manual vis--vis computerised systems, ranking of 3 most important attributes out of the above, preference or otherwise of the computerised land records centre vis--vis the manual land records centre Perception of the user about quality of governance and quality of service Perception of user about eGovernance: General statements to understand the level of liking or otherwise of the respondent to the eGovernance system Respondent Prole: Gender, education, income, occupation, type of house obtained between certain leading questions in the sections on Costs of Availing Services, Quality of Governance and Quality of Service to understand whether these questions had the correct bearing on the overall dening questions in each section. To illustrate, this involved the following: Costs of availing service: Obtaining rank correlation on total payments and service charges; total elapsed time of availing service and total costs for the service costs Quality of Governance: Obtaining rank correlation on overall quality of governance with respect to payment of bribes, and Likert
3 4
6 7
The nal questionnaire so prepared had the following sections as shown in the Box 2.1. For each computerised service, a separate questionnaire was prepared. A common manual questionnaire was prepared to be assessed against all services in the ULBs. The nal questionnaire used for survey has been presented as Annexure 1.
2.6Checks for Data Consistency

A frequency run of all key variables in the study was conducted to check for the responses rates of survey and the categorywise response rates. Rank correlation was
74
scaling factors on behaviour of government functionaries and availability of data from the centres Quality of Service: Obtaining rank correlation on quality of service with respect to Likert scaling factors regarding behaviour of functionaries and security and condentiality of data. The idea of conducting this exercise was to see that there is a positive correlation between the dening variables and the dependent variable in each section. Thus it was ascertained from the data that if overall, most respondents had stated that the number of trips for geing the service had reduced, most respondents also stated that the costs of availing the service shad reduced too.
2.7Constraints in Survey
The sample size for new trade licenses in NDMC was very small; unt for any statistical analysis. Our eld team in Delhi could not nd enough respondents either at the NDMC centres or at the ward levels who had come to apply fresh for a traders license or had just applied for one. The sample for the same was covered in the traders renewal section for NDMC. Similarly for death registration, the sample size was small for NDMC, BMC and GHMC (only computerised for BMC and GHMC). None of the leading section questions or those pertaining to the key issues of enquiry in the study like costs, governance and service quality had problems of low responses.
75
3.Service-wise analysis on costs, service quality and governance

3.1Introduction
The basic analysis of the project has been done by segregating the collected data between clients and intermediaries. This has been done to understand whether usage of intermediaries has helped clients to access services faster and at more convenience than visiting the ULBs personally. The results have been presented below. It may be mentioned that for the services Birth and Death Registration, payments of utility bills and grievances, the incidence of intermediary usage is almost negligible for a valid statistical analysis. Hence for these services, while the prole of respondents has been provided in terms of clients and intermediaries, statistical analysis has been done and presented for only the clients.
3.2Service wise detailed analysis

Section 1: Analysis for clients The following sub sections 1 to 8 describe service-wise key parameters related to costs, service quality and governance issues between the computerized and the manual facilities and gives a ULB wise comparison with reasons for dierences between the ULBs that have emerged from the survey. This exhaustive section would provide a policy level feedback to the implementers of the e-governance plan under JnNURM regarding options for beerment of services.
1. BIRTH REGISTRATION
a. The Process of Birth Registration or geing Birth Registration copies
Birth Registration Process wise there is no major dierence across the 4 ULBs in obtaining this certicate or its copies. As far as the citizens Charter of the ULBs are concerned, there are some dierences in the time limit for geing the services
Computerised Process New Certicate User has to obtain birth certicate from the hospital and present it to the same ward municipality oce where the hospital is located within 21 days of the babys birth. During this time, the hospital sends the backup le related to the birth of the baby to the concerned ULB area oce. Along with this birth certicate, a form specifying requirement for the birth certicate has to be lled in and provided by the applicant at the ULB oce. These set of documents has to be deposited at the counter (sometimes specied, sometimes a common counter at the ULB oce). The original birth certicate is obtained from the counter aer within 7 days of this application. In this process, the applicant need not visit any other ocial apart from the counter assistant.
Manual Process New Certicate User had to obtain birth certicate from hospital generally aer one month aer discharge of the baby from the hospital. This birth certicate had to be deposited by the applicants themselves at the ULB oce within one more month from the date when it was obtained from the hospital. The ULB oce accepted the certicates and then sent across a communiqu to the concerned hospital regarding the babys birth. Once the information was sent by the hospital to the ULB oce (most oen the applicant had to personally do this couriering from the hospital to the ULB oce), the ULB oce then gave a date as to when it could give the birth certicate. Generally the birth certicate was obtained between 15 to 30 days
76
Birth Registration Computerised Process New Certicate User has to obtain birth Copy of certicate Applicant has to go to the counter at any area oce and apply for a copy of the birth certicate aer lling in the appropriate form. The birth certicate copies are given to the applicant from the counter aer allowing for searching time, which is generally processing time for the computer. However, these copies need to be authenticated by an Ocer who sits in a dierent oce of the Department, located at dierential distances from the ULB oces. Manual Process New Certicate User had to obtain from the ULB oce aer this date. In this process, even though the applicant was ocially not required to meet any Ocer in the department, quite oen the expeditiousness of the process depended directly upon whether and how many times the applicant met the concerned ocials at the ULB oce and the hospital. Copy of Certicate Applicant had to go to the ULB counter at the same area oce from where the original birth certicate was obtained and apply for copies of the certicates. The ocials at the counter would search for the certicate manually which would take between 15-30 days ocially. The applicant would be asked to come and collect the same copies from the oce aer this period of time and then get the same certied from the concerned Ocer, who sat at the head oce of the ULB.
b. Prole of the Surveyed Clients The surveyed client prole for birth registration has been presented in Table 3.1
Table 3.1: Birth registration: Surveyed Client Prole (in %)
Background Characteristics Manual NDMC Computerized Manual BMC Computerized Manual KMC Computerized Manual GHMC Computeized
Age < 30 years 30-40 years > 40 years Gender Male Female Education Illiterate Literate without education/Below primary Primary Middle Matric and above 4.5 0 0 13.6 81.8 0 2.6 2.6 7.7 87.2 4.4 8.9 25.6 61.1 1.9 7.5 18.9 71.7 2.7 12 13.3 22.7 49.3 2.4 9.5 6 35.7 46.4 9.9 8 4.7 8.5 68.9 7.1 3.6 10.7 7.1 71.4 65.9 34.1 69.2 30.8 82.2 17.8 83 17 50.7 49.3 51.2 48.8 85.8 14.2 82.1 17.9 0 61.4 38.6 12.8 66.7 20.5 10 42.2 47.8 24.5 49.1 26.4 18.7 37.3 44 33.3 46.4 20.2 15.1 30.7 54.2 28.6 53.6 17.9
77
Background Characteristics Manual
NDMC Computerized Manual
BMC Computerized Manual
KMC Computerized Manual
GHMC Computeized
Occupation Cultivation/ Labourer/ Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Type of house Permanent Semi-permanent Temporary Monthly income < 2000 Rs. Rs. 2000-5000 Rs. 5001-10000 Rs. 10001-30000 > 30000 Rs. N 0 4.5 18.2 52.3 25 44 2.6 7.7 30.8 51.3 7.7 39 15.6 57.8 21.1 5.6 90 18.9 49.1 32.1 0 53 8 56 24 12 0 75 7.1 57.1 19 10.7 6 84 0.5 23.1 30.7 36.8 9 212 0 14.3 39.3 46.4 0 28 86.4 9.1 4.5 76.9 7.7 15.4 92.2 3.3 4.4 96.2 3.8 0 50.7 44 5.3 64.3 28.6 7.1 64.2 16.5 19.3 67.9 7.1 25 2.3 5.1 25.6 22.6 2.7 1.2 7.5 7.1
43.2 18.2 4.5 31.8
53.8 5.1 5.1 30.8
13.3 35.6 7.8 17.8
22.6 26.4 7.5 20.8
1.3 36 8 52
6 33.3 3.6 56
6.1 62.7 8.5 15.1
3.6 67.9 3.6 17.9
NDMC, most of the clients are in the age group of 30 to 40 years, which shows that parents of justborn children have visited the centres for collection of birth registration documents. While majority of the clients are male, a substantial one third of the respondents are also female. Given the urban background of the study, more than four hs of the clientele were educated beyond Standard X. Most clients were salaried personnel and engaged in an executive/clerical position. Majority of the people were from middle class backgrounds, having a monthly income between Rs. 10000 to Rs. 30000 and residing in permanent houses. The prole of respondents in BMC accessing birth registration documents is similar
For
to those in Delhi. The age group of majority of the respondents is between 30 and 40 and most respondents are male. Occupation wise there is a slight dierence in the sense that in Mumbai most of the respondents were businessmen (whereas for Delhi most of the respondents are in service). However, most respondents were educated beyond Class X, stayed in permanent houses and earned between Rs. 5000 to Rs. 10000 per month. The prole of surveyed respondents accessing KMC services for birth registration is mostly similar to those in BMC and NDMC, with a few minor variations. Majority of the respondents for the manual services are in the age group of above 30 years whereas for
78
computerised services, majority of the respondents are below 40 years of age. There is an equitable spread so far as gender of the respondents in accessing the services are concerned both for manual as well as computerised. This feature of respondents accessing birth registration certicates in KMC is dierent from that of all other ULBs. In GHMC, most of the clients in the manual system were in the age group of above 40 whereas for the computerised system, the same were in the age group of 30-40. Most respondents are male in both the cases. Female respondents represent about one h of the total respondents. Majority of them have completed their secondary schooling, comprise of businessmen, inhabit in permanent houses and earn between Rs. 10000 to Rs. 30000 per month showing the middle class aributes of the respondents.
c. Reasons for obtaining a birth certicate The reasons for obtaining a birth certicate across ULBs and between the computerized and the manual services have been presented in Table 3.2 below d. Cost to Client Throughout this report, costs to the client for accessing services have been taken as a combination of the number of trips needed to get the service (day of application to day of nal correct service delivery), travel costs to reach the service access centres, waiting time at the centres to access the service, service charges paid, total payment made for accessing the services (including bribes to department sta and payments to intermediaries, if approached) and total elapsed time in geing the service delivered (including corrections, if required) from the day of application.
Table 3.2: Reasons for obtaining a birth certicate

Reasons NDMC Manual Computerised Manual BMC Computerised Manual KMC Computerised GHMC Manual Computerised
New Births - Registration (N) Birth Certicate Copies (N) For a loan (%) For educational purposes (%) For mortgaging property (%) For making a passport (%) Making changes in Ration card (%) Applying for a job (%)
4 40 10 10 2.5 20 22.5 35
5 34 13 15 8 12 4 48
10 80 16 18 3 11 2 50
13 40 3 23 14 11 3 46
21 54 1 45 2 15 -5 32
17 67 4 51 1 13 2 29
33 179 20 23 2 2 8 45
3 25 2 15 2 11 2 68
79
Number of trips
Figure 1.1 Birth Registration: Cost to Client (No. of Trips)
2.5 2 1.82 1.92 1.68 1.78 1.53 1.45 1.49 2.32
1.5 1 0.5 0 NDMC BMC
KMC
GHMC
ULBs Manual Computerized
For all ULBs apart from BMC, the number of
trips has increased on the average in the computerized system as compared to the manual system. This is because of (a) an increased trip at the beginning to ll up and deposit the requisition form along with birth certicate receipt form the hospital and (b) delay on the part of the hospitals to send commu-
niqu to the ULBs regarding the birth. Only for BMC there has been a reduction in the number of trips in the computerized system as compared to the manual system. This is because BMC has managed to reduce at least one trip for the respondent in applying for birth certicates-aer obtaining the certicate from the CFC counter at BMC the applicant can get it signed from the medical ocer on the same day at another counter within the CFC itself. For the other ULBs this procedure generally requires one more trip as the medical ocer sits in another department/ oce of the ULB. d.1 The reasons for additional trips for obtaining birth certicates have been presented below in Table
No. of Trips
Table 3.3 Reasons for additional trips (%)

Reasons NDMC Manual (5) Processing time at the oce All documents/forms were not submied the rst time To collect information on procedures and required documents To obtain application form Power failure/ equipment breakdown at service centre Long queues Absence of ocial required for authentication To check application status 100 100 100 73 100 100 100 12 37 Computerised (9) BMC Manual (12) Computerised (4) KMC Manual (4) Computerised (16) GHMC Manual (34) Computerised (2)
70
100
100
100
100
20
100
75
100
100
100
36
55
100
22
100
80
Travel cost
70 60
Figure 1.3 Birth Registration: Cost to Client (Waiting time to avail service)
140 120
Figure 1.2 Birth Registration: Cost to Client (Travel Cost)

58.79
118.8
Waiting time (in min.)
100 80 60 40 20
Trip-wise Travel Cost
79.1 54.31 51.8 30.2 57.3 62.1
50 40
46.78
48.8
30.33
30
29.54 21.78 13.25 13.78
23.93
20 10 0 NDMC
0 NDMC BMC KMC GHMC
Manual
BMC
ULBs
Computerized
Manual
ULBs
KMC
GHMC
Computerized
The travel cost has increased across all ULBs except for GHMC. The increase in travel cost follows from the fact that prices of transport has increased manifold within the last ten years the time gap between the manual and computerized services. GHMC travel costs were more in the manual system on the average, because of opening up of new centres for the services, aer adjoining areas of GHMC were consolidated when the concept of Greater Hyderabad was set into being. Waiting time2 The best improvement is seen in NDMC
primarily because it has to cater to the least population amongst the four ULBs- therefore the pressure at the counters for the service is the least. For BMC also the waiting time for availing the services has reduced for the computerized services as compared to the manual, because of proper queue management and ecient service handling at the CFC. For both KMC and GHMC where there are large populations to be served and the service centres not equipped with proper queue management facilities like that of BMC, the waiting time have increased in the computerized services vis--vis the manual services. The increase in computerized over the manual is due to increase in the volume of demand for the services over time.
Table 3.4: Reasons for long wait (%)

Reasons NDMC Manual (12) Many counters were not working There were too many customers at the service area Sta do not appear to be well trained so are slow at processing application Frequent system/ equipment breakdown
___________ 2
BMC Manual (19) 100 Computerised (1)
KMC Manual (27) 100 Computerised (19) 37
GHMC Manual (12) 38 Computerised (4) 100
Computerised (7)
100
100
100
100
89
100
100
100
45
100
100
28
100
100
73
28
The waiting time presented throughout this report is the total waiting time per person across all trips made to access the service.
81
d.2 The reasons for long wait at the counters for obtaining birth certicates have been presented below in Table 3.4: Service charge
600
Elapsed time in availing service For Birth Registration, BMC is the only municipality where service delivery time has been reduced (reduction in both waiting time as well as number of trips,
Figure 1.6 Birth Registration: Cost to Client (Elapsed time in availing service)
10
8.1 8.4 8.5
Figure 1.4 Birth Registration: Cost to Client (Service Charge)

557.2
500
Service Charge Paid
Elapsed time (in Days)
400
8
6.7
300 200 75.1 43.2 12.3 0 NDMC BMC KMC GHMC 25.6 73.5 64.6 184.6
6
4.78
4 2 0 NDMC
3.7 2.7 1.3
100
BMC ULBs
KMC
GHMC
Manual
ULBs Computerized
Manual
Computerized
Service charge has increased for BMC only. BMC had probably increased the service charges to oset increased charges in setting up of the CFCs and providing an ecient service delivery system. The highest reduction in service charge has occurred for GHMC.3 Total payment made
Figure 1.5 Birth Registration: Cost to Client (Total Payment)
700 600 663.9
which are necessary though not sucient condition for this to happen). For all other municipalities the service delivery time has increased for the computerized services. The major reason that is ascribed to this is that hospitals do not send communiqu to the ULBs in time for the ULB to start processing for the birth application. In the manual system the respondent used to visit
5
Figure 1.7 Birth Registration: Service Quality Issues
Score (5 ponit scale)
Total Payment
3.6
3.7
3.6
3.7
3.6
500 400 300 200 100 0 NDMC BMC KMC GHMC 47.7 75.1 12.3 26.2 74.8 67.9 193.6
3.5 3.1 2.8
1 NDMC BMC KMC GHMC

Manual
ULBs
Computerized
Similarly, the total payment has also reduced for all ULBs excepting for BMC. This is in line with the ndings for the service charge section.
the hospital to collect the communication paper intimating birth and deposited it to the hospital, which actually took lesser time than the process followed now. The main
________ 3 The service charges for dierent services are xed by the State Government and change over time therefore there may not always be proper reasons behind increase or decrease in such charges. Typically for most governments, service charges would be typically lower in the computerized services as compared to the manual services.
82
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0
17.3
Governance Score (5 point scale)
Figure 1.8 Birth Registration: Governance and Corruption Issues
Figure 1.9 Birth Registration: Governance and Corruption Issues
Proportion Paying bribe
4 3.34 3.27 3 3.4
3.5
3.4
3.4 3.1 2.6
2.5
2.7 2.15 1.81
3.6
3.6
1 NDMC BMC KMC GHMC
NDMC
BMC ULBs
KMC
GHMC
ULBs
Computerized
Manual Computerized
Manual
reason for BMC to reduce elapsed time in the computerized service is the facility of providing authentication of the birth certicates same day from the concerned ocer in the CFC. e. Service Quality Issues Throughout this report, quality of service is understood as fairness, speed of processing, accuracy, legibility and convenience of obtaining service. Apart from GHMC, the dierence between computerized and manual scores is negligible. Even though the more important factors governing costs of service access have increased in the computerised system vis--vis the manual system for GHMC viz. number of trips, waiting time, elapsed time for geing service; the quality of service according to GHMC consumers has increased the most important reasons they found out for this were location of service center, durability of certicates and data security. f. Governance Issues Throughout this report, governance is understood as transparency, accountability and corruption-free working. Proportion of respondents who reported to paying a bribe
Negligible bribery has been reported in all the ULBs for accessing birth registration services. In GHMC, the manual system of procurement of birth registration certicates however had a modest presence of respondents who reported to have paid a bribe. The major reason for bribe payment was reported to be to expedite the process of obtaining the certicates. Ranking on governance Regarding governance issues, there are minimal dierences in the combined Likert satisfaction scores between the computerized and manual system users in all the ULBs, apart from in GHMC. GHMC users have reported to the highest drop in bribery and corruption in the system from the manual to the computerized system, and hence this improvement in the score for this category. g. Role of Intermediaries There has been a reduction in intermediary usage across all three ULBs (NDMC did not report any intermediary usage for this service either in the manual or the computerised system), the maximum being in GHMC. Computerisation of birth registration services has made clients more aware of the processes in which the services can be obtained; also there has been a lot of publicity made by the ULBs highlighting the simplicity and
83
the ease of access of services such as birth registration from the ULBs directly, which
has led to this reduction in the usage of intermediaries for these services (Table 3.5).
Table 3.5: Usage of intermediaries

Particulars Manual Proportion using an Intermediary (Percentage) N SE Service charge paid to Intermediary (Rs) S.E. BMC Computerized 0 53 0 5.27 e-16 -600 Change Manual KMC Computerized 2.381 84 4.65 e-16 30 0 1.12 e-15 NA Change Manual GHMC Computerized 3.571 28 7.22 e-16 200 0 1.67 e-15 -47.145 6e-15 Change
4.494 90 5.27 e-16 600 -
-4.494
2.667 75 6.52 e-16 225 0
-0.286
39.151 212 2.39 e-15 247.145 6e-15
-35.58
NA NA
h.
Overall Assessment section
Throughout this report, for each service an overall assessment section was set up as part of the questionnaire wherein respondents were asked to present their views on 21 aributes related to costs of accessing the service, service quality and governance issues. A weighted indexing was conducted to arrive at a composite improvement score. Each respondent was asked to rate their perception regarding these 21 aributes both in the computerized system as well
as the manual system, in a Likert Scale. The respondents were also asked to rank the importance of the aributes. The mean values of the rating for each of the 21 aributes, both for the computerised and the manual system, has been calculated and percentage of respondents assigning rank 1 to the corresponding aribute has been used as weights and a weighted average has been calculated to determine the composite score. The blank Table 3.6 below shows the method of computation of the index.
Table 3.6: Weighting Method for Obtaining Composite Score

Factor Percentage assigning top rank to aribute (W) Average of Individual Scores Manual Computerized Improvement Dierence (C-M=I) Weighted Score (I * Weight)/100
Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Ability to complain Accountability of ocers Location of service center
84
Factor
Percentage assigning top rank to aribute (W)
Average of Individual Scores Manual Computerized
Improvement Dierence (C-M=I) Weighted Score (I * Weight)/100
Convenience of working hours Management of queuing system Responsiveness of functionaries Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application form Durability of certicates Legibility of printouts Security of data Condentiality and privacy of data Corruption of working system Dependence of intermediaries Costs of availing service Time and eort in availing service Eort in document preparation Communication by department on progess Total 100.00% WI
results for birth registration, ULB-wise, have been presented in Table 3.7.
Table 3.7: Birth Registration: Change in Overall Assessment Score
NDMC KMC GHMC 0.113 0.160 0.960
The
Next, respondents were told to rank the top three of these 21 parameters in descending order of their importance. The results of this ranking of the top three parameters have been presented in Tables 3.8 to 3.11 below.
Table 3.8: Most Important Aributes of the services NDMC
Most Important Aributes of the service Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Location of service center Ease of access to data Ability to complain Frequency Percent of response cases 45.45
Positive score denotes improvement in computerised system; negative denotes manual service was beer In all ULBs, at an overall level, respondents have assessed birth registration services in the computerized system as beer in comparison to the manual system. The detailed results have been presented as Annexure 2 of this report.
20
12 11 11
27.27 25.00 25.00
The reasons that have come about vary across ULBs, but some commonalities ex-
85
ist. Issues like clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures, durability of certicates, location of service centres and accountability of ocers have been voiced by respondents across ULBs for this service.
Table 3.9: Most Important Aributes of the services BMC
Most Important Aributes of the service Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Responsiveness of functionaries Legibility of print outs Durability of certicates Communication by department on progress Accountability of ocers Corruption of working system Frequency Percent of response cases
Table 3.10: Most Important Aributes of the services KMC

Most Important Aributes of the service Corruption of working system Management of queuing system Accountability of ocers Frequency Percent of response cases 52.00 34.67 33.33
39 26 25
20 20 20 18 18 16 16
22.22 22.22 22.22 20.00 20.00 17.78 17.78
Table 3.11: Most Important Aributes of the services GHMC

Most Important Aributes of the service Location of service center Durability of certicates Security of data Frequency Percent of response cases 39.62 31.13 25.47
84 66 54
86
2. DEATH REGISTRATION a. The Process of Death Registration or geing Death Registration copies
Death Registration Process wise there is no major dierence across the 4 ULBs in obtaining this certicate or its copies. As far as the citizens Charter of the ULBs are concerned, there are some dierences in the time limit for geing the services Computerised Process New Certicate Death Certicate is generally obtained from the crematorium/graveyard aer the last rites of the deceased have been performed. The bereaved family needs to show the medical certicate to the crematorium/ graveyard oces at the time of obtaining the certicates. In case the family is unable to collect the death certicate from the crematorium/ graveyard oces, the same may be obtained aer geing a last rites performed slip from the oce and showing it at the ULB counter along with the medical certicate of death. The death registration certicate is obtained across the counter at the ULB oce. Manual Process New Certicate User had to obtain death certicate by visiting the ULB oce in the same area as his residence, within one month aer the last rites of the deceased. The user had to obtain a slip from the crematorium/graveyard aer the last rites were performed and deposit it at the ULB counter along with the medical certicate of the death. The ULB would then send across a communiqu to the concerned crematorium/graveyard enquiring about the death. Once the information was sent by the crematorium/graveyard to the ULB oce, the later would then give a date as to when it could give the death certicate. Generally the death certicate was obtained between 30 45 days from the ULB oce aer the date of submission of all documents. In this process, even though the applicant was ocially not required to meet any Ocer in the department, quite oen he would end up making about 3-4 trips to do the same Copy of Certicate Applicant had to go to the ULB counter at the same area oce from where the original death certicate was obtained and apply for copies of the ceticates. The ocials at the counter would search for the certicate manually which would take between 15-30 days ocially. The applicant would be asked to come and collect the same copies from the oce aer this period of time and then get the same certied from the concerned Ocer, who sat at the head oce of the ULB.
Copy of certicate Applicant has to go to the counter at any area oce of ULB, and apply for a copy of the death certicate aer lling in the appropriate form. The death certicate copies are given to the applicant from the counter aer allowing for searching time, which is generally processing time for the computer. However, these copies need to be authenticated by an Ocer who sits in a dierent oce of the Department, located at dierential distances from the ULB oces.
87
b. Surveyed client prole The surveyed client prole for death registration has been presented in Table 3.12.
Table 3.12: Death registration: Surveyed Client Prole Characteristics NDMC Manual Computerized BMC Manual Computerized KMC Manual Computerized GHMC Manual Computerized
Age < 30 years 30-40 years > 40 years Gender Male Female Education Illiterate Literate without education/ Below primary Primary Middle Matric and above Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/ Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Type of house Permanent Semi-permanent Temporary Monthly income < 2000 Rs. Rs. 2000-5000 Rs. 5001-10000 Rs. 10001-30000 > 30000 Rs. N 11 10 31 9 9.1 9.1 54.5 27.3 0 0 70 30 6.5 64.5 29 33.3 55.6 11.1 9.3 56 26.7 5.3 2.7 75 15.2 68.2 6.1 9.1 1.5 66 0.6 15 40.6 42.2 1.7 180 0 0 100 0 0 4 81.8 18.2 0 90 0 10 3.2 0 96.8 100 46.7 44 9.3 62.1 28.8 9.1 67.2 6.7 25.6 75 0 25 9.1 27.3 27.3 9.1 27.3 20 10 50 0 20 16.1 16.1 35.5 12.9 19.4 44.4 22.2 11.1 0 22.2 0 10.7 33.3 20 36 1.5 19.7 31.8 9.1 37.9 3.3 8.3 61.1 11.7 15.6 0 0 0 0 100 9.1 90.9 0 100 6.5 22.6 71 11.1 11.1 77.8 4 13.3 9.3 26.7 46.7 7.6 9.1 6.1 25.8 51.5 8.9 2.8 10 5.6 72.8 25 0 25 0 50 72.7 27.3 70 30 87.1 12.9 88.9 11.1 70.7 29.3 65.2 34.8 83.9 16.1 0 100 9.1 63.6 27.3 0 30 70 13.3 29.3 57.3 22.7 45.5 31.8 13.3 29.3 57.3 22.7 45.5 31.8 15 42.2 42.8 25 50 25
88
Analysis of services where the total sample size achieved in either the manual or computerized services is less than 20 should not be considered for statistically signicant results. In NDMC, majority of respondents who obtained the death registration certicates through the manual procedure were in the age group of 30-40 years. 70% of the total respondents in the computerised system were above the age of 40 years. Majority of the clients are male and slightly more than one fourth comprise of the female respondents, in both manual and computerised systems. Almost all clients have nished secondary schooling. For the computerised system, majority of the clients were businessmen, have permanent dwellings and earn between Rs 10000- Rs 30000 per month. In BMC, majority of the respondents who obtained death certicate through manual procedure are above the age of 40 years. For the computerised system, majority of the respondents are above 30 years of age. Majority of the respondents are male and have completed class 10. In terms of occupation majority of the respondents for the computerized system worked in cultivation, as labourers or as workers. Considerable proportions of respondents for manual service are businessman. The dominant system of dwelling is permanent type and earnings of the respondents range between Rs.10000 to Rs 30000.
In KMC, majority of the respondents for manual service are above the age of 40 yrs, whereas the major proportion of the respondents for computerized system is in the age group of 30 -40 yrs. Females for the computerized system summed up for about one third of the respondents. Major proportion of the respondents educated up to secondary level, live in permanent houses and earns between Rs 2000- Rs 5000 per month. In GHMC, almost equal percent of respondents represent the age group of 30-40 yr and above 40 yr for the manual service; for the computerized service, y percent of the respondents belong to the age group of 30-40 yrs. Only female respondents reported for the computerized services as against the manual services whereas the majority were male. For both the services the respondents are educated up to or above secondary level. Most of the respondents for manual services are engaged in business, earn between Rs 10000- Rs 30000 and live in permanent house. The picture is dierent for the computerized users. Most of them live in permanent house type and their monthly income is between Rs 5000- Rs 10000. c. Reasons for obtaining a death certicate The main reasons for obtaining death certicate or its copies are as per table 3.13:
Table 3.13: Reasons for obtaining a death certicate/copies

Characteristics NDMC Manual Immediate Death - Registration (N) Death Certicate Copies (N) For mutation (%) For geing a bank account transferred (%) For closing an existing loan (%) 92 8 3 8 Computerised 2 8 7 90 3 BMC Manual 12 19 3 83 14 KMC Computerised 4 62 4 85 15 79 17 GHMC Manual Computerised 38 142 12 77 11 2 2 3 86 11
Comput- Manual erised 3 6 1 92 7 16 59
89
d. Cost to Client Number of trips

Figue 2.1 Death Registration: Cost to Client (No. of Trips)
5
3 2.2 2 1.8 1.5 1.7 1.1 1 1.2 1.6 2
So far as copies of death certicate are concerned, for the computerized services, only BMC has been able to bring down the number of trips for many clients to 1. For remaining all ULBs, be it the computerized or the manual services, the number of trips are more than 1 and there is no clear trend of any reduction from the computerized to the manual services. d.1 The major reasons for additional trips to counters in geing death registration certicates/copies are as below in Table 3.14 Travel Cost
Figure 2.2 Death Registration: Cost to Client (Travel Cost)
100 90 91.5
No. of Trips
0 NDMC BMC ULBs KMC GHMC
Manual
Computerized
For all ULBs, provision of obtaining the death certicates directly from the crematoriums/graveyards aer the dead body has been cremated/buried has been facilitated for quite some time now. However, respondents in all ULBs apart from in NDMC reported that the computerized facility at the crematoriums/ graveyards are only operational between 8 am to 9/10 pm and during any other time one only gets a slip for the cremation/ burial which one has to bring back to the cremation ground aerwards for obtaining the actual death certicate. In this process, for most clients there are at least 2 trips to collect the death certicate. In certain cases the number of trips also increase depending upon the availability of the oce sta at the crematorium/burial ground during the client second visit. In the earlier manual facility, the number of trips made was less primarily because there was no system of geing the death certicate from the crematorium/graveyard. Therefore the relatives of persons who died only went to collect the death certicates aer a specied time period from the ULB oce aer the cremation/burial.
Travel Cost per trip
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 NDMC BMC KMC GHMC 14.7 8.9 9.6 42.2 33.1 29.3 27.5
The travel cost has reduced for all the ULBs apart from KMC for the computerized services. Even though in terms of ination, this should have increased between the time periods from the manual to the computerized system, the reduction has taken place primarily due to the fact that during the manual system, the verifying signature on the death certicates had to be obtained from the ULB head oces, which led to one trip incurring higher cost. However, in the computerized system with the facility being obtainable from the crematorium/burial ground directly and in some cases on the same day, the costs have gone down. However in KMC, respondents
90
Table 3.14: Reasons for additional trips (%) Reasons NDMC Manual (6) Processing time at the oce All documents/forms were not submied the rst time To collect information on procedures and required documents To obtain application form Power failure/equipment breakdown at service centre Long queues Absence of ocial required for authentication To check application status 33 33 33 27 8 12 20 10 83 16 100 Computerised (3) Manual (11) 85 100 BMC Computerised (1) KMC Manual (12) 75 66 80 Computerised (5) GHMC Manual (12) Computerised (5)
16 66
100
10
20
100 100 60 20 100
Waiting time (in mins)
have still reported to incurring higher costs in the computerized system, primarily due to ination. Waiting time to avail services The waiting time has decreased for all the ULBs but GHMC, and BMC (a marginal increase). The maximum reduction is for NDMC, primarily due to lower volume of transactions. KMC reported a marginal reduction in the waiting time while GHMC consumers have reported highest waiting
Figure 2.3 Death Registration: Cost to Client (Waiting time to avail services)
150 135 120 105 90 75 60 45 30 15 0 NDMC BMC KMC GHMC 52.4 34 55 55.5 44.2 43.7 59.2 131.7
time. The major reason for this at GHMC is due to absence of sta or malfunctioning
Table 3.15: Reasons for long wait (%)

Reasons NDMC Manual (4) Many counters were not working There were too many customers at the service area Sta do not appear to be well trained so are slow at processing application Frequent system/equipment breakdown 100 66 30 Computerised (1) BMC Manual (3) KMC Computerised (1) GHMC Manual (4) Computerised (2) 100
Comput- Manual erised (0) (3)
100 100
70
50
100
25 50 100
91
computers at the centre, from our survey data. d.2 The major reasons for long waiting time at the counters for geing death registration certicates/copies are as per Table 3.15: Service Charges
Figure 2.4 Death Registration: Cost to Client (Service Charges)
600 550 508.9
Elapsed time in availing service For all ULBs apart from GHMC, there has been very lile dierence in the time required for accessing the service between the computerized and the manual system. This is primarily because of no major process
Figure 2.6 Death Registration: Cost to Client (Elapsed time in availing services)
120 110 110
Service Charges Paid
Elapsed time (hours)
500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 14.1 15.5 BMC KMC
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
74.2
73.6
62.4 23.2 21.2 9.2 9.9
209.1
81.6
71.2 69.8
47.5
NDMC
BMC
KMC
GHMC
NDMC
GHMC
Consumers of all the ULBs, apart from NDMC, paid lesser service charge in the computerized facility as compared to the manual facility. There is a marginal increase for NDMC consumers in service charge. As explained earlier, service charge rates change depending upon governmental circulars and not really due to beerment or otherwise in existing systems. Total payment made
Figure 2.5 Death Registration: Cost to Client (Total Payment)
600 598.6 500
changes being followed in the computerized and the manual facility for any of the ULBs while accessing these services. However, respondents for GHMC have reported to a high increase in the elapsed time for availing computerized services vis--vis the manual services the primary reason from our survey showing frequent machine breakdown and paucity of sta as major reasons for this increase in time in the computerized facility. e. Service Quality Issues
Service Quality Score (5 point scale)
Figure 2.7 Death Registration: Service Quality Issues
5
Payment (Rs.)
400 300 200 100 22.7 0 15.5 BMC KMC GHMC 90.4 77.9 72.6 47.5 283.3
4 3.6 3
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.5
3.6
2.7 2.9
NDMC
1 NDMC BMC KMC GHMC
ULBs
There has been a reduction of total payment in all the ULBs, in line with the service charge payment data.
Manual
Computerized
The dissatisfaction among the people in
92
the quality of service provided for the computerised facility vis--vis the manual facility at GHMC can be aributed to increased number of trips, higher waiting time and higher time for service delivery in the former as compared to the later. However the BMC facility users also showed dissatisfaction in the quality of service, primarily because of increase in the number of trips in the computerised facility. KMC has reported to a marginal improvement in satisfaction levels associated with service quality in the computerised facility vis--vis the manual facility, whereas for NDMC the improvement in the computerised facility is noticeable, due to large reductions in the number of trips, waiting time and a marginal reduction in the elapsed time to avail the facility in the computerised system.
20
paying bribe do not vary across ULBs or between the computerized and the manual facilities majority of the respondents reported to paying bribes for expediting their work. Majority of respondents across all ULBs have reported to paying bribes because they were also too preoccupied with their families aer the death of their kith and kin, to go through the entire duration of processes of obtaining a death certicate.
5
Figure 2.9 Death Registration: Governance and Corruption Issues
Governance Score
4 3.4 3 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.5 3 2.7
1 NDMC BMC KMC GHMC
Figure 2.8 Death Registration: Governance and Corruption Issues

18.9
Proportion paying bribes
18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 NDMC 0 BMC KMC 3 1.3 10 11.1
0 GHMC
There are marginal dierences in the satisfaction scores related to governance issues between the computerized and the manual facilities. For all the ULBs apart from BMC, the scores are higher for the computerized system as compared to the manual system. g. Role of Intermediaries
f. Governance Issues In all ULBs, there is major campaigning by the government about obtaining birth and death registration certicates through the computerized mode and its easy access. In spite of this, the computerized facility has brought about corruption in all the ULBs apart from GHMC. While the manual facility has indicated no corruption for NDMC, BMC and very lile corruption for KMC, it has shown moderately high levels of corruption in GHMC. The reasons for
Once again GHMC shows the most positive improvement so far as intermediary usage is concerned. The reasons are the same as in birth registration eective propaganda by the government about the presence and easy usage of the computerised facility (Table 3.16). h. Overall assessment section The results for death registration, ULB-wise, have been presented in Table 3.17.
93
Table 3.16: Usage of intermediaries

Particulars Manual Proportion using an Intermediary (Percentage) N SE Service charge paid to Intermediary (Rs) S.E. BMC Computerized 11.111 9 0 1.39 e-15 -1149.9 Change Manual KMC Computerized 3.303 66 6.94 e-17 60 0 5.83 e-16 -2.5 NA Change Manual GHMC Computerized 0 4 0 8.88 e-16 NA Change
6.452 31 1.39 e-15 1150 0
4.659
2.667 75 6.52 e-16 62.5 0
0.364
43.333 180 8.88 e-16 188.936 -
-43.333
0.1 0
Table 3.17: Death Registration: Change in Overall Assessment Score

Most Important Aributes of the service Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Location of service center Ease of access to data Convenience of working hours Frequency Percent of response cases 54.55 45.45 36.36 36.36
NDMC BMC KMC GHMC
0.085 -0.248 0.154 1.538
6 5 4 4
Positive score denotes improvement in computerised system; negative denotes manual service was beer Apart from BMC, in all ULBs, at an overall level, respondents have assessed death registration services in the computerized system as beer in comparison to the manual system. Respondents in BMC have rated both service quality and governance score lower for the computerized system in comparison to the manual system and this has been reected in the overall assessment score too. The maximum improvement was felt by GHMC respondents. The detailed results have been presented as Annexure 2 of this report. The results for most important aributes in each ULB for death registration have been presented in Tables 3.18 to 3.21 below.

Most Important Aributes of the service Communication by department on progress Eort in document preparation Ease of access to data Frequency Percent of response cases
14 11 10
45.16 35.48 32.26

Most Important Aributes of the service Accountability of ocers Corruption of working system Communication by department on progress Frequency Percent of response cases 45.33 38.67 30.67
34 29 23
94

Most Important Aributes of the service Location of service center Durability of certicates Responsiveness of functionaries Frequency Percent of response cases
across ULBs, there are some commonalities across sets of ULBs so far as the responses are concerned. These are location of service centre and ease of access to data related to death records. 3. BUILDING APPROVAL
66 56 45
36.67 31.11 25.00
a. The process for making building approvals
Even though aributes most sought aer in service delivery for death registration vary
Building Approval Process wise there is no major dierence across the 3 ULBs in obtaining building approval. There are some dierences in the time limit for geing the service, as per the ULB guidelines
Computerised Process
Manual Process
Applicant has to go to ULBs Licensed Building Surveyor (LBS)/authorized architect and get building plan approved, ll up requisite form for building plan approval and submit with LBS. The LBS applies for the approval with the ULB on behalf of the applicant. A date of verication is given to the LBS/applicant, generally within 10 days of the application. Aer the verication is done, the building approval documents come within 7 working days to the LBS/applicant.
Applicant had to get the building plan sanctioned from a registered architect and apply to the ULB for the approval. The ULB would rst verify whether the architect was experienced enough to give an approval for the building generally this meant how many years the architect was practicing. Aer this the ULB would give a date for verication of the building plan within about 30 days of the application (this time was used to verify the credentials of both the architect as well as the building plan). Aer the verication exercise was done by the concerned ocer, intimation was sent by the ULB through registered post, within about 20 days of the verication, regarding the sanction of the building plan. The applicant would then have to go personally to the ULB to collect the building plan sanction.
95
It is important to note that most respondents across all three ULBs NDMC, KMC and GHMC where the service is available has reported that the computerized facility is more dicult to obtain vis--vis the manual facility. So far as this service is concerned, intermediary usage is a must in all ULBs, one needs to apply for building approval procedure through a ULB registered architect. Our qualitative discussions with the architects and respondents for this service do lead us to believe that most respondents do not understand the process for obtaining the building approval at all, and the intermediaries gain from this ignorance of the respondent; also in the process making the computerized process more costlier than the earlier manual system, even though in terms of actual processes, there is not much dierence between the two. b. Surveyed client prole For NDMC, majority of the respondents for both the manual and the computerised system are above the age of 40 years. Majority of the respondents are male and all respondents have been educated up to or above class 10. In terms of occupation, majority of the respondents are in business
and live in permanent houses. Majority of the respondents have monthly income greater than Rs. 30,000. For KMC, majority of the respondents are above the age of 40 years who obtained building approval through manual and computerized procedure. Most clients are male and all have nished at least middle school. Majority among them have completed secondary school. Almost all live in permanent houses and earn between Rs 5000 to Rs 10000. For GHMC, more than y percent of the clients above the age group of 40 collected the building approvals through the manual system. Whereas the clients for computerized systems are above the age of 30 yrs. Male respondents predominate in both the cases. Female respondents comprise a substantive one third of the total respondents for the computerized system. Majority of them have completed their secondary schooling. Maximum clients inhabit in permanent houses and majority of the computerized service users earn between Rs. 10000 to Rs. 30000 per month showing the middle class aributes of the respondents.
Table 3.22: Building approval: Surveyed Client Prole

Characteristics Manual Age < 30 years 30-40 years > 40 years Gender Male Female Education Illiterate 11.3 0 88.9 11.1 92.9 7.1 90 10 90 10 80.3 19.7 66.7 33.3 22.2 22.2 55.6 3.6 21.4 75 0 30 70 20 30 50 8.5 33.8 57.7 41.7 25 33.3 NDMC Computerized Manual KMC Computerized Manual GHMC Computerized
96
Characteristics Manual Literate without education/Below primary Primary Middle Matric and above Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Type of house Permanent Semi-permanent Temporary Monthly income < 2000 Rs. Rs. 2000-5000 Rs. 5001-10000 Rs. 10001-30000 > 30000 Rs. N 44.4 11.1 44.4 9 100 22.2 22.2 44.4 11.1 100
NDMC Computerized Manual
KMC Computerized Manual 9.9 7 20 100 0 17.9 20 10 80 30 70 9.9 62 7 4.2
GHMC Computerized 0 8.3 8.3 83.3 0 50
75
7.1
40
10 30
40
0 50 100 0
52.1
14.1 22.5 74.6 7 18.3
25
25 0 100 0 0
100
90 10
40 0 7.1 92.9 28 10 60 0
20 60 20 10
28.2 35.2 33.8 2.8 71
0 0 83.3 16.7 12
Analysis of services where the total sample size achieved in either the manual or computerized services is less than 20 should not be considered for statistically signicant results. c. Cost to Client Number of trips
Figure 3.1 Building Approval: Cost to Client (No. of Trips)
5
Both GHMC and NDMC have reported an increase in the number of trips whereas KMC has reported to no changes. The increase in the number of trips for the computerized facility is primarily due to additional trips to meet the architects for depositing some additional documents, or to get their nal approval document from the architects, in case the architect was not available during the respondents earlier visit to him. c.1 The main reasons for additional trips across the three ULBs presented as follows in Table 3.23. Travel cost has increased in the computerized vis--vis manual services which seem reasonable due to actual increase in the same during these periods.
No. of Trips
3.1 3 1.7 2.4
3.1 2.2 1.7
0 NDMC KMC ULBs GHMC
Manual
Computerized
97
Table 3.23: Reasons for additional trips (%) Reasons Manual (4) Processing time at the oce All documents/forms were not submied the rst time To collect information on procedures and required documents To obtain application form Long queues Absence of ocial required for authentication 75 60 20 45 100 50 NDMC Computerised (10) 20 40 100 KMC Manual (5) Computerised (4) Manual (14) 50 40 45 GHMC Computerised (5)
25 40
65
50 75
Travel costs to centre for accessing services

Figure 3.2 Building Approval: Cost to Client (Travel Cost)
50 42.5 40 35.6 38.1
computerized system due to increase in governmental fees that need to be paid to access the service. Total payment made
Travel cost per trip
30 21 20 11.2 10 12.7
Figure 3.5 Building Approval: Cost to Client (Total Payment)

10000 9000 9008.3
8000
Total Payment (in Rs)
NDMC
KMC ULBs
GHMC
7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 NDMC KMC ULBs GHMC 1577.2 1477.5 759.6 5164.3 4190
Manual
Computerized
Travel cost has increased in the computerized vis--vis manual services which seem reasonable due to actual increase in the same during these periods. Service Charges
Figure 3.4 Building Approval: Cost to Client (Service Charges)
7000 6991.7 6000 4775 3440
Manual
Computerized
Service charges (in Rs)
5000 4000 3000 2000 1055 1000 0
Consumers across all the ULBs paid higher payment for the computerized service as compared to the manual services, maximum amount reported from GHMC. This follows the same trend as that for service charges. Elapsed time in availing service
1227.5 621.6
NDMC
KMC ULBs
GHMC
Manual
Computerized
Service charges have increased a lot in the
The time taken to avail the service reduced for all the ULBs but recorded maximum decline for NDMC. The positive outcome of making the entire system routed through the licensed architects of the ULBs has
98
helped the ULBs at the backend to reduce processing time and thus this change is observed. In the computerised system, each ULB has a list of licensed architects and they accept and process requests for approvals only if the same is routed through some one from this list. This has also helped in the clients so far as nal outcome of quicker service delivery is concerned however this has come at an additional cost.
Figure 3.6 Building Approval: Cost to Client (Elapsed time in availing services)
100 87.3 80
In this case, the nal outcome of quicker service delivery has been the dening reason for the perception of service quality improvement. e. Governance Issues
Figure 3.8 Building Approval: Governance & Corruption Issues
70 60 50 50 40 30 30 20 11.3 10 0 0 NDMC KMC ULBs GHMC 6.6 58.3
60
Manual
40 18.5 12 5.9 0 NDMC KMC ULBs GHMC 9.9 2.8
Computerized
20
Manual
Computerized
The concept of waiting time at the clients end does not come about for building approval, as the application has to be made through a licensed architect an intermediary in both computerised as well as manual services. d. Service Quality issues
Figure 3.7 Building Approval: Service Quality Issues
5 4.2 4 4.3
Corruption issues have increased manifold from manual to computerized service delivery system across all ULBs. It is lowest for NDMC because of low volume of transaction and also due to the fact that private residential building approvals are not allowed in NDMC. However for both KMC and GHMC, respondents reported to more corruption in the computerised vis-vis the manual system. Corruption was reported by respondents during property verication and also by architects to expedite the approval process at the ULB oce.
Figure 3.9 Building Approval: Governance & Corruption Issues
5 4.4 4 4.2
Service Quality
3.3 3 2.8 2.8 2.8

Governance Score
2.8
2.7
2.9 2.5
Manual
Computerized
Perception of service being provided has become beer for NDMC and GHMC with GHMC scoring higher than NDMC. KMC respondents have not felt that the new system is any beer than the earlier system.
Manual
Computerized
Inspite of the corruption issues, respondents across the three ULBs have felt that the computerised system is almost as
99
good (NDMC and KMC respondents have reported to minor reduction in the computerised vis--vis the manual system actually) or slightly beer than the manual system, once again primarily due to the fact that it has been able to reduce the time for service delivery to a great extent. In GHMC, there has been an increase in governance score reported by the computerised system users, and the quantum of change is highest in this case as compared to the other ULBs. f. Role of Intermediaries All users of this service in both the computerized and the manual system have reported to using intermediaries the architects licensed by their ULBs for accessing this service (Table 3.24).
Positive score denotes improvement in computerised system; negative denotes manual service was beer
In both NDMC and GHMC respondents have reported improvements in the overall assessment of parameters selected, whereas in KMC, the manual service was considered beer. This is because amongst the three ULBs, KMC is the only one where respondents have reported to lower governance scores in the computerized system as compared to the manual system and same service quality scores in both systems, which has led to the manual system outscoring the computerized system in the perception of the clients. The other two ULBs
Table 3.24: Usage of Intermediaries

Particulars Manual Proportion using an Intermediary (Percentage) N Service charge paid to Intermediary (Rs) S.E. NDMC Computerized 100 28 11245 2.11e-21 8895 3.44e-12 Change Manual KMC Computerized 100 10 17223 3.11e-12 16000 2.01e-11 Change Manual GHMC Computerized 100 12 25551 1.03e-12 24999 2.04e-15 Change
100 9 2350 5.11e-15
100 10 1223 2.22e-13
100 71 1552 1.24e-14
g. Overall assessment section The results for building approval process, ULB-wise, have been presented in Table 3.25.
Table 3.25: Building Approval: Change in Overall Assessment Score
NDMC KMC GHMC
0.113 -0.160 0.960
NDMC and GHMC have reported beer combinations of perception scores in the governance and service quality parameters and hence the overall assessment score in the computerized system has outscored the manual system for them. The detailed results have been presented as Annexure 2 of this report. The results for most important aributes in each ULB for building approval have been presented in Tables 3.26 to 3.28 below.
100

Most Important Aributes of the service Costs of availing service Legibility of print outs Location of service center Frequency 7 4 3 Percent of response cases 77.78 44.44 33.33

Most Important Aributes of the service Corruption of working system Accountability of ocers Management of queuing system Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ability to complain Location of service centre Responsiveness of functionaries Costs of availing service Communication by department on progress Frequency Percent of response cases 90.00 40.00 40.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00
There is overlap of the top three aributes in service delivery across ULBs, as voiced by respondents. Aributes such as costs of availing service and location of service centres have been ranked among the top three services in NDMC and KMC, while location of service centres has been voiced as one of the top three important service aributes in GHMC as well.
9 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2

Most Important Attributes of the service Location of service center Durability of certicates Security of data Frequency Percent of response cases 43.66 29.58 25.35
31 21 18
4. PAYMENTS PROPERTY, WATER, ELECTRICITY

a. The process for making utility bill payments
Utility Payments Process wise there is no difference across the ULBs in making utility payments including timelines for service access/ delivery Manual Process Computerised Process Applicant gets demand notes/bills of the utilities from the ULBs. Applicant can go to the ULB registered counters or the kiosks designated by the ULBs for accepting these payments (Palika Suvidha Kendras for NDMC, Citizen Facilitation Centres for BMC, eKolkata service centre for KMC and eSeva/Rajiv Centres for GHMC) with these bills. Payment can be made at the counter with the bill then and there. Applicant used to get the demand notes/bills of the utilities from the ULBs. Applicant had to go to the ward oces of the ULBs and their designated counters for making the payments. At these ward oces; there would be one counter where the bill was veried manually from les kept as records for the applicant. The applicant had to then deposit the veried bill and the cash at the counter designated for making payments.
101
b. Surveyed client prole The surveyed client prole for utility bill payments is presented in Table 3.29.
Table 3.29: Utility payments: Surveyed Client Prole
Characteristics NDMC Manual Age < 30 years 30-40 years > 40 years Gender Male Female Education Illiterate Literate without education/Below primary Primary Middle Matric and above Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/ Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Type of house Permanent Semi-permanent Temporary Monthly income < 2000 Rs. Rs. 2000-5000 Rs. 5001-10000 Rs. 10001-30000 > 30000 Rs. N 0 28.5 68.1 3.4 326 1.5 25.4 64.7 8.5 331 0.9 17.8 51.9 27.6 1.9 214 0 22.9 41.8 31.3 4 201 6.1 51.5 29.3 8.1 5.1 99 3 45 29 19 4 100 0.5 16.4 29.5 45.4 8.2 390 1.1 22.6 38.7 32.8 4.8 186 69.9 28.2 1.8 83.7 15.4 0.6 96.3 3.3 0.5 97 2 1 100 0 99 1 63.8 17.7 18.2 66.7 5.4 28 0.9 45.1 12.3 17.2 24.5 3 38.4 14.5 21.8 22.4 15.4 17.8 36.4 11.7 18.7 20.9 21.4 30.8 12.4 14.4 7.1 30.3 43.4 19.2 8 40 26 26 5.4 5.4 67.7 9 12.6 11.3 13.4 44.1 13.4 17.7 1.2 0.3 1.8 6.1 90.5 2.1 1.2 0.3 3.3 93.1 2.8 2.3 7.5 19.6 67.8 4 5 9.5 14.4 67.2 2 7.1 9.1 19.2 62.6 0 8 7 11 74 7.4 5.4 7.4 7.2 72.6 6.5 3.8 7.5 7.5 74.7 64.4 35.6 72.5 27.5 86 14 88.1 11.9 85.9 14.1 78 22 87.4 12.6 84.4 15.6 22.4 44.2 33.4 30.5 34.7 34.7 25.7 28.5 45.8 18.4 34.3 47.3 2 12.1 85.9 10 28 62 14.9 38.2 46.9 25.8 30.6 43.5 Computerized Manual BMC Computerized KMC Manual GHMC Computerized
Computer- Manual ized
102
For NDMC, for the manual service majority of the respondents are between the ages of 30- 40 yrs. For the computerised services however, almost equal proportion of respondents are between the ages of 30- 40 yrs and above 40 yrs. Major proportions of respondents for both computerized and manual system are male. Female respondents for the manual system, are however large, at a lile above one third of the respondents. However majority of the respondents are secondary educated and engaged in executive or clerical jobs. Most of them live in permanent houses and earn between Rs10000- Rs 30000 per month. Majority of the respondents are above the age of 40 years, are male and educated up to or above class 10. Most of them are businessmen. The dominant system of dwelling is permanent type and monthly income of the respondents range between Rs.5, 000 to Rs 10,000. The prole of respondents is thus absolutely similar between the computerised and the manual users. The prole of surveyed respondents accessing KMC services for payments of utility bills is mostly similar to those in BMC and NDMC, with a few minor variations. Majority of the respondents for the manual services as well as for computerised services are above the age of 40 years. So far as gender is concerned, the respondents in accessing the services both for manual as well as computerised are mostly male. Most respondents are matriculates and occupation-wise either businessmen or dependents. Monthly income is low, at Rs
2000- Rs 5000 per month. The prole is similar for both manual and computerised respondents. For GHMC, large number of respondents who made payments through the both manual and computerized procedure were above the age of 40 years. Males predominate the list of respondents in both system of service. Almost all clients have nished secondary schooling or above this level. Majority of the clients were businessmen, lived in permanent dwellings and earn between Rs 5,000 to Rs 30,000 per month. c. Cost to Client Number of trips
Figure 4.1 Payments: Cost to Client (No. of trips)
5
No. of trips
2 1.1 1 1 1.12 1.06 1.06 1.02
1.7
1.6
0 NDMC BMC KMC GHMC
There has been a minor reduction in the number of trips across all ULBs. This is primarily due to opening up of multiple centres for utility payments at all the ULBs thus queuing time at these centres have reduced and there has been a positive impact in this regard. c.1 The reasons for additional trips to make payments has been presented in (Table 3.30)
103
Table 3.30: Reasons for additional trips (%) Reasons NDMC Manual (10) Long queues 100 Computerised (0) Manual (18) 100 BMC Computerised (2) 100 KMC Manual (15) 100 Computerised (3) 100 GHMC Manual Computer(15) ised (1) 100 100
Figure 4.2 Payments: Cost to Client (Travel Cost)

120 100
Figure 4.3 Payments: Cost to Client (Waiting time to avail service)

100
100.5
Waiting time (in mins)
Travel Cost / trip
80
68.6
78 61.3
80 60 40 20 0 NDMC BMC KMC GHMC 13.8 10.1 10.7 17.5 5.9
60
51.8
44.6 32.5 24.5
48.8
40
20
11.8
12.8
NDMC
BMC
KMC
GHMC
Travel costs to centres for accessing service On the whole travel costs have reduced for all ULBs, as all of them have opened up multiple centres for service delivery; and for the client the distances of centres from his/ her residences have been virtually reduced through this process. Only for NDMC, there is a rise, albeit marginal, in travel costs. Waiting time to avail service The overwhelming response of computerization of the services is seen in the reduction of the waiting time to complete the transaction. The reason for a steep decline
Reasons NDMC Manual (2) Many counters were not working There were too many customers at the service area Sta do not appear to be well trained so are slow at processing application Frequent system/equipment breakdown 100 100
in the waiting time to avail the service at NDMC is primarily because of the fact that the transaction volume is low in comparison to other ULBs. Nevertheless, the waiting time for the computerized services is quite high, showing that there is high level of congestion across the counters for making payments of utilities, even though multiple centres have been put up for service access in the computerized system. c.2 The main reasons for long waiting time at the counters for depositing utility bill payments are presented below (Table 3.31)
Table 3.31: Reasons for long wait (%) BMC KMC Manual (8) Computerised (2) 100 50 50 75 75 45 GHMC Manual (11) Computerised (1) 100 Comput- Manual Computerised (7) erised (0) (0)
104
The concept of service charge or total payments is not there in the case of utility bills payments. d. Service Quality Issues
Figure 4.7 Payments: Service Quality Issues
5
the ULBs, apart from in GHMC. Opening up of multiple delivery centres with ecient queue management has denitely made ULB oces more client friendly the system has become faster and provides
Figure 4.9 Payments: Governance and Corruption Issues
5 4
4 3.4
3.6
3.4
3.5 3.1 3.2 2.9 3.2
3.3
3.5
3.3
3.4 3 3 2.6 3.1
Score
1 NDMC BMC ULBs KMC GHMC
NDMC
BMC
KMC
GHMC
ULBs Manual Computerization
Manual
Computerized
The improvement in the service quality across all ULBs is a natural outcome of all the positive results for all cost related parameters discussed above. In this case GHMC and NDMC have been the beer performers among all, even though a similar improvement, albeit small is seen for KMC and BMC as well. e. Governance Issues
Figure 4.8 Payments: Governance & corruption issues
25 20
for value in terms of time reduction to the client. The reasons for payment of bribes were reported to be expediting the process of payment of utility bills. It is therefore not surprising to see a positive improvement in the governance score for all the ULBs (apart from KMC where the scores are equal), where GHMC has outperformed all others. The reason for such an outcome may be explained from the above section on corruption issues. f. Role of Intermediaries The maximum reduction in intermediary usage has happened in GHMC, followed by BMC. A kiosk based facilitation system like eSeva and CFCs (for GHMC and BMC respectively) have led to beer queue management for payment related services, leading to lesser dependence on intermediaries. For NDMC and KMC however, there have been marginal increases
20
15
10
5 0 0 NDMC 1.19
1.9
0.8
0.5 GHMC
BMC ULBs
KMC
Manual
Computerized
Corruption has almost been eliminated in the computerised system, as can be seen in the survey results. Even in the manual system, the corruption was very low for all
105
in intermediary usage (Table 3.32).

Table 3.32: Intermediary usage in utility bill payments
Particulars Manual Proportion using an Intermediary (Percentage) N SE Service charge paid to Intermediary (Rs) S.E. NDMC Computerized Change Manual BMC Computerized Change Manual KMC Computerized Change Manual GHMC Computerized Change
0.613
0.895
0.282
1.408
0.411
-0.99
40.256
4.301
-35.955
326 1.63 e-15
331 8.61 e-16 2.49 e-15
214 1.82 e-15
201 4.62 e-16 2.28 e-15
99 0
100 6.42 e-16 6.42 e-16
390 6.3 e-15
186 4.6 5e-16 5.84 e-15
350
300
-50
706.667
100
-606.667
10
NA
223.287
262.5
39.213
NA
2.84e-14
2.84e-14
NA
1.22e-16
1.22e-16
g. Overall Assessment Section The results for making utility payments, ULB-wise, have been presented in Table 3.33.
each ULB for making utility payments have been presented in Tables 3.34 to 3.37 below.
Table 3.34: Most Important Aributes of the services NDMC Most Important Aributes of the service Frequency Percent of response cases 54.60 34.05 26.07
Table 3.33: Utility Payments: Change in Overall Assessment Score
NDMC BMC KMC GHMC
0.221 0.157 -0.128 1.173
Management of queuing system Location of service center Legibility of print outs
178 111 85
Positive score denotes improvement in computerised system; negative denotes manual service was beer Apart from KMC, respondents in all other ULBs have reported to improvements in the computerized system in comparison to the manual system. The detailed results have been presented as Annexure 2 of this report. The results for most important aributes in
Table 3.35: Most Important Aributes of the services BMC Most Important Aributes of the service Legibility of print outs Communication by department on progress Corruption of working system Frequency Percent of response cases 22.43
48
47
21.96
44
20.56
106
Table 3.36: Most Important Aributes of the services KMC Most Important Aributes of the service Ability to complain Corruption of working system Accountability of ocers Management of queuing system Frequency Percent of response cases 40.40 37.37 36.36 36.36
Management of queuing system Security of data
87 87
22.31 22.31
40 37 36 36
Table 3.37: Most important aributes of the services - GHMC Most Important Aributes of the service Location of service center Durability of certicates Frequency Percent of response cases 35.90 30.51
Apart from BMC, management of the queuing system has come out strongly as a desired aribute across all the other ULBs this shows that the queuing system in BMC is beer managed and more to the satisfaction of the BMC clients as compared to the queuing system at the other ULBs. Location of the service centre and legibility of the printouts both demand notices as well as receipts of bill collection are some of the other important aributes as per the responses from the other ULBs.
140 119
5. Mutation
a. The process of mutation
Mutation Computerised Process Applicant has to obtain requisite form from the ULB oce/download the form from KMC website and apply for mutation with sale deed and registration document for the sale. The ULB has a separate counter at each of its borough oces for accepting these applications for mutation. Once the application is submied, the ULB gives a date for verication of the property between 7 -15 days from the application date. On the date of verication, the concerned ocer from the ULB would visit the property site, inspect the property and issue a No objection certicate, and deposit the same at the ULB. If there are objections to the mutation on the property, then the same is recorded by the verifying Manual Process Applicant had to apply for mutation in requisite form along with sale deed and registration document of the property. The verication date is given by the ULB within 7 - 30 days from the application date. Aer the verication of the property and the verifying ocers comments, the applicant has to go to the ULB to know whether additional documents are required or when the mutation deed can be obtained. Generally, the mutation document was received within 10-20
107
ocer at the ULB. A copy of the same is generally kept by the applicant. Accordingly the applicant approaches the ULB either for knowing the date when the mutation deed can be made or whether there needs to be any other documents to be provided to the ULB. If there are no objections to the mutation, then once the applicant goes to the ULB oce, a separate date is given for providing the mutation document, which is generally within 7 days of the verication date.
days aer the verication was completed and/or all proper documents for the mutation were submied to the ULB oce.
The computerized process of mutation is available only at KMC, and like that of building approval, has also resulted in the ULB/department in delivering services in lesser time in the computerized system, as compared to the manual system. However, there has been very lile impact on the cost factors that aect the client; in fact they have increased marginally in the computerized system. Also our qualitative feedback shows that clients are more apprehensive of using the computerized system on their own they rely on intermediaries for doing mutation of their documents. In the earlier manual system however, clients have reported to approaching the ULBs on their own to do mutation. On the part of the ULB there needs to be something denitive done to increase awareness amongst the clients of using the computerized system on their own either through a campaign or a propaganda mechanism. b. Surveyed prole of clients for Mutation The surveyed prole of clients for mutation, a service whose computerised delivery is available only at KMC has been presented below in Table 3.38.
Table 3.38: Surveyed prole of clients - mutation

Characteristics Manual Age < 30 years 30-40years > 40years Gender Male Female Education Illiterate Literate without education/Below primary Primary Middle Matric and above Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/ Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Type of house Permanent Semi-permanent Temporary Monthly income < 2000 Rs. Rs. 2000-5000 Rs. 5001-10000 Rs. 10001-30000 > 30000 Rs. N 0 10 50 20 20 10 0 40 40 20 0 10 100 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 20 70 10 0 20 40 40 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 10 90 90 10 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 KMC Computerized
108
Analysis of services where the total sample size achieved in either the manual or computerized services is less than 20 should not be considered for statistically signicant results. All respondents for both computerised and system are above the age of forty years. Males predominate the list of respondents in both system of service. Almost all clients have nished secondary schooling or above this level. Majority of the respondents for the manual service are dependents or students, earn between Rs 5,000 to Rs 30,000 per month and live in permanent houses. But equal
percent of respondents for computerized service are dependents (on errands of their guardians) and businessmen and live in permanent dwellings. Eighty percent of the respondents for the computerized system earn less than Rs. 10000 per month. c. Cost to Client The following table 3.39 on cost factors to clients for accessing the services brings out the above fact succinctly. c.1 The reasons for additional trips and long wait have been presented in Table 3.40
Table 3.39: Costs to client: mutation
Particulars Manual
No. of trips 2.6
KMC Computerized
2.7
Change
0.1
N
S.E. Travel cost in each trip (in Rs.)
10 4.16 e-17
10.8
10 2.78 e-17
14.2
1.39 e-17
3.4
N
S.E. Waiting time (Minutes) N S.E. Service charge paid (Rs)
10 4.44 e-16 206.5 10 7.11 e-15

487.7
10 0 NA* 10 0
685
4.44 e-16
7.11 e-15
197.3
N
S.E. Total payment made (Rs)*
10 2.84 e-14
787.7
10 0
785
2.84 e-14
-2.7 5.68 e-14 3.40 e-16 -22.088
N
S.E. N S.E.
10
5.68 e-14
10
0
10
7.48 e-16 30.575
10
4.44 e-16 8.488
Total elapsed time in availing service (Days)*
* No waiting time could be ascertained for the computerized services as the entire facility was found to be intermediary driven
109
Table 3.40: Reasons for additional trips(%) Reasons Processing time at the oce All documents/forms were not submied the rst time To collect information on procedures and required documents To obtain application form Power failure/equipment breakdown at service centre Long queues Absence of ocial required for authentication To check application status KMC Manual (8) Computerised (1) 50 50 50 100
75 100 100 Manual (8) Computerised (0)
Reason for long wait (%)

Many counters were not working There were too many customers at the service area Sta do not appear to be well trained so are slow at processing application Frequent system/equipment breakdown
100 100
A marginal increase has been reported in the perception of service quality in the computerised system, primarily due to reduction in service delivery time. d. Service Quality Issues There is a marginal increase in the computerised facility for the overall service quality score, as per table 3.41.
Table 3.41: Overall Service quality score
Particulars Manual Overall service quality score (5-point scale) N S.E. 2.6 10 4.16e-17 KMC Computerized 2.8 10 0 4.16e-17 Change 0.2
e. Governance Issues There was no change however in the governance issues either in terms of corruption or in the overall governance score (a marginal reduction reported in the computerised facility over the manual facility), between the computerised and the manual facility. Mutation, in fact is one of the services where there are frequent reports of bribery and corruption, as also usage of intermediaries. All of these have been reported extensively in both the computerised and the manual system (no intermediary usage reported in the manual system) (Table 3.42).
110
Table 3.42: Governance issues in mutation

Particulars Manual Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) N S.E. Overall governance score (5-point scale) KMC Computerized 10 10 0 2.5 -0.1 Change
This shows then that so far as governance is concerned, there has been a negative impact on the system due to computerisation (Table 3.43). g. Overall Assessment Section The results for applying for mutation for KMC have been presented in Table 3.44.
Table 3.44: Mutation: Change in Overall Assessment Score
10 10 0 2.6
dropped
N S.E.
10
4.16e-17
10
2.78e-17
6.94e-17
KMC
-0.090
The reasons for bribe payment are to expedite the process of mutation. f. Role of Intermediaries Intermediary usage has not been mentioned by the manual sample of respondents whereas all computerised sample respondents have said that they used an intermediary for mutation. This is primarily due to nonawareness of respondents regarding the usage of the computerised system they feel it is beer to hand over the task of the mutation process to an intermediary who is accustomed to doing it for many others.
Table 3.43: Intermediary usage in mutation
Particulars Manual Proportion using an Intermediary (Percentage) N SE Service charge paid to Intermediary (Rs) N S.E. KMC Computerized 100 10 0 15545 10 0 15545 Change
Positive score denotes improvement in computerised system; negative denotes manual service was beer The computerized process of mutation at KMC has been reported by respondents as worse o in comparison to the earlier manual process, so far an overall assessment of the parameters concerned with the service were considered. The detailed results have been presented as Annexure 2 of this report. The exercise on obtaining the most important aributes of the services was conducted on similar lines as for municipal corporations of other cities. The top three parameters have been presented in Table 3.45 below. Corruption of the working system is cited as the top most aribute in 80% of the cases.
Table 3.45: Most Important Aributes of the services
0 10 0 NA 10 0
100 Most Important Aributes of the service Corruption of working system Management of queuing system Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Frequency Percent of response cases 80.00 50.00 40.00
8 5 4
111
6. Grievances
a. The process of registering a grievance
Grievances Process is similar at BMC and GHMC; guiding timelines for resolving the complaints are also similar Computerised Process Application for grievance can be made either at the ULB website or at the particular ward oce in which the applicant stays. Grievances can also be lodged at CFCs (BMC) and eSeva kendras (GHMC). For physically applying, the applicant needs to visit the ward oce (or CFC or eSeva in that ward oce as the case maybe) and register for grievance redress in a prescribed form at the ward oce counter. Once the grievance is lodged the applicant is provided with a date at the counter within which the maer would be resolved. Depending upon the nature of the grievance, this date is between 3 -21 days from the date of registering this complaint. If applying through the website, the application procedure ends with the generation of a complaint number which acts as a reference for future tracking. Manual Process Applicant had to visit the same locality ULB ward oce in whose jurisdiction the complaint would fall and register the complaint with the concerned ocer there. The complaint would be resolved depending upon the volume of pending unresolved complaints with the ward oce at that time.
b. Surveyed client prole The surveyed client prole for grievances has been presented below in Table 3.46.
Table 3.46: Grievances: Surveyed client prole
Characteristics Age < 30 years 30-40 years > 40 years Gender Male Female Education Illiterate
BMC Manual Computerized 8.8 41.2 50 88.2 11.8 0 14.3 33.3 52.4 85.7 14.3 4.8
GHMC Manual Computerized
39.4 60.6 90.9 9.1 3
10 90 95 5 0
112
Characteristics Manual Literate without education/ Below primary Primary Middle Matric and above Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Type of house Permanent Semi-permanent Temporary Monthly income < 2000 Rs. Rs. 2000-5000 Rs. 5001-10000 Rs. 10001-30000 > 30000 Rs. N 11.8 55.9 20.6 11.8 34 2.9 14.7 8.8 73.5 17.6 38.2 23.5 14.7 5.9 97.1 2.9
BMC Computerized 4.8 4.8 4.8 81 14.3 23.8 23.8 19 19 100 0 0 12.1 84.8 Manual
GHMC Computerized
5 0 95
3 75.8 3 18.2 87.9 9.1 3
5 35 0 60 100 0 0
14.3 19 57.1 9.5 21
18.2 78.8 3 33
5 90 5 20
In BMC, more than y percent of the respondents are above the age of 40 years for both the systems who registered grievances to the municipality. Majority of the respondents are male and completed class 10 or above. In terms of occupation, majority of the respondents for the manual system work as executives or are in clerical jobs. About 24 percent each represent the executive/ clerical and businessmen for the computerized services. The dominant system of dwelling is permanent type and earnings of the respondents for manual services range between Rs 5000-Rs 10000 and for computerized system range between
Rs.10000 to Rs 30000. Majority of the respondents from GHMC are above the age of forty years for both manual and computerized system. Male respondents dominated the services and have completed class 10 or above. Businessmen comprise of the largest share of proportion for the manual services whereas the respondents for computerized system are occupied in other services. For both the systems, the respondents live mostly in permanent house and earn between Rs 10000- Rs 30000 per month, reecting their middle class status.
113
b.1 The major reasons for registering a grievance from our survey have been presented below (Table 3.47):
facility over the manual facility for BMC, it has reduced for the same in GHMC. Since there is no dierence in the service delivery
Table 3.47: Reasons for registering grievance (%) Reasons Manual Fallen trees Sanitation Water Electricity Garbage Carcass removal 27 22 26 13 12 11 BMC Computerised 22 34 12 15 19 26 Manual 11 55 34 12 12 6 GHMC Computerised 13 34 23 33 23 14
c. Cost to Client Number of trips

Figure 6.1 Grievances: Cost to Client (No. of Trips)
2.5
2.04
2 1.7
No. of Trips
1.6
1.5 1 0.5 0 BMC
1.4
GHMC
ULB
Manual Computerization
While the number of trips for accessing service delivery has increased for the computerized
modalities between the two ULBs between the computerized and manual services, the dierence in results is best explained by the fact that the computerized facility is a new addition at the BMC CFC with a newly laid down delivery and institutional reporting structure, which is eventually geing acclimatized to the transition from the manual to the computerized facility. For GHMC, the facility has been there for some time now, and the results are therefore congruent with a beer delivery system that has evolved, which has helped in reducing the number of trips that a client needs to make for accessing service delivery in the
Table 3.48: Reasons for additional trips (%) BMC Reasons Processing time at the oce To collect information on procedures and required documents Long queues To check application status 20 100 75 Manual (20) 100 Computerised (8) 25 10 55 65 40 80 60 Manual (13) GHMC Computerised (4)
114
computerized facility. c.1 The reasons for additional trips related to grievance redressal have been presented in Table 3.48. Travel costs for accessing service
Figure 6.2 Grievances: Cost to Client (Travel Cost)
80 70
redressal has increased manifold due to an ecient queue management system and seing up of a large number of counters at the CFCs/eSeva kendras/GHMC ward oces to address consumer complaint related issues.
Figure 6.3 Grievances: Cost to Client (Waiting time to avail service) 73.12 63.75
80
68.4
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Travel Cost (in Rs)
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 BMC GHMC
27.4
31
21.3
0
BMC
0
GHMC
ULBs Manual Computerization
The travel costs have also increased for the computerized facility in BMC over the manual facility, while it has reduced for GHMC in the computerized facility over the manual facility. The trend follows straightaway from the change in the number of trips in the two ULBs for accessing the service. Waiting time to avail service The waiting time has been reduced to zero for both GHMC and BMC between the computerized and the manual system. The reduction in the waiting time to zero shows that the eciency of dealing with grievance
c.2 The reasons for long wait at the counters have been presented below in Table 3.49. There were no reports of any service charges paid; for grievance registration in either BMC or GHMC for the manual or the computerized facility.
Figure 6.4 Grievances: Cost to Client (Total Payment)
3500 3115.6
Total Payment (Rs)
3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 BMC GHMC 105.2 554.2 0
Table 3.49: Reasons for long wait (%) Reasons There were too many customers at the service area Sta do not appear to be well trained so are slow at processing application Manual (10) 50 Computerised (0) Manual (2) 100 Computerised (0)
50
100
115
The total payment made in the manual services is quite high for both BMC and GHMC (this is substantially high for BMC in particular, due to some outlier cases that have come up in our survey). This is primarily due to corruption and high intermediary usage (in the case of GHMC only) in accessing manual services. A sizeable number of respondents in the manual system reported to payment of bribes for geing their jobs expedited across both ULBs; with a substantial number of GHMC respondents reporting to having paid a bribe. BMC has also reported to bribe payments in the computerized system, albeit with a slight reduction in the proportion vis--vis the manual system.
Figure 6.5 Grievances: Cost to Client (Elapsed time in availing service)
12 10
accessing the service has rather increased. d. Service Quality issues

Figure 6.6 Grievances: Service Quality Issues
5
Score (5 ponit scale)
4 3 2 1 0 BMC GHMC 2.9

2.7
2.8
3.3
ULBs
Manual Computerized
9.9
10.1
8 6 4 2 0 BMC ULBs GHMC
4.7
1.5
While BMC consumers felt that the service quality had decreased marginally, primarily due to increased number of trips, increased travel costs and increased elapsed time for availing the service, GHMC consumers who still increased elapsed time, however were beer o in terms of number of trips and travel costs and therefore felt that the new computerised system was beer than the earlier manual system.
Figure 6.7 Grievances: Governance and Corruption Issues
40
Manual
Computerized
36.4
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 BMC GHMC 8.3 4.2 0
The time taken to get the nal response from the municipal oce for the lodged grievance has increased marginally for BMC in the computerized system as compared to the manual system. However, GHMC consumers have to wait for a prey longer period to avail the facility in the computerized facility as compared to the manual facility. The basic reason why the time has not reduced and rather gone up in the grievance redressal mechanism for the computerized facility is because the earlier manual system depended heavily on corruption and/or usage of intermediaries. With computerization, there has been a reduction in instances of such usage (to a certain extent); however the time taken for
ULBs
Manual Computerized
e. Governance Issues Overall consumers in both ULBs have reported lesser incidence of corruption in the computerized system as compared to manual system. However for GHMC the situation is much beer as compared to BMC, because corruption has been eliminated through the process of computerization of the system. The presence of bribery was primarily to
116
expedite the process of grievance redressal.

Figure 6.8 Grievances: Governance and Corruption Issues
g. Overall Assessment Section The results for grievance redressal, ULBwise, have been presented in Table 3.51.
Table 3.51: Grievance redressal: Change in Overall Assessment Score
BMC GHMC -0.338 1.313
GovernanceScore (5 point scale)
4 2.9
3.5 2.7
2.6
1 BMC GHMC
Positive score denotes improvement in computerised system; negative denotes manual service was beer Both service quality as well as governance scores are lesser in the computerized system in BMC vis--vis the manual system; hence the corresponding worsening o reported by BMC respondents in terms of overall assessment For GHMC, there is an improvement reported in both service quality as well as governance scores; hence the improvement in the corresponding overall assessment score. The detailed results have been presented as Annexure 2 of this report. The most important aributes of the grievance redressal facility as mentioned by the respondents in BMC and GHMC have been presented in Tables 3.52 and 3.53 respectively.
Table 3.52: Most Important Aributes of the services - BMC
Most Important Aributes of the service Legibility of print outs Convenience of working hours 3.77 e-17 NA Responsiveness of functionaries Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Frequency Percent of response cases
There is also improvement in the overall governance score for GHMC as compared to BMC. This is primarily due to reduced corruption, which means lesser incidences of bribes paid for GHMC as compared to BMC. f. Role of Intermediaries There was no report of any intermediary usage in BMC, either for manual or computerised services. An improvement was registered for GHMC, where the proportion of intermediary usage dropped to 0 from about 40% - the major reason for this was the multiplicity of centres at GHMC for complaints receipt, leading to lesser queuing at these centres and lesser dependence on intermediaries (Table 3.50).
Table 3.50: Intermediary usage for grievance redressal
Particulars Manual Proportion using an Intermediary (Percentage) N SE Service charge paid to Intermediary (Rs) 39.39 33 3.77 e-15 283.846 GHMC Computerized 0 20 0 Change -39.39
9 8 8
26.47 23.53 23.53
20.59
117
Responsiveness of functionaries have come up as the only overlapping aribute between the two ULBs.
Table 3.53: Most Important Aributes of the services - GHMC
Most Important Aributes of the service Costs of availing service Responsiveness of functionaries Corruption of working system Dependence of intermediaries Frequency Percent of response cases
b. Surveyed client prole new traders license The surveyed client prole for new traders license has been presented in Table 3.54. In BMC, major proportions of respondents are above the age of 40yrs for both manual as well as computerized services and majority of them are male. Educated up to class 10 or above, they stay in permanent houses and their prime occupation is business. The respondents earn between Rs 5000- Rs 10000 per month for both the services. Majority of the respondents from KMC are above the age of forty years for both manual and computerized system. Male respondents dominate the gender proportion and have
10 9 7 7
30.30 27.27 21.21 21.21
7. Traders License New
a. The process of obtaining a new traders license

Computerised Process New Traders license (available at all ULBs, surveyed everywhere excepting NDMC due to lack of adequate sample, due to unocial restrictions of NDMC in issuing new permits before Common Wealth Games 2010) Process of obtaining the license is similar at all three ULBs, including ULB guidelines on time limits for obtaining the licenses Applicant has to obtain requisite form from the ULB oce/download the form from ULB website and apply for a new traders license along with a type of business certicate to be issued by the State Industries Commission. Depending upon the nature of the business, the applicant is subjected to a process of verication, within 3-15 days of this application submission. For more restricted categories of business, the verication process generally occurs toward the later of these 3-15 days cycle. For such businesses also, there may be more than one round of verication by dierent departments. Once the process of verication is over, the applicants are sent the trade license approval form from the ULB, within about 7 days from the process of verication. Manual Process Applicant had to rst apply with State Industries Commission for a type of business certicate. Generally this took about a month aer application, as it was the duty of the State Industries Commission to verify the application for type of business. Once the verication was completed and the necessary no-objection-certificates obtained, the applicant could go to the ULB and apply for a new license. The process took about 15-20 days more to be completed.
118
completed class 10 or above. By occupation, all are businessmen for both modes of service delivery. Most respondents live in permanent houses and earn between Rs 2000- Rs 5000 per month. Majority of the respondents from GHMC are below the age of forty years for both
manual and computerized service system. Male respondents dominate the gender proportion and have completed education up to class 10 or above. By occupation, most are businessmen. Most respondents for the manual services live in permanent house, whereas for the computerized service user,
Table 3.54: New traders license: surveyed client prole Characteristics BMC Manual Age < 30 years 30-40 years > 40 years Gender Male Female Education Illiterate Literate without education/ Below primary Primary Middle Matric and above Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Type of house Permanent Semi-permanent Temporary Monthly income < 2000 Rs. Rs. 2000-5000 Rs. 5001-10000 Rs. 10001-30000 > 30000 Rs. N 0 4.8 49.2 46 0 63 3.9 11.8 43.1 37.3 3.9 51 2 60 24 12 2 50 4 64 26 2 4 50 0.5 6.7 26.3 53.6 12.9 194 0 0 9.1 69.1 21.8 55 100 0 0 96.1 2 2 80 16 4 86 6 8 61.3 22.7 15.5 32.7 45.5 21.8 4.8 7.9 81 1.6 4.8 2 5.9 84.3 0 7.8 100 100 4.1 5.7 74.2 7.7 8.2 0 3.6 96.4 0 0 3.2 3.2 17.5 76.2 5.9 7.8 11.8 74.5 4 6 10 14 66 0 2 8 18 72 5.2 4.6 8.8 5.7 75.8 0 3.6 1.8 3.6 90.9 96.8 3.2 98 2 98 2 98 2 89.2 10.8 98.2 1.8 12.7 33.3 54 17.6 35.3 47.1 6 28 66 22 32 46 16.5 45.4 38.1 38.2 50.9 10.9 Computerized KMC Manual Computerized Manual GHMC Computerized
119
major proportion live in semi permanent type of house. Earnings for large proportion of respondents for both the services lie in the range of Rs 10000 to Rs 30000 per month. c. Cost to Client Number of trips
Figure 7.1 Trader's License New: Cost to Client (No. of Trips)
5 4
for increase in the number of trips in the computerized system. The increase in trips due to the last reason is a direct outcome of the countrys spurt in economic activity in the last decade, the time period which separates the computerized system from the manual system.
Figure 7.2 Trader's License New: Cost to Client (Travel Cost) 110.9
120 100
Travel Cost (Rs)
No. of Trips
80 60 40
3 2 1 1.9 2.2 1.8 2.34 1.8 2.01
52.2 33.5 22.7 32.4 30.9
20
0 BMC KMC GHMC

0 BMC KMC GHMC
ULBs
Manual Computerized
The number of trips to ULBs has increased across all the municipalities in the computerized system. At least one trip for obtaining the license in the computerized system has increased for the procurement of type of certicate, which has to be obtained from the State Industries Oce as explained above. Apart from this, our survey results point out to crowds in the ULB oces and malfunctioning computers, as well as additional information on document requirements as other reasons
c.1 The main reasons for additional trips to obtain a new traders license are as follows in Table 3.55 The travel cost has also increased for BMC and KMC with the increase in trips to the ULBs. This is primarily due to ination. However for GHMC, in the manual system and till some time back in the computerized system, the traders in the area of Greater Hyderabad had to go to the main GHMC oce in Hyderabad city to apply for a new
Table 3.55: Reasons for additional trips (%) Reasons Manual (15) To collect information on procedures and required documents To obtain application form Power failure/equipment breakdown at service centre Long queues Absence of ocial required for authentication To check application status 100 55 60 70 BMC Computerised (21) 100 100 30 50 20 45 60 50 10 45 60 70 Manual (20) 40 KMC Computerised (25) 52 Manual (15) 55 GHMC Computerised (18) 45
120
traders license, which has led to higher travel costs in the manual system.
Figure 7.3 Trader's License New: Cost to Client (Waiting time to avail service)
160
c.2 The major reasons for long waiting time at the counters are as follows in Table 3.56.
Figure 7.4 Trader's License new: Cost to Client (Service Charge)
2000 1800 1829 1526 1898.3
149.6 115.7 83.5 58.8 86.7 86.03
140
Service Charge Paid
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 BMC
1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0
583.5
556.9
629.7
KMC
GHMC
ULBs
Manual Computerized
BMC
KMC
GHMC
ULBs
Manual Computerized
There is no signicant change in the waiting time to access traders license services in the ULBs in fact they have increased for BMC and remained almost the same for GHMC. The volume of requisitions for obtaining new traders licenses, both in GHMC and BMC have outweighed the provision made by the ULBs for obtaining these services, hence there has been an increase in the waiting time across the counters as compared to the manual system. So far as KMC is concerned, the waiting time has reduced in the computerized system vis--vis the manual system, albeit by a small amount. While demand for new traders licenses has also increased in the KMC area, the demand is far less as compared to either BMC or GHMC; also KMC has set up additional counters in its dierent borough oces to take care of this increased demand.
For KMC the service charge to obtain traders license has reduced marginally in comparison to other ULBs. For all other ULBs this has increased; especially substantially for GHMC.
Figure 7.5 Trader's License New: Cost to Client (Total Payment)
2000 1800 1600 1599 1863.3 1901.2
Total Payment
1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 BMC KMC GHMC 587.6 658.9 730.9
ULBs
Manual Computerized
The increase in the total payment made to avail the computerized facility follows the same trend as that for service charge for
Table 3.56: Reasons for long wait (%) Reasons Many counters were not working There were too many customers at the service area Sta do not appear to be well trained so are slow at processing application Frequent system/equipment breakdown 100 Manual (8) 70 Computerised (4) 100 50 Manual (10) 60 40 25 75 Computerised (2) 100 Manual (8) 25 100 Computerised (3)
121
BMC and GHMC. Even though the service charges have reduced for KMC in the computerized facility marginally over the manual facility, respondents have reported to higher total payments in the form of higher travel costs due to increased number of trips in the computerized facility.
Figure 7.6 Trader's License New: Cost to Client (Elapsed time in availing service)
25
Perception of service delivery has improved for KMC and GHMC and declined for BMC. The only reason from the survey seems to be a reduction in waiting time in the computerised system in these two ULBs to obtain these services. e. Governance Issues
Figure 7.8 Trader's License New: Governance and Corruption Issues
30
20.8
15 10 5 0 BMC
14 9.2 7.4 7.2 10
20
25 20 15
24.1
14 10.76 10.71 10
10 5 0 BMC KMC GHMC
KMC ULBs Manual
GHMC
3.6
Computerized
ULBs
The elapsed time for service delivery has increased in the computerised services as compared to the manual services. The primary reason for this is once again due to the type of service delivery certicate which is absolutely mandatory now in the computerised system before the issuance of the traders license in the case of the earlier manual system, there were instances when the license could be obtained even without this wrien certicate from the State Industries Department. The average time in obtaining this certicate now in the computerised system is between 8-15 days. d. Service Quality Issues
Service Quality Score (5 ponit scale)
Incidences of bribery have been reported for this service for all ULBs in both computerised as well as manual services. The major reasons for bribery have been to expedite the process of service delivery. It is heartening to note that computerisation has albeit brought about a reduction in the incidence of bribery in the system. There is a general feeling of improvement in the governance issues across KMC and GHMC. While respondents in these ULBs in the computerised system have reported to a moderate increase in perception on this score over the manual system, there is a very minor decrease for BMC over the same.
Figure 7.9 Trader's License New: Governance and Corruption Issues
5
Figure 7.7 Trader's License New: Service Quality Issues
4 3.4 3 3.1 2.8 3.1 3
3.5
Score (5 point scale)
4 3.3 3
3.1 2.9 3.1
2.6
2.6
1 BMC KMC ULBs

Manual Computerized
GHMC
BMC
KMC
GHMC
ULBs
Manual Computerized
122
f. Role of Intermediaries: Historically, intermediary usage in this service is high. The maximum reduction in intermediary usage has been in GHMC; primarily due to multiplicity of centres for service delivery. While BMC also shows a reduction, KMC shows no change, which shows the inability of the authorities to purge the system of intermediaries to access this service (Table 3.57).
Positive score denotes improvement in computerised system; negative denotes manual service was beer Respondents in all three ULBs have reported improvement in the computerized system vis--vis the manual system for this service. The detailed results have been presented as Annexure 2 of this report. The most important aributes of the service have been presented in tables 3.59 to 3.61.
Table 3.57: Intermediary usage in new traders license Particulars Manual BMC Computerized Proportion using an Intermediary (Percentage) N SE Service charge paid to Intermediary (Rs) S.E. 1.42 e-14 1.63 -12 2.11 e-12 3.51 e-12 4.29 e-14 2.43 e-13 1.78 e-15 5.55 e-17 1.61 e-15 766.667 125 -641.667 705 575 -130 198.76 112.5 -86.26 63 3.22 e-15 51 1.14 e-15 4.36 e-15 50 3.05 e-16 50 3.89 e-16 8.33 e-17 194 2.61 e-15 55 4.44 e-16 3.05 e-15 9.524 3.922 -5.602 8 8 0 45.36 7.27 -38.088 Change Manual KMC Computerized Change Manual GHMC Computerized Change
g. Overall Assessment section The results for obtaining new traders license, ULB-wise, have been presented in Table 3.58.
Table 3.58: New Traders License: Change in Overall Assessment Score

Most Important Aributes of the service Corruption in working of system Durability of certicates Design and layout of application form Eort in document preparation Frequency 17 14 13 13 Percent of response cases 26.98 22.22 10.63 20.63
BMC KMC GHMC
0.095 0.305 1.754
123

Most Important Aributes of the service Corruption in working of system Ability to complain Management of queuing system Frequency Percent of response cases
Corruption in the working of the system and the durability of certicates are the overlapping aributes across the dierent ULBs for this service. b. Surveyed client proler The surveyed client prole for traders license renewal is presented in Table 3.62. Majority of the respondents from BMC are above the age of forty years for both manual and computerized system. Male respondents dominate the gender proportion and have completed class 10 or above. By occupation, majority are businessmen for both the services. Most respondents live in permanent house and earn between Rs 5000- Rs 10000 per month Majority of the respondents from KMC are above the age of forty years for both manual and computerized system. Male respondents dominate the gender proportion and have completed education up to class 10 or above. Businessmen comprise the largest
24
48.00
21 18
42.00 36.00

Most Important Aributes of the service Location of service centre Durability of certicates Responsiveness of functionaries Frequency Percent of response cases
60 54 53
30.99 27.84 27.32
8. TRADERS LICENSE RENEWAL

a. The process of traders license renewal
Traders license renewal Process wise there is no dierence across the ULBs in making renewal payments for traders licenses including timelines for service access/ delivery Computerised Process
Manual Process Applicant used to get demand notes from the ULBs for renewal. Applicant had to go to the ward oces of the ULBs and their designated counters for making the payments. At these ward oces; there would be one counter where the bill was veried manually from les kept as records for the applicant. The applicant had to then deposit the veried bill and the cash at the counter designated for making payments.
Applicant gets demand notes from the ULBs for the renewal. Applicant can go to the ULB registered counters or the kiosks designated by the ULBs for accepting these payments (Palika Suvidha Kendras for NDMC, Citizen Facilitation Centres for BMC, eKolkata service centre for KMC and eSeva/Rajiv Centres for GHMC) with these bills. Payment can be made at the counter with the bill then and there.
124
Table 3.62: Traders license renewal: Surveyed client prole Characteristics Manual Age < 30 years 30-40 years > 40 years Gender Male Female Education Illiterate Literate without education/Below primary Primary Middle Matric and above Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/ Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Type of house Permanent Semi-permanent Temporary Monthly income < 2000 Rs. Rs. 2000-5000 Rs. 5001-10000 Rs. 10001-30000 > 30000 Rs. N 3 56.1 40.9 0 66 10 52.5 32.5 5 40 3.7 72 22 1.2 1.2 82 3.8 47.5 40 6.3 2.5 80 0.6 6.9 28.3 56.6 7.5 173 0 1.1 13 78.3 7.6 92 98.5 1.5 0 92.5 5 2.5 82.9 14.6 2.4 88.8 6.3 5 71.1 17.9 10.4 58.7 41.3 0 1.5 10.6 81.8 1.5 4.5 7.5 2.5 82.5 0 7.5 97.6 0 2.4 98.8 1.3 0 2.9 3.5 78.6 6.9 8.1 0 1.1 97.8 1.1 0 6.1 7.6 15.2 71.2 7.5 7.5 27.5 57.5 8.5 22 65.9 5 18.8 70 3.7 6.3 4.6 3.5 7.5 7.5 76.9 0 1.1 7.6 8.7 82.6 97 3 100 0 95.1 4.9 97.5 2.5 89.6 10.4 94.6 5.4 16.7 25.8 57.6 7.5 22.5 70 3.7 34.1 62.2 10 38.8 51.2 16.2 44.5 39.3 23.9 56.5 19.6 BMC Computerized Manual KMC Computerized Manual GHMC Computerized
share of proportion for the manual services as well as computerized services. For both the system of service, most respondents live in permanent house and earn between Rs 2000- Rs 5000 per month. Majority of the respondents from GHMC
are between the age of 30-40 years for both manual and computerized system. Male respondents dominate the gender proportion and have completed education up to class 10 or above. Businessmen comprise the largest share of proportion for the manual services as well as computerized services. For both
125
the system of service, most respondents live in permanent house and earn between Rs 10000- Rs 30000 per month. c. Cost to client Number of trips
Figure 8.1 Trader's License Renewal: Cost to Client (No. of Trips)
5 4
distances in the computerized system as compared to the manual system. (In the earlier manual system and for some time in the computerized system also, the traders in Greater Hyderabad area had to travel to Hyderabad main city area ULB oces to deposit their renewal fees.)
Figure 8.2 Trader's License Renewal: Cost to Client (Travel Cost)
250
No. of Trips
3 2 1 0 BMC KMC GHMC
1.6 1.2 1.2 1.21
1.56
Travel Cost (Rs)
1.8
200
198.4
150
100
ULBs
Manual Computerized
50
17.9
0
14.2
BMC
12.1
8.4
KMC
17.4
GHMC
The number of trips to ULBs has reduced or at least remained the same (for KMC) across all the municipalities in the computerized system. The reduction is primarily due to the ULBs opening up multiple service access points to receive fees for traders license renewal. c.1 The main reasons for additional trips to renew traders licenses are presented below in Table 3.63. Travel costs
Waiting time to avail service Waiting time has reduced in the computerized system for all ULBs, however the time required now in the computerized system is still very high; this just goes to show the level of congestion at the counters, even aer multiplicity of deposit channels for this service.
Figure 8.3 Trader's License Renewal: Cost to Client (Waiting time to avail service)
The travel cost has decreased for all ULBs, primarily due to multiplicity of counters at the ULBs for depositing the renewal fees. However for GHMC consumers the cost has decreased manifold in comparison to the other ULBs. The reduction in travel cost is primarily due to traders in Greater Hyderabad area having to travel lesser
100
89.3 69.5 61.6 61.5 48.7 50.1
80
60
40
20
0 BMC KMC GHMC
ULBs
Table 3.63: Reasons for additional trips (%) Reasons Manual (10) Power failure/equipment breakdown at service centre Long queues 100 BMC Computerised (1) 100 100 100 Manual (13) KMC Computerised (2) 100 50 100 Manual (11) GHMC Computerised (2) 100
126
c.2 The main reasons for long wait at the counters to renew trade licenses are presented below in Table 3.64. There are no service charges nor any issues of total payments made for this service. d. Service Quality Issues
4
Service Score (5 ponit scale)
Figure 8.7 Trader's License Renewal: Service Quality Issues 3.8

3.5
3.6 3.2
3.5 3 2.5 2
2.9
2.9
whatever instances of bribe payments remained or do remain till date, are primarily to expedite the process of payment of traders renewal fees across the counters. Likewise for service quality issues, perception of governance has also improved across all three ULBs in the computerised system, primarily due to reduction in instances of bribe payments.
Figure 8.8 Trader's License Renewal: Governance and Corruption Issues
50
1.5 1 0.5 0 BMC KMC ULBs

Manual Computerized
40.2 40 30 20 10 0 BMC KMC GHMC 9 12.1 7.5 8.5 2.5
GHMC
ULBs
There has been moderate increase in the perception of the service quality in the computerized system as compared to the manual system across all three ULBs. The consumers of GHMC are more satised in terms of the quality of service provided in comparison to other ULBs. The reasons for this are lesser number of trips, lesser waiting time and lesser travel costs in the computerized system as compared to the manual system. e. Governance Issues Corruption has also reduced in the computerised system across all three ULBs and maximum for GHMC. However,
Manual
Computerized
Figure 8.9 Trader's License Renewal: Governance and Corruption Issues
4 3.3 3 3.5 2.8 3 2.7 3.3
1 BMC KMC GHMC
f. Role of Intermediaries There has been a reduction across all three ULBs in intermediary usage for this service. This is expected because the service is simple to access and computerisation of such services generally leads to lesser
Table 3.64: Reasons for long wait (%) Reasons Manual (5) There were too many customers at the service area 100 BMC Computerised (0) Manual (8) 100 KMC Computerised (0) Manual (9) 100 GHMC Computerised (0)
127
intermediary usage (Table 3.65).

Table 3.65: Intermediary usage for traders license renewal
Particulars Manual Proportion using an Intermediary (Percentage) N SE Service charge paid to Intermediary (Rs) N S.E. BMC Computerized Change Manual KMC Computerized Change Manual GHMC Computerized Change
6.061
-6.061
7.317
3.75
-3.567
56.648
10.869
-45.778
66 1.47e-15
40 0 1.47e-15
82 4.02e-15
80 0 4.02e-15
173 0
92 8.33e-17 8.33e-17
750
98.333
23.333
-75
189.908
63.5
-126.4082
66 -
40 -
82 7.11e-13
80 0 7.11e-15
173 1.78e-15
92 4.44e-16 2.22e-15
g. Overall assessment section The results for obtaining renewed traders license, ULB-wise, have been presented in Table 3.66.
Table 3.66: Renewal of Traders License: Change in Overall Assessment Score BMC 0.194 0.178 1.716

Most Important Aributes of the service Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Corruption in working of system Accountability of ocers 17 25.76 20 30.30 Frequency Percent of response cases
KMC GHMC
15
22.73
Positive score denotes improvement in computerised system; negative denotes manual service was beer Respondents in all three ULBs have reported improvement in the computerized system vis--vis the manual system for this service. The detailed results have been presented as Annexure 2 of this report. The most important aributes for the service has been presented in the Tables 3.67 to 3.69 for the three concerned ULBs.

Most Important Aributes of the service Ability to complain Management of queuing system Corruption in working of system 32 39.02 Frequency Percent of response cases 40.24
33
28
34.15
128

Most Important Aributes of the service Location of service centre Responsiveness of functionaries Durability certicates of Frequency Percent of response cases
especially in the presently computerized system. Intermediary usage has been reported to some extent for payment of utility bills in BMC. Apart from these, the percentage of intermediaries is minimal. The prole of intermediaries across all services and analysis in terms of costs, service quality and governance (wherever numbers of intermediaries have made it possible for conducting such analysis) have been presented in Annexure 3 of this report.
56 48 44
32.37 27.75 25.43
Corruption in the working of the system has come out as an overlapping aribute across BMC and KMC for the service. Section 2: Analysis of Intermediaries The number of intermediaries for most services across all municipalities is very low,
129
4.Desegregated Analysis
A desegregated analysis was conducted for all services with regards to usage behaviour in terms of age, education, income and occupation of respondents for the key service parameters costs, quality of service and governance issues. The results of the same for each of the ULBs have been presented in Annexure 4 of the report.
130
5.Conclusions and the Way Forward

The general feeling that comes about from this assessment is that computerization of ULB services has till not made much of a dent in terms of usefulness to the client. While certain parameters of enquiry have shown improvements in the computerization process for a few services, there is no consistency whatsoever in the improvement ratios for either these parameters or these services. The outcome of the assessment exercise should therefore be interpreted for making improvement in the process so as to benet clients from the computerization exercise. All the ULBs assessed as part of this exercise have had started to replace the erstwhile manual system almost a decade back in a phased manner. It seems that most of the ULBs have been able to get their backend systems automated for all services that they have started delivering on the eGovernance mode and have actually been able to reduce transaction time in the processing of applications on their part to a considerable extent. However, this benet in terms of time and cost saved for the ULBs have not been transferred to the consumers. A summary of the services that have been computerized shows that for simpler services such as payments of utility bills or renewal of trade licenses, there has still been some eect on the end clients in terms of reduced waiting time and lesser number of trips. Also obtaining of birth and death registration certicate copies have become simpler and less time consuming for the end clients. This is because once the backend process for these services becomes automated; delivering these services is really easy. During our survey also we have observed that at the backend, each client is dealt with by the ULB counter assistant for a maximum of 2-3 minutes for these services. However, when asked from the clients regarding their counter experience and also observed during survey, most have reported to sessions of long queues at the counters and long waiting time typical examples of cases where the benet to the ULB is not being transferred to the consumer. For computerization of more complex services such as mutation, building approvals, new traders licenses and grievances, the end client is still almost where he or she was in the manual system in terms of service costs, corruption and issues related to usage of intermediaries. In fact for some of these services, in certain ULBs (KMC for instance, GHMC and BMC for some of these services), clients have reported that they are actually at a disadvantage with the computerized system as they do not understand how the system works nor how they can procure their requirements under it. A simple solution on the part of these ULBs to encourage more clients to take up the process of application on their own in this case can be to launch a propaganda/advertisement mechanism on the computerization of services in the respective ULB telling consumers how it has been designed to help them to reduce service access costs with beerment in service quality and governance, provided they access the same themselves. Some eorts towards these have been made at GHMC, especially on building up a beer awareness
131
campaign among the clients about the computerized processes and its benets over the manual system. There have been a series of advertisements in the local news media as well as in the political establishment when GHMC went computerized and this was very well highlighted in the local level ULB oces also. Moreover sincere eorts have been made to incorporate endto-use features in the computerized system of service delivery on the GHMC website, including options of search and nd, as well as preparation of system generated dummy certicates for birth and death registration through the GHMC website itself. The process of awareness generation among the clients in GHMC has had one very positive impact there has been a lot of reduction in the usage of intermediaries for most services across GHMC. Another point worthy of consideration is that there needs to be beer process reengineering for the services that have been computerized at the client end also for clients to realize lesser costs and beer service delivery and governance. A perusal of the processes mentioned in the computerized and the manual system for each of the services show that there is not much dierence between the two so far as the client is concerned. The only dierence is that in the computerized system the ULB promises a reduced timeline for service delivery as compared to the manual system and this is due to an automated backend. Until and unless there is a reduction in steps in the processes to be followed by the client in the application for services, it is dicult to bring about any positive bearing on the client on the parameters that this study seeks to assess.
The way forward in terms of implemental action points can therefore be: Take up more simpler services for implementation under eGovernance and provide more windows and access points for their delivery Design a system of implementation of the front-end delivery mechanism through e-governance examples can be through internet, mobile telephony (SMS or IVR), especially for the simpler payment services Spend time and eort in bringing about process reengineering into the system appoint consultancies to study the delivery mechanisms and bring about reduction in the processes at both the consumer and the project end Ensure a system of proper intimation to clients about the status of their requests especially for services that are complex and take time to deliver. A major complaint in the survey is that there is no information provided by the ULBs on the status of their application processes, necessitating in unnecessary multiple trips Create appropriate awareness generation amongst consumers on the benets of eGovernance processes - especially the simplicity of using it. GHMC has done this for quite some time and the results have shown in the large reduction in intermediary usage, across most services in the ULBs. Quite oen, in the case of complex services like mutation and building approvals, the clients are wary of using the services on their own, as situation misappropriated by intermediaries and middlemen.
132
ANNEXURE 1
Survey Questionnaires for users of the services provided through e-governance under JnNURM
Table 1.1 Table 1.2 Table 1.3 Table 1.4 Table 1.5 Table 1.6 Mutation of property and building approvals Birth and death registration Application for grievances Property tax, water tax and electricity bill payments Traders license For Manual Services only
SCH NO-
Survey Among Users of The Services Provided Through E-Governance Under JnNURM 1.1 Mutation of Property and Building Approvals
PART 1: IDENTIFICATION DETAILS
City Code ---------- Sample NO -------

State Code --------
DATE OF INTERVIEW (DD/MM)
DATE
MONTH
YEAR
2. ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________
ULB: NDMC ----- 1 PSK Name __________ No. ___________ BMC ------- 2 CFC Name__________ No. ____________ Cyber CFC (BMC) --------- 3 ITZ Cash Counter (BMC) ---------- 4 KMC ------- 5 Borough Name________ No.____________ eKolkata CSC -----------6 GHMC----- 7 CFC Name ___________ No. ____________ eSeva Kendra -------------- 8 Online payment (for property tax payment)----- 9 NAME OF INTERVIEWER _______________________________
Client ------- 1 Intermediary ------- 2
SIGNATURE OF INTERVIEWER _______________________________
135
PART 2: SERVICE AWARENESS

201. Can you tell me what are the services available at the service centre/oce? Cannot Recall Birth registration Death registration (Please do not read out the services to the respondent. Please tick mark the services based on user recall) (MA) Property, electricity and water tax payment Trade Licenses (new) Trade Licenses (renewal) Grievances Mutation of Property Building Approval Others (SPECIFY).. 202. Which service did you avail of from the Municipal Oce? (MA) Birth registration Death registration Property and water tax payment Trade Licenses (new) Trade Licenses (renewal) Grievances Mutation of Property Building Approvals Others (SPECIFY).. 203. Are you aware of online services available Yes at NDMC/BMC/KMC/GHMC (please No read out correct municipality name)? What are the services for which you have used online services at the NDMC/BMC/ KMC/GHMC (please read out correct municipality name) portal? (MA) Birth registration Death registration Property, electricity and water tax payment Trade Licenses (new) Trade Licenses (renewal) Grievances Mutation of Property Building Approvals Others (SPECIFY).. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Post Coding 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 301 401
PART 3 OR 4
204.
136
205.
What have you used the online services for? (MA)
Downloading of forms Obtaining information abour servies Payment of Property Tax Any other (please specify)
1 2 3 Post code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 Post code
206.
Which mode of service delivery do you generally choose/prefer in accessing the stated service?
NDMC BMC CFC BMC ITZ Cash Counters BMC Cyber CFC KMC Borough KMC eKolkata CSC GHMC CSC GHMC eSeva Kendra Online payment (for property taxes)
207.
Why do you choose this particular mode of service access?
Faster than the other modes No other mode available Any other (please specify)
PART 3: MUTATION OF PROPERTY PROCESS Please ll up this section for the client (C) and the intermediary (I), as instructed in each question
301. Please mention the type of mutation that you came to do at the municipal oce (C and I) Mutation due to Succession Mutation due to transfer Mutation cum Separation 302. Did you have to go to any particular ward oce to do the mutation or could you go to any ward oce? Did you approach an intermediary or applied directly to the municipality to do the mutation? (C) Only at area specic ward oce Any ward oce of the municipality Did myself Approached an intermediary 1 2 3 1 2 1 2
303.
137
304.
Why did you approach an intermediary? (C)
Process too complex and time consuming Speed money demanded ocial Any other (please specify)
1 2 Post code
305.
How much service charge did you pay to intermediaries to facilitate the service? SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEES What were the documents that you submied at the municipal oce (C and I)? (MA)
NOC from Assessment-Collection Department Adavit of heirship Death Certicate of Recorded Owner and other legal heirs, if applicable Certied copy of Probated Will duly aested by Government ocer Aested copy of registered deed showing devolution from the recorded owner to the applicant Separation Site Plan, duly signed by LBS and the applicant, showing the mother premises Premises to be separated and demarcated Layout Plan with entrance to individual plots and abuing roads Municipality prescribed Form duly lled up Any other (please specify) 1 2 3
306.
6 7 8 9 Post code
307.
How many days aer your rst visit to the municipality were you able to submit all the forms? (C and I) Why did it take more than one day to submit all forms correctly? (C and I)
Days
Own fault did not know about the procedure, took time to accumulate all forms 1
308.
309.
Ocial at the municipal oce was not helpful Ocial at the municipal oce was not available What was the information that was given Inspection of the property will be to you aer you submied all forms at the done municipal oce (C and I)? Property will be inspected and then intimation will be sent
2 3
1 2
310 310
Called aer
days
Post code
Post code
Others (specify) _______________
311
138
310.
Aer how many days did the inspector come to inspect your property (C and I)?
Days
99
311.
Code 99 if no one came to inspect the property Aer the inspector visited your property for inspection, how many days later did Days you receive the intimation for mutation (C Received intimation then and and I)? there ASK IF CODE 99 IN 308 Aer how many days of your rst visit did you receive the intimation for mutation (C and I)?
312.
Days
Did not receive intimation, went to municipal oce myself to enquire
99 Post code Post code

316
313.
How many times did you have to visit the municipal oce to get the mutation done Not done yet, already (C and I)? Did you pay a bribe directly / indirectly to Yes-1 department sta / functionaries? No-2 For what purpose did you pay the bribe indicated in the previous question? (MA) To expedite the process To enable service to be provided to you out of turn To inuence functionaries to manipulate records in your favour
visits made Done,aer visits
314.
315.
1 2 3
To reduce amount of fee to be paid by you 4 316. Others (SPECIFY)............. 5 What was the amount for which you got a receipt? 317.
DAYS
139
SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEES What was the total payment made by you for availing the service?
318.
SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEES In total, how many visits did you have to make to the service centre/oce for obtaining the correct certicate?
319.
What was the total elapsed time in availing the service, right from the date of HRS applying to actually receiving the service? SPECIFY TIME IN DAYS OR HOURS
320.Please ll up the Table below as indicated)
Trip details/reasons for accessing service Purpose of trip Distance of centre from residence Travel time in minutes Travel cost (Rs.) Waiting time (in minutes) Reasons for additional trips Reasons for long wait
Trip No. 1
Trip No. 2
Trip No. 3
Trip Nos. (aer 3rd trip)
Purpose of Trip: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Collect information on procedures and required documents To obtain application form To submit required documents To check application status Any other (please specify and post code)
Reasons for additional trips 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Processing time at the oce All documents/forms were not submied the rst time Power failure/equipment breakdown at service centre Long queues Absence of ocial required for authentication To check application status Any other (please specify and post code)
Reasons for long wait: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Many counters were not working There were too many customers at the service area Sta do not appear to be well trained so are slow at processing application Frequent system/equipment breakdown Any other (please specify and post code)
140
321. Were you informed at any stage by the Yes ----1 service centre/oce that your certicate was No----2 ready to be collected? 322. How were you informed about this? (MA)
PART 5
Through ocial leer from the service centre/oce Through telephone call from the service centre/oce Through email from the service centre/oce Any other (please specify)
1 2 3 4
PART 4: BUILDING APPROVALS PROCESS

401. Did you get a building approval yourself or Applied myself through a Licensed Building Surveyor? Applied through Licensed Building Surveyor 402. Could you apply at any ward oce or did you have to apply at a area specic ward oce for this? 403. What were the documents that you needed to provide at the municipality for the building approval? Only area specic ward oce Any ward oce
1
2
408
1 2
Building plan, signed by a registered architect Mutation deed of the plot for the building Prescribed form Any other (please specify) Inspection of the property will be done Property will be inspected and then intimation will be sent Called aer days Others (specify) _______________
1 2 3 Post Code 1 2 Post code Post code
404. What was the information that was given to you aer you submied all forms at the municipal oce ?
405. Aer how many days of submiing the documents did the inspector come to visit your property? 406. Aer how many days of applying for the building approval did you get the approval? 407. Aer how many visits for the building approval did you get the approval? 408. Why did you apply through a Licensed Building Surveyor?
days Days visits

Dicult to do it myself Municipality requires me to apply through LBS Any other From municipality website From municipality oce Any other (please specify) 416
1 2 Post Code 1 2 Post Code
409. Where did you get information about the Licensed Building Surveyor?
141
410. What were the documents that you had to submit to the LBS?
Building Plan NOC from municipality Any other (please specify)
1 2 Post Code
411. How many days aer your submission of all correct documents to the LBS did you get your building approval? 412. How many visits did you need to make to the LBS to get the approval? 413. FROM LBS ONLY (Q. 412 TO Q. 414): How many days aer your submission of all documents to the municipality are you typically able to obtain a building approval? 414. How many visits do you need to make to get this approval? 415. What was your service charge? SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEE 416. Did you pay a bribe directly / indirectly to department sta / functionaries? 417. For what purpose did you pay the bribe indicated in the previous question? (MA) To expedite the process To enable service to be provided to you out of turn To inuence functionaries to manipulate records in your favour To reduce amount of fee to be paid by you Others (SPECIFY)..............
Days 1. visits Days visits

Yes-1 No-2
Post Code
418
1 2 3 4 5
420
418. Did you use an intermediary at any stage for Yes ----1 availing services? (ONLY IF CODED 1 IN No----2 401, i.e., ONLY FROM CLIENTS) 419. How much service charge did you pay to intermediaries to facilitate the service? (ONLY IF CODED 1 IN 401, i.e., ONLY FROM CLIENTS) SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEES 420. What was the amount for which you got a receipt? SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEES 421. What was the total payment made by you for availing the service? SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEES
142
422. In total, how many visits did you have to make to the service centre/oce for obtaining the correct certicate? 423. What was the total elapsed time in availing the service, right from the date of applying to actually receiving the service? SPECIFY TIME IN DAYS OR HOURS 424. Please ll up the Table below as indicated) Trip details/reasons for accessing service Purpose of trip Distance of centre from residence Travel time in minutes Travel cost (Rs.) Waiting time (in minutes) Reasons for additional trips Reasons for long wait 425.
DAYS
HRS Trip No. 2 Trip No. 3 Trip Nos. (aer 3rd trip)
Trip No. 1
Any other (please speciy and post code) Purpose of Trip: 1. Collect information on procedures and required documents 2. To obtain application form 3. To submit required documents 4. To check application status 5. Any other (please specify and post code) Processing time at the oce 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Processing time at the oce All documents/forms were not submied the rst time To collect information on procedures and required documents To obtain application form Power failure/equipment breakdown at service centre Long queues Absence of ocial required for authentication To check application status Any other (please specify and post code) Many counters were not working There were too many customers at the service area Sta do not appear to be well trained so are slow at processing application Frequent system/equipment breakdown Any other (please specify and post code)
Reasons for long wait:
143
426.
Were you informed at any stage by the service centre/oce that your certicate was ready to be collected? How were you informed about this? (MA)
Yes ----1 No----2
PART 5
427.
1 2 3 4
PART 5: SERVICES AVAILED To be asked to both Clients and Intermediaries, as applicable

Please give details of the service availed for online services S.No. 501. Service Mutation of Property Period when the service was availed (IF DK/CS, please Put 99 for Month & 9999 for Year)
Month Year Month Year
502.
Building approvals
PART 6: OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE SERVICES Please indicate your perception about the following aributes in the computerised system on a scale of 1 to 5, 0 for DK/CS for the following questions unless otherwise stated: Very Bad-1; Bad-2; Average-3; Good-4; Very Good-5. This section is to be asked to both clients and intermediaries.
1. Are you aware of the citizens charter? Yes-1; No-2 (If Coded 2 then Skip to 3) 2. Adherence of the time frame for service delivery (elapsed time) to the citizens charter (Predictability of Outcome) Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5
3.
144
4. 5. 6. 8. 9. 10.
Ease of access to data pertaining to your records Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned Department in the ULB Accountability of ocers Convenience of Working hours of the centre/oce Management of the queuing system Responsiveness of functionaries (in terms of time and politeness) to your queries and complaints Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application forms Durability of certicates/printouts Legibility of printouts/certicates Security of data (the fact that nobody can tamper with your records) Condentiality and privacy of data and transactions (the fact that no other person can access your records) Corruption in the working of the system (Very High -1, High -2, Neutral -3, Low -4, Very Low -5, DK/CS -0) Dependence on intermediaries (Very High -1, High -2, Neutral -3, Low -4, Very Low -5, DK/CS -0) Costs of availing service (Very High -1, High -2, Neutral -3, Low -4, Very Low -5, DK/CS -0) Time and Eort in availing the service (Quite a lot -1, a lot - 2, Neutral 3, low 4, Quite low 5, 0 DK/CS Eort in document preparation (Quite a lot -1, a lot - 2, Neutral 3, low 4, Quite low 5, 0 DK/CS) Communication by department about the progress and next steps in service delivery (Did not keep informed at all 1, Mostly did not keep informed 2, Kept Informed -3, Mostly kept informed -4, Fully kept informed 5, DK/CS -0)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23. From the list of aributes present below, please choose the three factors that you consider the most important aributes of the service.
145
1. Adherence of the time frame for service delivery (elapsed time) as per the citizens charter (Predictability of Outcome) 2. Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures 3. Ease of access to data pertaining to your records 4. Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned Department in the ULB
6. Location and ambience of service center/oce
11. Design and Layout of Application forms
16. Corruption in the working of the system
21. Communication by Department about the progress and next steps in service delivery
7. Convenience of Working hours of the centre/oce 8. Management of the queuing system
12. Durability of certicates/printouts
13. Security of data (the fact that nobody can tamper with your records) 14. Legibility of printouts/certicates
17. Dependence on intermediaries 18. Costs of availing service 19. Time and eort in availing the service
9. Responsiveness of functionaries (in terms of time and politeness) to your queries and complaints 10. Accuracy of transactions
5. Accountability of Ocers
15. Condentiality and privacy of data and transactions (the fact that no other person can access your records)
20. Eort in document preparation
PART 7: PERCEPTION ABOUT OVERALL QUALITY OF GOVERNANCE AND SERVICE This section is to be asked to both clients and intermediaries
1. Please indicate your perception about the overall quality of governance with respect to the service that you have availed (Governance is understood as transparency, accountability and corruption-free working.) 0 DK/CS, Very poor-1; Poor-2; Neither high nor poor-3; High-4; Very high-5 2. Aer using the respective service, how satised are you with the overall quality of service? (Quality of service is understood as fairness, speed of processing, accuracy, legibility and convenience of obtaining service. 0 DK/CS, Very dissatised-1; Somewhat dissatised-2; Neutral-3; Somewhat satised-4; Very satised-5
146
PART 8:
1.
PERCEPTION OF USER ABOUT E-GOVERNANCE

Yes----------------------1 No-----------------------2
Have you ever used any other e-governance application?
2.
If yes, please name the application(s).
1.________________________________
2._____________________________
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: SOME OF THE WAYS IN WHICH THE DEPARTMENT CAN HELP YOU FURTHER ARE GIVEN BELOW. PLEASE CIRCLE THE ONES THAT YOU FEEL MAY BE USEFUL.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Application Status available on the Website, through SMS or IVRS SMS alerts to inform you that documents are ready and may be collected Forms available for download from the website Electronic queuing system Availability of sta to help in lling up forms Availability of photocopying machines at the centre Clear directions and sign boards in the service centre/oce for guidance
PART 9: RESPONDENT PROFILE

Please give us the following information about you and your household 1. What is your age in completed years?
2.
Record the gender of the respondent?
Male ..........................................................................................1 Female ......................................................................................2
3.
What is the level of education that you have completed?
Illiterate .....................................................................................1 Literate without Education ....................................................2 Below Primary .........................................................................3 Primary .....................................................................................4 Middle.......................................................................................5 Matric/Secondary ....................................................................6 Higher Secondary/Intermediate/Pre-University ................7 Non-technical Diploma/Certicate Not Equal to Degree .8 Technical Diploma/Certicate Not Equal to Degree ..........9 Graduate & Above ................................................................10 Others (SPECIFY) ..................................................................11
147
904.
What is your main occupation?
Cultivation................................................................................1 Agricultural Labourer ............................................................2
SINGLE CODE
Household Industry Worker .................................................3 Executive/Managerial Level ..................................................4 Clerical/Salesperson ................................................................6 Businessman/Industrialist with 1-9 employees ..................7 Businessman/Industrialist with 10+ employees .................8 Self-employed/Professional ...................................................9 Student ....................................................................................10 Household Duties .................................................................11 Dependent ..............................................................................12 Pensioner ................................................................................13 Others (SPECIFY) ..................................................................14
905.
Type of House
Permanent ................................................................................1 Semi-permanent ......................................................................2 Temporary ................................................................................3 Unclassied ..............................................................................4
906.
Please tell me the monthly household income from all sources?
<5000..........................................................................................1 5000-9999 ..................................................................................2 10000-19999 ..............................................................................3 20000-29999 ..............................................................................4 30000-39999 ..............................................................................5 40000-49999 ..............................................................................6 >=50,000.....................................................................................7
IN RUPEES
148
SCH NO-
SURVEY AMONG USERS OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED THROUGH E-GOVERNANCE UNDER JnNURM 1.2 BIRTH AND DEATH REGISTRATION

State Code -------1. NAME OF RESPONDENT ____________________________________________
DATE
MONTH
YEAR
2. ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________
ULB: NDMC ----- 1 PSK Name _____________________ No. ____________ BMC ------- 2 CFC Name______________________ No. ____________ Cyber CFC (BMC) --------- 3 ITZ Cash Counter (BMC) ---------- 4 KMC ------- 5 Borough Name___________________ No.____________ eKolkata CSC -----------6 GHMC----- 7 CFC Name ______________________ No. ____________ eSeva Kendra -------------- 8 Online payment (for property tax payment) ------- 9
NAME OF INTERVIEWER ____________________________________________
SIGNATURE OF INTERVIEWER ____________________________________________
149

201. Can you tell me what are the services available at the service centre/oce? Cannot Recall Birth registration Death registration Property, electricity and water tax payment Trade Licenses (new) Trade Licenses (renewal) Grievances Mutation of property (MA) Building Approvals Others (SPECIFY).. Birth registration Death registration Property and water tax payment Trade Licenses (new) Trade Licenses (renewal) Grievances Mutation of Property Building approvals Others (SPECIFY)........................ 203. Are you aware of online services available at Yes NDMC/BMC/KMC/GHMC (please read out correct municipality name)? 204. What are the services for which you have used online services at the NDMC/BMC/ KMC/GHMC (please read out correct municipality name) portal? (MA) Birth registration Death registration Property, electricity and water tax payment Trade Licenses (new) Trade Licenses (renewal) Grievances Mutation of property Building approvals Others (SPECIFY).. No
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Post Coding 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Post Coding

PART 3 301 401
(PLEASE DO NOT READ OUT THE SERVICES TO THE RESPONDENT. PLEASE TICK MARK THE SERVICES BASED ON USER RECALL)
202.
Which service did you avail of from the service centre/oce? (MA)
150
205.
What have you used the online services for?
Downloading of forms Obtaining information about services Payment of Property Tax Any other (please specify)
206.
207.
PART 3: BIRTH REGISTRATION PROCESS To be asked to both Clients and Intermediaries, as applicable
301. Did you go to the municipal oce to get a fresh birth certicate, to get copies or to get changes made in the previously issued certicate? 302. Fresh certicate Copies of certicate Get changes made in birth certicate 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 Post code 1 2 303 302 303
For what purpose did you need copies of the For a loan birth certicate? (MA) For educational purposes For mortgaging property For making a passport Making changes in Ration card Applying for a job Other (please specify)
151
303.
What documents did you have to produce at Slip informing birth from the Municipal oce to get your certicate? (MA) the hospital Doctors certicate conrming birth at home Requisition for Birth Certicate form duly lled up Requisition for copies of Birth Certicate form duly lled up Requisition for correction in birth certicate forms Any Proof of identity/ residence Leer from Medical record Ocer Adavit by SDM/notary Any other (please specify)
1 2
5 6 7 8 Post Code 1 2 Post code 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 312
304.
What diculty did you face in lling up the required service demand form? (MA)
None Form instructions were not clear Any other
305.
306.
Once Twice Thrice More than thrice Did you have to go to a specic ward oce Had to go to area specic to avail service or could you go to any oce? ward oce Could go to any ward oce of the municipality Did you get a token at the municipal oce? For how long did you have to wait in the queue/ seating area? Yes No Less than 10 min 10 to 20 min 20 to 30 min More than 30 min Less than 5 5-20 More than 20 The certicate was authenticated by the Department itself from the counter Had to go to a medical ocer in the same oce to get the certicate authenticated Had to get the certicate authenticated from some other source outside the oce Any other (please specify)
How many times did you have to visit the municipal oce for geing the birth certicate issued?
307. 308.
309. 310.
How many persons were there in front of you in the queue? Where did you have to go to get the certicate authenticated?
311
3 Post Code
311
152
311.
Did you nd it convenient to get the certicate authenticated separately?
Found convenient Had to run around to nd the medical ocer Had to wait for the medical ocer since he/she was not at the desk Any other (please specify) Upto 30 minutes Upto an hour More than an hour One day More than a day Any other (please specify)
1 2 3 Post Code 1 2 3 4 5 Post Code 314 314 313 313 313 313
312.
For how long did you have to wait for the health ocer to sign on the certicate?
313.
Why did you have to wait for more than an hour to get the health ocer sign on the certicate? (MA)
314.
For how long did you have to wait while the municipal oce executive prepared the certicate? Aer how many days (including day of rst visit) did you get the certicate? Did the municipal oce executive show you one copy of the certicate to check the correctness of details? Were the details in the birth certicate correct? If there was any problem in the details, what course of action did you take?
The ocer was busy on 1 some other work The ocer was not available 2 The ocer did not appear to be well trained, so was slow 3 at processing applications Frequent System/Equipment 4 breakdown Any other (please specify) Post Code Less than 5 min 1 5 to 10 min 2 More than 10 min 3 Any other (please specify) Post Code
315. 316.
Yes No Yes No
Days
1 2 1 2 1
317. 318.
Did not take any action Asked the municipal oce executive to correct the 2 mistake Was directed by the municipal oce executive to 3 some other counter for the correction Any other (please specify) Post Code Upto 1 hour Upto 1 day Upto 1 week Upto 1 month More than a month Yes-1 No-2 1 2 3 4 5
320 319
319
319
319.
What was the time taken to correct the mistake?
320.
Did you pay a bribe directly / indirectly to department sta / functionaries?
322
153
321.
For what purpose did you pay the bribe indicated in the previous question? (MA) To expedite the process................................. To enable service to be provided to you out of turn To inuence functionaries to manipulate records in your favour. 1 2
3 4 5
To reduce amount of fee to be paid by you Others (SPECIFY).............. 322. Did you use an intermediary at any stage for availing services? (To be asked only to Clients) 323. How much service charge did you pay to intermediaries to facilitate the service? (To be asked only to Clients) SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEES 324. What was the amount for which you got a receipt? SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEES 325. What was the total payment made by you for availing the service? SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEES 326. In total, how many visits did you have to make to the service centre/oce for obtaining the correct certicate? What was the total elapsed time in availing the service, right from the date of applying to actually receiving the service? SPECIFY TIME IN DAYS OR HOURS
Yes ----1 No----2 324

DAYS HRS
327.
154
328.Please ll up the Table below as indicated) Trip details/reasons for accessing service Purpose of trip Distance of centre from residence Travel time in minutes Travel cost (Rs.) Waiting time (in minutes) Reasons for additional trips Reasons for long wait Trip No. 1 Trip No. 2 Trip No. 3 Trip Nos. (aer 3rd trip)
Reasons for long wait: 1. Many counters were not working 2. There were too many customers at the service area 3. Sta do not appear to be well trained so are slow at processing application 4. Frequent system/equipment breakdown 5. Any other (please specify and post code)
155
329.
Were you informed at any stage by the Yes ----1 service centre/oce that your certicate was No----2 ready to be collected? How were you informed about this? (MA) Through ocial leer from the service centre/oce Through telephone call from the service centre/oce Through email from the service centre/oce Any other (please specify)
PART 5
330.
1 2 3 4
PART 4: DEATH REGISTRATION To be asked to both Clients and Intermediaries, as applicable

401. For what purpose did you need copies of the For mutation death certicate? (MA) For geing a bank account transferred For closing an existing loan Other (please specify) 402. What documents did you have to produce at Slip informing death from the Municipal oce to get your certicate? the hospital/crematorium/ (MA) graveyard Doctors certicate conrming death at home Requisition for Death Certicate form duly lled up Requisition for copies of Death Certicate form duly lled up Residence proof Any other (please specify) 403. What diculty did you face in lling up the None required service demand form? Form instructions were not clear Any other 404. How many times did you have to visit the municipal oce for geing the death certicate issued? Once Twice Thrice More than thrice 1 2 3 Post code 1
2 3 4 5 Post Code 1 2 3 1 2 3 4
156
405.
Did you have to go to a specic ward oce to avail service or could you go to any oce?
Had to go to area specic ward oce Could go to any ward oce of the municipality
1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Post Code
406. 407.
Did you get a token at the municipal oce? Yes No For how long did you have to wait in the Less than 10 min 10 to 20 min queue/ seating area? 20 to 30 min More than 30 min How many persons were there before you in Less than 5 5-20 the queue? More than 20 No
408.
409.
For how long did you have to wait while the municipal oce executive prepared the certicate?
Less than 5 min 5 to 10 min 10 to 30 min More than 30 min Any other (please specify)
410.
Aer how many days (including day of rst visit) did you get the certicate? Did the municipal oce executive show you one copy of the certicate to check the correctness of details? Were the details in the death certicate correct? If there was any problem in the details, what course of action did you take?
Days
Yes No 1 2 Yes No Did not take any action Asked the municipal oce executive to correct the mistake Was directed by the municipal oce executive to some other counter for the correction Any other (please specify) Upto 1 hour Upto 1 day Upto 1 week Upto 1 month More than a month Yes-1 No-2 417 1 2 1 2 3 Post Code 1 2 3 4 5 415
411.
412.
413.
414.
What was the time taken to correct the mistake?
415.
157
416.
For what purpose did you pay the bribe indicated in the previous question? (MA) To expedite the process To enable service to be provided to you out of turn To inuence functionaries to manipulate records in your favour. To reduce amount of fee to be paid by you Others (SPECIFY)..............
1 2 3 4 5
417.
Did you use an intermediary at any stage for Yes ----1 availing services? No----2 (To be asked only to Clients) How much service charge did you pay to intermediaries to facilitate the service? (To be asked only to Clients) SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEES
419
418.

HRS
419.
What was the amount for which you got a receipt? SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEES
420.
What was the total payment made by you for availing the service? SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEES
421.
In total, how many visits did you have to make to the service centre/oce for obtaining the correct certicate? What was the total elapsed time in availing the service, right from the date of applying to actually receiving the service? SPECIFY TIME IN DAYS OR HOURS
422.
Were you informed at any stage by the Yes ----1 service centre/oce that your certicate was No----2 ready to be collected?
PART 5
DAYS
158
Purpose of Trip: 1. Collect information on procedures and required documents 2. To obtain application form 3. To submit required documents 4. To check application status 5. Any other (please specify and post code) Processing time at the oce 1. Processing time at the oce 2. All documents/forms were not submied the rst time 3. To collect information on procedures and required documents 4. To obtain application form 5. Power failure/equipment breakdown at service centre 6. Long queues 7. Absence of ocial required for authentication 8. To check application status 9. Any other (please specify and post code) Reasons for long wait: 1. Many counters were not working 2. There were too many customers at the service area 3. Sta do not appear to be well trained so are slow at processing application 4. Frequent system/equipment breakdown 5. Any other (please specify and post code)
159
424.
How were you informed about this? (MA)
1 2 3 4

Please give details of the service availed online. S.No. 501. Service Birth Registration Period when the service was availed (IF DK/CS, please Put 99 for Month & 9999 for Year)
502.
Death Registration
Month Year Month Year
601. Are you aware of the citizens charter? Yes-1; No-2 (If Coded 2 then Skip to 3) 602. Adherence of the time frame for service delivery (elapsed time) to the citizens charter (Predictability of Outcome) 603. 604. 605. 606. 607. Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data pertaining to your records Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned Department in the ULB Accountability of ocers Location and ambience of service center/oce 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
160
608. 609. 610.
Convenience of Working hours of the centre/ oce Management of the queuing system
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Responsiveness of functionaries (in terms of time and politeness) to your queries and complaints
611. 612. 613. 614. 615. 616.
Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application forms Durability of certicates/printouts Legibility of printouts/certicates Security of data (the fact that nobody can tamper with your records) Condentiality and privacy of data and transactions (the fact that no other person can access your records)
617.
Corruption in the working of the system (Very High -1, High -2, Neutral -3, Low -4, Very Low -5, DK/CS -0)v 0 1 2 3 4 5
618.
Dependence on intermediaries (Very High -1, High -2, Neutral -3, Low -4, Very Low -5, DK/CS -0) 0 1 2 3 4 5
619. 620.
Costs of availing service (Very High -1, High -2, Neutral -3, Low -4, Very Low -5, DK/CS -0) Time and Eort in availing the service (Quite a lot -1, a lot - 2, Neutral 3, low 4, Quite low 5, 0 DK/CS)
621.
Eort in document preparation (Quite a lot -1, a lot - 2, Neutral 3, low 4, Quite low 5, 0 DK/ CS) 0 1 2 3 4 5
622.
Communication by department about the progress and next steps in service delivery (Did not keep informed at all 1, Mostly did not keep informed 2, Kept Informed -3, Mostly kept informed -4, Fully kept informed 5, DK/CS -0) 0 1 2 3 4 5
623.
From the list of From the list of aributes present below, please choose the three factors that you consider the most important aributes of the service.
161
1. Adherence of the time frame for service delivery (elapsed time) as per the citizens charter (Predictability of Outcome)
2. Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures

3. Ease of access to data pertaining to your records 4. Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned Department in the ULB
7. Convenience of Working hours of the centre/oce 8. Management of the queuing system 9. Responsiveness of functionaries (in terms of time and politeness) to your queries and complaints 10. Accuracy of transactions
17. Dependence on intermediaries
13. Security of data 18. Costs (the fact that nobody of availing can tamper with your service records) 14. Legibility of printouts/certicates 19. Time and eort in availing the service
701. Please indicate your perception about the overall quality of governance with respect to the service that you have availed (Governance is understood as transparency, accountability and corruption-free working.) 0 DK/CS, Very poor-1; Poor-2; Neither high nor poor-3; High-4; Very high-5
702. Aer using the respective service, how satised are you with the overall quality of service? (Quality of service is understood as fairness, speed of processing, accuracy, legibility and convenience of obtaining service. 0 DK/CS, Very dissatised-1; Somewhat dissatised-2; Neutral-3; Somewhat satised-4; Very satised-5
162
PART 8:

Yes----------------------1 No-----------------------2
801. Have you ever used any other e-governance application?
802. If yes, please name the application(s). 1.________________________________
2._____________________________
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Please give us the following information about you and your household 901. 902. What is your age in completed years? Record the gender of the respondent? Male ..........................................................................................1 Female ......................................................................................2 903. What is the level of education that you have completed? Illiterate .....................................................................................1 Literate without Education ....................................................2 Below Primary .........................................................................3 Primary .....................................................................................4 Middle.......................................................................................5 Matric/Secondary ....................................................................6 Higher Secondary/Intermediate/Pre-University ................7 Non-technical Diploma/Certicate Not Equal to Degree .8 Technical Diploma/Certicate Not Equal to Degree ..........9 Graduate & Above ................................................................10 Others (SPECIFY) ..................................................................11
163
904.
SINGLE CODE
Household Industry Worker .................................................3 Executive/Managerial Level ..................................................4 Clerical/Salesperson ................................................................6 Businessman/Industrialist with 1-9 employees ..................7 Businessman/Industrialist with 10+ employees .................8 Self-employed/Professional ...................................................9 Student ....................................................................................10 Household Duties .................................................................11 Dependent ..............................................................................12 Pensioner ................................................................................13
905.
Type of House
Others (SPECIFY) ..................................................................14 Permanent ................................................................................1 Semi-permanent ......................................................................2 Temporary ................................................................................3
906.
Unclassied ..............................................................................4 <5000..........................................................................................1 5000-9999 ..................................................................................2 10000-19999 ..............................................................................3 20000-29999 ..............................................................................4 30000-39999 ..............................................................................5 40000-49999 ..............................................................................6 >=50,000.....................................................................................7
IN RUPEES
164
SCH NO-
SURVEY AMONG USERS OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED THROUGH E-GOVERNANCE UNDER JnNURM 1.3 APPLICATION FOR GRIEVANCES

State Code -------1. NAME OF RESPONDENT ____________________________________________
DATE
MONTH
YEAR
165

201. Can you tell me what are the services available at the service centre/oce? Cannot Recall Birth registration Death registration (PLEASE DO NOT READ OUT THE SERVICES TO THE RESPONDENT. PLEASE TICK MARK THE SERVICES BASED ON USER RECALL) Property, electricity and water tax payment Trade Licenses (new) Trade Licenses (renewal) Grievances Mutation of property (MA) Building Approvals Others (SPECIFY) 202. Which service did you avail of from the service centre/oce? (MA) Birth registration Death registration Property and water tax payment Trade Licenses (new) Trade Licenses (renewal) Grievances Mutation of Property Building approvals Others (SPECIFY) 203. Are you aware of online services available at Yes NDMC/BMC/KMC/GHMC (please read out No correct municipality name)? What are the services for which you have used online services at the NDMC/BMC/ KMC/GHMC (please read out correct municipality name) portal? (MA) Birth registration Death registration Property, electricity and water tax payment Trade Licenses (new) Trade Licenses (renewal) Grievances Mutation of property Building approvals Others (SPECIFY)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Post Coding 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
PART 3
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Post Coding
PART 3
204.
166
205.
206.
207.
Downloading of forms Obtaining information about services Payment of Property Tax Any other (please specify) NDMC BMC CFC BMC ITZ Cash Counters BMC Cyber CFC KMC Borough KMC eKolkata CSC GHMC CSC Online payment (for property taxes) Faster than the other modes No other mode available Any other (please specify)
1 2 3 Post code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 1 2 Post code
PART 3: APPLICATION FOR GRIEVANCES PROCESS

301. What kind of grievance did you report at the municipal oce? (MA) Fallen trees Sanitation Water Electricity Garbage Others (specify) ________________ Went to the service centre/ oce personally to lodge the compliant Lodged Complaint at municipality website Only to specic area ward oce Any oce of the municipality in any ward Home/Oce Cyber cafe Online kiosks run by municipality Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
1 2 3 4 5 7 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
2
302.
How did you make the complaint?
303.
Did you have to go to a specic ward oce to avail services or could you go to any oce?
304.
Where did you le the online complaint from?
305. 306. 307. 308.
Was a complaint ocer present at the time of your visit? Did you have to give the complaint in writing? Were you given a complaint number? Did the complaint ocer/website tell you how many days it will take to aend to the complaint?
310
167
309. 310. 311. 312.
If yes, how many days?
Did anyone from the municipality contact you to Yes follow up the complaint? No Has the complaint been aended to and closed? Yes No How many days/hrs did it take for the maer to be resolved?
Days hrs or Days
1 2 1 2
313. 314.
Maer not resolved yet How many days has it been since you registered Days the complaint? If you registered your complaint on the website, Yes did you have to follow it up at the municipality No by physically visiting the service centre/oce?
99 1 2
315. 316.
316. 318. 319.
How many times did you have to visit the municipality oce to register the complaint? How many times did you have to visit the municipality oce to follow up the status of the complaint? Do you know that you can check your application status online? Did you nd it easy to ll the required forms for availing the service? Did you pay a bribe directly / indirectly to department sta / functionaries? For what purpose did you pay the bribe indicated in the previous question? (MA)
Yes No Yes No Yes No
1 2 1 2 1 2
321
320.
To expedite the process To enable service to be provided to you out of turn..............................................................
1 2
To inuence functionaries to manipulate records 3 in your favour........... 4 To reduce amount of fee to be paid by 5 you.................................................................. Others (SPECIFY).............. 321. Did you use an intermediary at any stage for availing services? No 322. What was the reason for involving intermediaries? (MA) No one was aending to the complaint, repeated visits, calls Did not have the time myself Any other (please specify) 2 Post code 1 Yes 1 2
324
168
323.
How Much Service Charge Did You Pay To Intermediaries To Facilitate The Service ? SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEES What was the amount for which you got a receipt? SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEES What was the total payment made by you for availing the service? SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEES In total, how many visits did you have to make to the service centre/oce for geing the complaint aended to?

Trip No. 2 Trip No. 3 Trip Nos. (aer 3rd trip)
324.
325.
326.
327.Please ll up the Table below as indicated) Trip details/reasons for accessing service Purpose of trip Distance of centre from residence Travel time in minutes Travel cost (Rs.) Waiting time (in minutes) Reasons for additional trips Reasons for long wait Trip No. 1
Reasons for additional trips 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Processing time at the oce All documents/forms were not submied the rst time Power failure/equipment breakdown at service centre Long queues Absence of ocial required for authentication
169
6. 7.
To check application status Any other (please specify and post code)
328.
How were you informed about this? (MA)
Throughocial leer from the service centre/oce Through telephone call from the service centre/ oce Any other (please specify) 4 2 1
Please give details of the service availed online. S.No. Service Period when the service was availed Specify Month and Year 401. Grievances
Month Year
170
PART 5: OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE SERVICES

Please indicate your perception about the following aributes in the computerised system on a scale of 1 to 5, 0 for DK/CS for the following questions unless otherwise stated: Very Bad-1; Bad-2; Average-3; Good-4; Very Good-5. This section is to be asked to both clients and intermediaries.
501. Are you aware of the citizens charter? Yes-1; No-2 (If Coded 2 then Skip to 3) 502. Adherence of the time frame for service delivery (elapsed time) to the citizens charter (Predictability of Outcome) Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data pertaining to your records Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned Department in the ULB Accountability of ocers Location and ambience of service center/oce Convenience of Working hours of the centre/ oce Management of the queuing system 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
503. 504. 505. 506. 507. 508. 509.
5 1 0 . Responsiveness of functionaries (in terms
of time and politeness) to your queries and complaints

Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application forms Durability of certicates/printouts Legibility of printouts/certicates Security of data (the fact that nobody can tamper with your records) Condentiality and privacy of data and transactions (the fact that no other person can access your records) Corruption in the working of the system (Very High -1, High -2, Neutral -3, Low -4, Very Low -5, DK/CS -0) Dependence on intermediaries (Very High -1, High -2, Neutral -3, Low -4, Very Low -5, DK/ CS -0) Costs of availing service (Very High -1, High -2, Neutral -3, Low -4, Very Low -5, DK/CS -0) Time and Eort in availing the service (Quite a lot -1, a lot - 2, Neutral 3, low 4, Quite low 5, 0 DK/CS) Eort in document preparation (Quite a lot -1, a lot - 2, Neutral 3, low 4, Quite low 5, 0 DK/CS)
511. 512. 513. 514. 515. 516.
517.
518.
0 0 0
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 3 3
4 4 4
5 5 5
519. 520.
521.
171
522.
Communication by department about the progress and next steps in service delivery (Did not keep informed at all 1, Mostly did not keep informed 2, Kept Informed -3, Mostly kept informed -4, Fully kept informed 5, DK/ CS -0)
1. Adherence of the time frame for service delivery (elapsed time) as per the citizens charter (Predictability of Outcome) 2. Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures 6. Location and ambience of service center/oce 11. Design and Layout of Application forms 16. Corruption in the working of the system 21. Communication by Department about the progress and next steps in service delivery
7. Convenience of Working hours of the centre/oce
17. Dependence on intermediaries 18. Costs of availing service
3. Ease of access to data pertaining to your records
8. Management of the queuing system
4. Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned Department in the ULB
19. Time and eort in availing the service
172
601. Please indicate your perception about the overall quality of governance with respect to the service that you have availed (Governance is understood as transparency, accountability and corruption-free working.) 0 DK/CS, Very poor-1; Poor-2; Neither high nor poor-3; High-4; Very high-5
602. Aer using the respective service, how satised are you with the overall quality of service? (Quality of service is understood as fairness, speed of processing, accuracy, legibility and convenience of obtaining service 0 DK/CS, Very dissatised-1; Somewhat dissatised-2; Neutral-3; Somewhat satised-4; Very satised-5
PART 7:

Yes----------------------1 No-----------------------2
701. Have you ever used any other e-governance application? 702. If yes, please name the application(s).
2._____________________________
1.________________________________
173
15. Application Status available on the Website, through SMS or IVRS 16. SMS alerts to inform you that documents are ready and may be collected 17. Forms available for download from the website 18. Electronic queuing system 19. Availability of sta to help in lling up forms 20. Availability of photocopying machines at the centre 21. Clear directions and sign boards in the service centre/oce for guidance

174
804.
What is your main occupation? SINGLE CODE
Cultivation................................................................................1 Agricultural Labourer ............................................................2 Household Industry Worker .................................................3 Executive/Managerial Level ..................................................4 Clerical/Salesperson ................................................................6 Businessman/Industrialist with 1-9 employees ..................7 Businessman/Industrialist with 10+ employees .................8 Self-employed/Professional ...................................................9 Student ....................................................................................10 Household Duties .................................................................11 Dependent ..............................................................................12 Pensioner ................................................................................13 Others (SPECIFY) ..................................................................14
805.
Type of House
806.
<5000..........................................................................................1 5000-9999 ..................................................................................2 10000-19999 ..............................................................................3 20000-29999 ..............................................................................4 30000-39999 ..............................................................................5 40000-49999 ..............................................................................6 >=50,000.....................................................................................7
IN RUPEES
175
SCH NO-
SURVEY AMONG USERS OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED THROUGH E-GOVERNANCE UNDER JnNURM 1.4 PROPERTY TAX, WATER TAX AND ELECTRICITY BILL PAYMENTS
State Code --------
City Code ----------
Sample NO -------
DATE
MONTH
YEAR
1. NAME OF RESPONDENT ____________________________________________
176

201. Can you tell me what are the services available at the service centre/oce? Cannot Recall Birth registration Death registration Property, electricity and water tax payment Trade Licenses (new) Trade Licenses (renewal) Grievances Mutation of property Building Approvals Others (SPECIFY) Birth registration Death registration Property and water tax payment Trade Licenses (new) Trade Licenses (renewal) Grievances Mutation of Property Building approvals Others (SPECIFY) 203. Are you aware of online services available at NDMC/BMC/KMC/GHMC (please read out correct municipality name)? What are the services for which you have used online services at the NDMC/BMC/ KMC/GHMC (please read out correct municipality name) portal? (MA) Yes No Birth registration Death registration Property, electricity and water tax payment Trade Licenses (new) Trade Licenses (renewal) Grievances Mutation of property Building approvals Others (SPECIFY) Downloading of forms Obtaining information about services Payment of Property Tax Any other (please specify) NDMC BMC CFC BMC ITZ Cash Counters BMC Cyber CFC KMC Borough KMC eKolkata CSC GHMC CSC GHMC eSeva Kendra Online payment (for property taxes) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Post Coding 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Post Coding 1 2 3 Post code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PART 3
(PLEASE DO NOT READ OUT THE SERVICES TO THE RESPONDENT. PLEASE TICK MARK THE SERVICES BASED ON USER RECALL)
(MA) 202. Which service did you avail of from the service centre/oce? (MA)
204.
205.
206.
177
207.
1 2 Post code
PART 3: APPLICATION FOR GRIEVANCES PROCESS To be asked to both Clients and Intermediaries, as applicable
301. What is the frequency of payment of bills? Annually =1 6 monthly = 2 Bimonthly=3 302. Any other = 4 How did you pay the tax/bill? At the municipality counter Cyber CFC (BMC) ITZ Cash Counter (BMC) eKolkata CSC (KMC) eSeva Kendra (Hyderabad) Online Did you have to go to a specic ward oce to Had to go to area specic avail services or could you go to any oce? ward oce Could go to any ward oce in the municipality Did you receive a demand from the corporation Yes for property tax Yes for water tax for bill payment? (MA) Yes for electricity bill None Was the amount shown on the bill correct? Yes No If not, what did you do? (MA) Informed the error over the counter and got it rectied Informed the error through leer/mail and got it rectied Had to visit a higher ocial to get this rectied Any other (please specify) How many visits did it take for you to correct the bill? Why did it take you more than one visit to correct the bill? Property tax Water tax Electricity Bill
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 Post Code 1 1 2 Post Code 1 2 310
320
303.
304.
305. 306.
309
307.
Did not know whom to contact Department sta were not cooperative Any other (please specify) Yes No
308, only if response >1
308.
309.
Did you get a token at the municipal oce?
178
310.
For how long did you have to wait in the queue/ seating area?
311. 312.
How many persons were there in the queue before you? How many visits did you have to make to pay the last correct bill?
Less than 10 min 10 to 20 min 20 to 30 min More than 30 min Less than 5 5-20 More than 20
1 2
1 2
313.
Did you pay a bribe directly / indirectly to department sta / functionaries? For what purpose did you pay the bribe indicated in the previous question? (MA) To expedite the process To enable service to be provided to you out of turn......................................................... To inuence functionaries to manipulate records in your favour. To reduce amount of fee to be paid by you......................................... Others (SPECIFY)..............
Yes-1 No-2
Water tax Electricity Bill

Property tax 315
314.
1 2 3 4 5
Yes ----1 No----2
315.
Did you use an intermediary at any stage for availing services? (To be asked only to Clients)
317
316.
317.
How much service charge did you pay to intermediaries to facilitate the service? (To be asked only to Clients) SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEES What was the amount for which you got a receipt? SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEES What was the total payment made by you for availing the service? SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEES
318.
179
180
320.
Where did you make the online payment from?
Internet at home/oce Cyber cafe AP Online Centres An otehr (please specify)
1 2 3 Post Code
321.
What was the prior information required by the system for making your online payment? (MA)
Receipt no. of last paid property tax Consumer No. as per municipality records Amount paid in the last bill Registration number on portal generated during payment of last property tax No prior information required Any other (please specify)
1 2 3
5 Post Code 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 Post Code 1 2 3
322.
Could you ll up the particulars asked for in the online mode at one go?
Yes No
323.
What problems did you face in the online mode? Asked questions to which (MA) answers were not readily available Was interrupted due to other work Particulars asked for were too many Connectivity of the site was a problem Credit card/debit card overcharged Any other (please specify) Did the system allow you an option of lling up the form midway and coming back to ll up the remaining form at a later time? Yes No DK/CS
324.
325
How would you rate the online system on a scale of 1 to 5? 0 DK/CS, 1 Very Bad, 2 Bad, 3 Average, 4 Good, 5 Very Good
0 1 2 3 4 5
181

Please give details of the service availed, for online service. S.No. 401. Service Property Tax/Water tax/Electricity bill payment Period when the service was availed
Month
Year
501. 502. 503. 504. 505. 506. 507. 508. 509. Are you aware of the citizens charter? Yes-1; No-2 (If Coded 2 then Skip to 3) Adherence of the time frame for service delivery (elapsed time) to the citizens charter (Predictability of Outcome) Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data pertaining to your records Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned Department in the ULB Accountability of ocers Location and ambience of service center/oce Convenience of Working hours of the centre/oce Management of the queuing system
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 1 0 . Responsiveness of functionaries (in terms of time
and politeness) to your queries and complaints

511. 512. 513. 514. 515. 516. Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application forms Durability of certicates/printouts Legibility of printouts/certicates Security of data (the fact that nobody can tamper with your records) Condentiality and privacy of data and transactions (the fact that no other person can access your records)
182
517. 518. 519. 520. 521. 522.
Corruption in the working of the system (Very High -1, High -2, Neutral -3, Low -4, Very Low -5, DK/CS -0) Dependence on intermediaries (Very High -1, High -2, Neutral -3, Low -4, Very Low -5, DK/CS -0) Costs of availing service (Very High -1, High -2, Neutral -3, Low -4, Very Low -5, DK/CS -0) Time and Eort in availing the service (Quite a lot -1, a lot - 2, Neutral 3, low 4, Quite low 5, 0 DK/CS) Eort in document preparation (Quite a lot -1, a lot - 2, Neutral 3, low 4, Quite low 5, 0 DK/CS) Communication by department about the progress and next steps in service delivery (Did not keep informed at all 1, Mostly did not keep informed 2, Kept Informed -3, Mostly kept informed -4, Fully kept informed 5, DK/CS -0)
0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
1. Adherence of the time frame for service delivery (elapsed time) as per the citizens charter (Predictability of Outcome) 2. Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures
6. Location and ambience of service center/ oce
7. Convenience of Working hours of the centre/oce 8. Management of the queuing system
18. Costs of availing service
9. Responsiveness of functionaries (in terms of time and politeness) to your queries and complaints
183
10. Accuracy of transactions
PART 6: PERCEPTION ABOUT OVERALL QUALITY OF GOVERNANCE AND SERVICE This section is to be asked to both clients and intermediaries 601. Please indicate your perception about the overall quality of governance with respect to the service that you have availed (Governance is understood as transparency, accountability and corruption-free working.) 0 DK/CS, Very poor-1; Poor-2; Neither high nor poor-3; High-4; Very high-5 602. Aer using the respective service, how satised are you with the overall quality of service? (Quality of service is understood as fairness, speed of processing, accuracy, legibility and convenience of obtaining service. 0 DK/CS, Very dissatised-1; Somewhat dissatised-2; Neutral-3; Somewhat satised-4; Very satised-5
PART 7:

Yes----------------------1 No-----------------------2
702. If yes, please name the application(s).
1.________________________________
2._____________________________
184

802.
Male ..........................................................................................1 Female ......................................................................................2
803.
Illiterate .....................................................................................1 Literate without Education ....................................................2 Below Primary ......................................................................... 3 Primary .....................................................................................4 Middle.......................................................................................5 Matric/Secondary .................................................................... 6 Higher Secondary/Intermediate/Pre-University ................7 Non-technical Diploma/Certicate Not Equal to Degree . 8 Technical Diploma/Certicate Not Equal to Degree .......... 9 Graduate & Above ................................................................ 10 Others (SPECIFY) .................................................................. 11
804.
What is your main occupation? SINGLE CODE
Cultivation................................................................................1 Agricultural Labourer ............................................................ 2 Household Industry Worker .................................................3 Executive/Managerial Level .................................................. 4 Clerical/Salesperson ................................................................6 Businessman/Industrialist with 1-9 employees .................. 7 Businessman/Industrialist with 10+ employees ................. 8 Self-employed/Professional ...................................................9 Student .................................................................................... 10 Household Duties ................................................................. 11 Dependent .............................................................................. 12 Pensioner ................................................................................ 13 Others (SPECIFY) .................................................................. 14
185
805.
Type of House
806.
<5000..........................................................................................1 5000-9999 ..................................................................................2 10000-19999 ..............................................................................3 20000-29999 ..............................................................................4 30000-39999 ..............................................................................5 40000-49999 ..............................................................................6 >=50,000.....................................................................................7
IN RUPEES
186
SCH NO -
Survey Among Users Of The Services Provided Through E-Governance Under JnNURM 1.5 Traders License
State Code --------
DATE
MONTH
YEAR
City Code ----------
Sample NO -------
2. ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
ULB: NDMC ----- 1 PSK Name __________ No. ___________ BMC ------- 2 CFC Name__________ No. ____________ Cyber CFC (BMC) --------- 3 ITZ Cash Counter (BMC) ---------- 4 KMC ------- 5 Borough Name________ No.____________ eKolkata CSC -----------6 GHMC----- 7 CFC Name ___________ No. ____________ eSeva Kendra -------------- 8 Online payment (for property tax payment) --- 9 NAME OF INTERVIEWER _________________________________
SIGNATURE OF INTERVIEWER __________________________________
187

201. Can you tell me what are the services available at the service centre/oce? Cannot Recall Birth registration Death registration (Please do not read out the services to the respondent. Please tick mark the services based on user recall) Property, electricity and water tax payment Trade Licenses (new) Trade Licenses (renewal) (MA) Grievances Mutation of Property Building Approval Others (SPECIFY).. 202. Which service did you avail of from the Municipal Oce? (MA) Birth registration Death registration Property and water tax payment Trade Licenses (new) Trade Licenses (renewal) Grievances Mutation of Property Building Approvals Others (SPECIFY).. 203. Are you aware of online services available Yes at NDMC/BMC/KMC/GHMC (please No read out correct municipality name)? What are the services for which you have used online services at the NDMC/BMC/ KMC/GHMC (please read out correct municipality name) portal? (MA) Birth registration Death registration Property, electricity and water tax payment Trade Licenses (new) Trade Licenses (renewal) Grievances Mutation of Property Building Approvals Others (SPECIFY).. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Post Coding 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 301 401
PART 3 OR 4
204.
188
205.
What have you used the online services for? (MA)
Downloading of forms Obtaining information abour servies Payment of Property Tax Any other (please specify)
206.
207.
189
PART 3: TRADERS LICENSES

301. Did you go to the municipal oce to get a fresh license or renew the license? 302. Fresh license License renewal 1 2 1 2 1 2 Post Code 1 2 3 4 1 2 309 307
Did you have to go to a specic ward oce Had to go to area specic to avail service or could you go to any ofce? ward oce Could go to any ward oce in the municipality
303.
FOR LICENSE RENEWAL:
Yes
Was a challan/demand information sent to No your address for license payment? 304. 305. If No in 302, why not? How many times did you have to visit the municipal oce for renewing the license? Please specify Once Twice Thrice More than thrice 306. Was the demand value sent on your challan correct? 307. What did you do if the demand value was not correct? Yes No Did not do anything and paid what was shown in the demand value Approached concerned ofcer for correcting demand value Any other (please specify) 308. How many visits did it take to correct the demand value on the license renewal slip? 309. Did you get a token at the municipal oce Yes when you went to renew your license? 310. How many persons were there in the queue before you? No Less than 5 5-20 More than 20 Yes-1 No-2 visits
Post Code
1 2 1 2 3
311.
313
190
312.
For what purpose did you pay the bribe indicated in the previous question? (MA) To expedite the process To enable service to be provided to you out 1 of turn To inuence functionaries to manipulate records in your favour. 3 To reduce amount of fee to be paid by you Others (SPECIFY).............. 4 5 Yes ----1 No----2 315 2
313.
Did you use an intermediary at any stage for renewing the license? (To be asked only to Clients)
314.
How much service charge did you pay to intermediaries to facilitate the service? (To be asked only to Clients) SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEES

From the municipality helpdesk/enquiry counter/municipality ocial Through an intermediary From the municipality website Any other (please specify) 3 Post Code 1 2 2 1
315.
What was the amount for which you got a receipt? SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEES What was the total payment made by you for availing the service? SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEES FOR FRESH LICENSES (Please ask these questions to both the Clients (C) and the Intermediaries (I), as instructed in each subsequent question in this section: Where did you get to know about the process of applying for a fresh license? (Only C)
316.
317.
318.
When you went to the service centre/oce Went and stood at the counter for the rst time to apply for the license, what did you do? (Only C) and got a token Went to an intermediary for help Went to a municipal ocer in the concerned department for help Any other (please specify)
Post Code
191
319.
What were the documents that you had to submit for the traders license? (MA)
Type of business document from State Industries Commission PAN/TAN Proof of business address Any other (please specify) 2 3 Post Code 1 2 3 1 2 3 Post code 323 323 322 1
320.
How many persons were there before you in the queue (Only C)?
Less than 5 5 - 20 More than 20
321.
What was the information that was given to you on the rst day of visit (C and I)?
Inspection of the property will be done Property will be inspected and then challan will be sent Called aer a few days Others (specify) ___________
322.
Aer how many days were you asked to come (C and I)?

there
Days
323.
Aer how many days did the inspector come to inspect your property (C and I)? Code 99 if no one came to inspect the property
Days
324.
Aer the inspector visited your property for inspection, how many days later did you receive the challan (C and I)?
Days Received challan then and 99
325.
ASK IF CODE 99 IN 324 Aer how many days of your rst visit did you receive the challan (C and I)?
Yes
Days Did not receive challan, went to municipal oce myself to enquire 99 1 2 1 2 3
326.
When you went to the municipal oce
327.
again aer receiving the challan, were you No given a token (C and I)? How many persons were there before you Less than 10 in the queue (C and I)? 10 - 30 More than 30
192
328.
Yes-1 No-2 321
329.
For what purpose did you pay the bribe indicated in the previous question? (MA) To expedite the process............................... To enable service to be provided to you out of turn........................................................... To inuence functionaries to manipulate records in your favour. To reduce amount of fee to be paid by you Others (SPECIFY).............. 3 4 5 1 2
330.
Did you use an intermediary at any stage for availing services? (Only C)
Yes ----1 No----2 323
331.
How much service charge did you pay to intermediaries to facilitate the service?(Only C) SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEES

HRS
332.
333.
334.
In total, how many visits did you have to make to the service centre/oce for obtaining the correct certicate?
335.
What was the total elapsed time in availing the service, right from the date of applying to actually receiving the service? SPECIFY TIME IN DAYS OR HOURS DAYS
193
336.Please ll up the Table below as indicated)
Trip details/reasons for accessing service Purpose of trip Distance of centre from residence Travel time in minutes Travel cost (Rs.) Waiting time (in minutes) Reasons for additional trips Reasons for long wait
Trip No. 1
Trip No. 2
Trip No. 3
Trip Nos. (aer 3rd trip)
Reasons for long wait: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Many counters were not working There were too many customers at the service area Sta do not appear to be well trained so are slow at processing application Frequent system/equipment breakdown Any other (please specify and post code)
194
337. Were you informed at any stage by the Yes ----1 service centre/oce that your certicate was No----2 ready to be collected? 338. How were you informed about this? (MA)
PART 4
1 2 3 4

Please give details of the service availed for online services S.No. 401. Service Traders License New Period when the service was availed (IF DK/CS, please Put 99 for Month & 9999 for Year)
402. Traders License Renewal
Month
Year
Month
Year
501. Are you aware of the citizens charter? Yes-1; No-2 If Coded 2 then Skip to 3) 502. Adherence of the time frame for service delivery (elapsed time) to the citizens charter (Predictability of Outcome) Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data pertaining to your records
0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5
503. 504.
195
505. 506. 507. 508. 509. 510.
Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned Department in the ULB Accountability of ocers Location and ambience of service center/oce Convenience of Working hours of the centre/ oce Management of the queuing system Responsiveness of functionaries (in terms of time and politeness) to your queries and complaints Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application forms Durability of certicates/printouts Legibility of printouts/certicates Security of data (the fact that nobody can tamper with your records) Condentiality and privacy of data and transactions (the fact that no other person can access your records) Corruption in the working of the system (Very High -1, High -2, Neutral -3, Low -4, Very Low -5, DK/CS -0) Dependence on intermediaries (Very High -1, High -2, Neutral -3, Low -4, Very Low -5, DK/ CS -0) Costs of availing service (Very High -1, High -2, Neutral -3, Low -4, Very Low -5, DK/CS -0) Time and Eort in availing the service (Quite a lot -1, a lot - 2, Neutral 3, low 4, Quite low 5, 0 DK/CS) Eort in document preparation (Quite a lot -1, a lot - 2, Neutral 3, low 4, Quite low 5, 0 DK/CS) Communication by department about the progress and next steps in service delivery (Did not keep informed at all 1, Mostly did not keep informed 2, Kept Informed -3, Mostly kept informed -4, Fully kept informed 5, DK/CS -0)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
511. 512. 513. 514. 515. 516.
517.
518.
519. 520.
521.
522.
523.
From the list of aributes present below, please choose the three factors that you consider the most important aributes of the service.
196
7. Convenience of Working hours of the centre/oce 8. Management of the queuing system 9. Responsiveness of functionaries (in terms of time and politeness) to your queries and complaints 10. Accuracy of transactions
12. Durability of certicates/printouts 13. Security of data (the fact that nobody can tamper with your records) 14. Legibility of printouts/certicates
17. Dependence on intermediaries 18. Costs of availing service 19. Time and eort in availing the service
3. Ease of access to data pertaining to your records 4. Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned Department in the ULB
5. Accountability of Ofcers
PART 6: PERCEPTION ABOUT OVERALL QUALITY OF GOVERNANCE AND SERVICE This section is to be asked to both clients and intermediaries 701. Please indicate your perception about the overall quality of governance with respect to the service that you have availed (Governance is understood as transparency, accountability and corruption-free working.) 0 DK/CS, Very poor-1; Poor-2; Neither high nor poor-3; High-4; Very high-5 702. Aer using the respective service, how satised are you with the overall quality of service? (Quality of service is understood as fairness, speed of processing, accuracy, legibility and convenience of obtaining service. 0 DK/CS, Very dissatised-1; Somewhat dissatised-2; Neutral-3; Somewhat satised-4; Very satised-5
197
PART 8:

Yes----------------------1 No-----------------------2
802. If yes, please name the application(s).
1.________________________________
2._____________________________
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

198
804.
SINGLE CODE
805.
Type of House
806.
<5000..........................................................................................1 5000-9999 ..................................................................................2 10000-19999 ..............................................................................3 20000-29999 ..............................................................................4 30000-39999 ..............................................................................5 40000-49999 ..............................................................................6 >=50,000.....................................................................................7
IN RUPEES
199
SCH NO-
Survey Among Users Of The Services Provided Through E-Governance Under JnNURM 1.6 (for Manual Services only)
State Code --------------
City Code --------------
Sample NO -----------
DATE
MONTH
YEAR
2. ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT
1. NAME OF RESPONDENT __________________________________________
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
ULB: NDMC ______ 1Ward Name ______________ No. ___________ BMC ______ 2Ward Name ______________ No. ___________ KMC______ 3Ward Name ______________ No. ___________ GHMC______ 4Ward Name ______________ No. ___________ NAME OF INTERVIEWER _________________________________
SIGNATURE OF INTERVIEWER __________________________________
200

Please indicate the services that were used and the period when the service was availed (to be asked to both clients and intermediaries). S.No. Service Yes 1, No -2 Date when availed service
201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208.
Birth Registration Death Registration Trade License New Trade License Renewal Property Tax, Water and Electricity bill payments Grievances Mutation of Property Building approvals
__ __ DD/__ __MM/__ __ __ __YYYY __ __ DD/__ __MM/__ __ __ __YYYY __ __ DD/__ __MM/__ __ __ __YYYY __ __ DD/__ __MM/__ __ __ __YYYY __ __ DD/__ __MM/__ __ __ __YYYY __ __ DD/__ __MM/__ __ __ __YYYY __ __ DD/__ __MM/__ __ __ __YYYY __ __ DD/__ __MM/__ __ __ __YYYY
201
PART3: COSTS OF AVAILING SERVICES

Investigator: Please elicit responses from the selected respondent for the specic manual service under which the respondent has been selected in the survey. Please mention in the box below the service code of the service from Part 2. Please ask each question in this section to both clients and intermediaries unless otherwise stated.
301.
How many visits did you have to make to the service centre/oce to avail the service?
302.
Did you have to go to a specic ward oce to avail service or could you go to any ward oce?
Only area specic ward oce Any ward oce
1 2
303.
Please ll up the Table below as indicated Trip details/reasons for accessing service Purpose of trip Distance of centre from residence Travel time in minutes Travel cost (Rs.) Waiting time (in minutes) Reasons for additional trips Reasons for long wait Trip No. 1 Trip No. 2 Trip No. 3 Trip Nos. (aer 3rd trip)
202
Reasons for long wait: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 304. Many counters were not working There were too many customers at the service area Sta do not appear to be well trained so are slow at processing application Frequent system/equipment breakdown Any other (please specify and post code)
Did you pay a bribe directly / indirectly to department sta / functionaries? Yes-1; No-2 If Coded 2 then Skip to Q. 6
305.
For what purpose did you pay the bribe indicated in the previous question? MULTIPLE RESPONSE To expedite the process To enable service to be provided to you out of turn............................................................. To inuence functionaries to manipulate records in your favour. To reduce amount of fee to be paid by you Others (SPECIFY).............. 3 4 5 2 1
306.
Did you use an intermediary for availing services? (To be asked only to Clients) Skip to Q. 8 if answer is 2
Yes ----1, No----2
203
307.
How much service charge did you pay to intermediaries to facilitate the service? (To be asked only to Clients) SPECIFY AMOUNT IN RUPEES
308.
309.
HRS
310.
What was the total elapsed time in availing the service, right from the date of applying to actually receiving the service? SPECIFY TIME IN DAYS OR HOURS
DAYS
401. Are you aware of the citizens charter? Yes-1; No-2 (If Coded 2 then Skip to 3) 402. Adherence of the time frame for service delivery (elapsed time) to the citizens charter (Predictability of Outcome) 403. 404. 405. 406. 407. 408. 409. 410. 411. Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data pertaining to your records Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned Department in the ULB Accountability of ocers Location and ambience of service center/oce Convenience of Working hours of the centre/oce Management of the queuing system Responsiveness of functionaries (in terms of time and politeness) to your queries and complaints Accuracy of transactions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
204
412. 413. 414. 415. 416.
Design and layout of application forms Durability of certicates/printouts Legibility of printouts/certicates Security of data (the fact that nobody can tamper with your records) Condentiality and privacy of data and transactions (the fact that no other person can access your records)
0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5
417.
Corruption in the working of the system (Very High -1, High -2, Neutral -3, Low -4, Very Low -5, DK/CS -0) 0 1 2 3 4 5
418. 419. 420.
Dependence on intermediaries (Very High -1, High -2, Neutral -3, Low -4, Very Low -5, DK/CS -0) Costs of availing service (Very High -1, High -2, Neutral -3, Low -4, Very Low -5, DK/CS -0) Time and Eort in availing the service (Quite a lot -1, a lot - 2, Neutral 3, low 4, Quite low 5, 0 DK/CS)
0 0
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
421. 422.
Eort in document preparation (Quite a lot -1, a lot - 2, Neutral 3, low 4, Quite low 5, 0 DK/CS) Communication by department about the progress and next steps in service delivery (Did not keep informed at all 1, Mostly did not keep informed 2, Kept Informed -3, Mostly kept informed -4, Fully kept informed 5, DK/CS -0)
423.
From the list of aributes present below, please choose the three factors that you consider the most important aributes of the service.

7. Convenience of Working hours of the centre/oce
205
8. Management of the queuing system
18. Costs of availing service
424.
Have you ever used any other e-governance application?
Yes----------------------1 No-----------------------2 (Skip to Part 5)
425. If yes, please name the application(s). 1.________________________________
2._____________________________
426. Do you prefer the Computerized system or the Manual system? To what extent do you agree (aer seeing the Computerized System in operation) that Information Technology / computerization can be used to give beer citizen service?
Computerized System1 Manual System...........2 Strongly disagree............1 disagree.........................2 Neither agree nor disagree3 Agree............................4 Strongly agree.............5
427.
206
501. Please indicate your perception about the overall quality of governance with respect to the service that you have availed (Governance is understood as transparency, accountability and corruption-free working.) 2 0 DK/CS, Very poor-1; Poor-2; Neither high nor poor-3; High-4; Very high-5 3 4 5 502. Aer using the respective service, how satised are you with the overall quality of service? (Quality of service is understood as fairness, speed of processing, accuracy, legibility and convenience of obtaining service. 0 DK/CS, Very dissatised-1; Somewhat dissatised-2; Neutral-3; Somewhat satised-4; Very satised-5 0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5
PART6: RESPONDENT PROFILE To be asked only to clients

602.
Male ..........................................................................................1 Female ......................................................................................2
207
603.
Illiterate .....................................................................................1 Literate without Education ....................................................2 Below Primary .........................................................................3 Primary .....................................................................................4 Middle.......................................................................................5 Matric/Secondary ....................................................................6 Higher Secondary/Intermediate/Pre-University ................7 Non-technical Diploma/Certicate Not Equal to Degree .8 Technical Diploma/Certicate Not Equal to Degree ..........9 Graduate & Above ................................................................10 Others (SPECIFY) ..................................................................11
604.
SINGLE CODE
605.
Type of House
606.
<5000..........................................................................................1 5000-9999 ..................................................................................2 10000-19999 ..............................................................................3 20000-29999 ..............................................................................4 30000-39999 ..............................................................................5 40000-49999 ..............................................................................6 >=50,000.....................................................................................7
IN RUPEES
208
ANNEXURE 2
Detailed Scores for each service in each ULB
Table 2.1 Birth Certicate Table 2.2 Death Certicate Table 2.3 Utility Payments Table 2.4 Grievance Table 2.5 Renewal of Traders License Table 2.6 New Traders License Table 2.7 Mutation Table 2.8 Building Approval
Table 2.1 Birth Certicate

NDMC Average of Individual Scores Percentage Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Ability to complain Accountability of ocers Location of service center Convenience of working hours Management of queuing system Responsiveness of functionaries Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application form Durability of certicates Legibility of printouts Security of data Condentiality and privacy of data Corruption of working system Dependence of intermediaries Costs of availing service Time and eort in availing service Eort in document preparation Communication by department on progess Total GHMC Factor Average of Individual Scores Percentage 0.00% 7.50% 7.50% 8.33% Manual 2.54 2.53 2.27 2.39 Computerized 3.10 3.64 3.39 3.41 Improvement Dierence 0.56 1.12 1.12 1.01 Weighted Score 0.000 0.084 0.084 0.084 2.41% 30.12% 14.46% 3.61% 6.02% 9.64% 12.05% 10.84% 1.20% 0.00% 4.82% 1.20% 1.20% 0.00% 1.20% 1.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% Manual 3.74 3.50 3.51 3.30 3.28 3.52 3.32 3.61 3.23 3.61 3.55 3.50 3.48 3.39 3.16 3.41 3.36 3.34 3.48 3.39 3.02 Computerized 3.42 3.51 3.87 3.35 3.46 3.79 3.92 4.00 3.21 3.69 4.21 4.08 4.18 3.69 3.62 3.79 3.79 3.58 3.18 3.21 2.59 Improvement Dierence -0.32 0.01 0.36 0.06 0.18 0.27 0.60 0.39 -0.02 0.08 0.66 0.58 0.70 0.31 0.45 0.39 0.43 0.24 -0.30 -0.18 -0.43 Weighted Score -0.008 0.004 0.052 0.002 0.011 0.026 0.072 0.042 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.007 0.008 0.000 0.005 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.259
Factor
Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Ability to complain
211
Factor
Average of Individual Scores Percentage 8.33% 11.25% 7.08% 2.50% 2.08% 5.00% 1.25% 24.58% 1.25% 10.00% 1.25% 0.83% 0.42% 0.83% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% Manual 2.25 2.35 2.39 2.22 2.07 2.19 2.41 2.41 2.24 2.36 2.39 2.24 2.28 2.33 2.23 2.23 2.35 Computerized 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.46 3.50 3.32 3.75 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.46 3.32 3.54 3.54 3.43 3.46 3.50
Improvement Dierence 1.43 1.33 1.29 1.25 1.43 1.13 1.34 1.17 1.34 1.21 1.08 1.08 1.25 1.20 1.20 1.23 1.15 Weighted Score 0.119 0.150 0.092 0.031 0.030 0.057 0.017 0.287 0.017 0.121 0.013 0.009 0.005 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.210
Accountability of ocers Location of service center Convenience of working hours Management of queuing system Responsiveness of functionaries Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application form Durability of certicates Legibility of printouts Security of data Condentiality and privacy of data Corruption of working system Dependence of intermediaries Costs of availing service Time and eort in availing service Eort in document preparation Communication by department on progess Total KMC
Average of Individual Scores Factor Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Ability to complain Accountability of ocers Location of service center Convenience of working hours Management of queuing system Responsiveness of functionaries Accuracy of transactions Percentage 0.00% 11.95% 5.66% 17.61% 22.01% 9.43% 4.40% 18.24% 1.26% 0.63% Manual 3.56 3.51 3.61 3.22 3.59 3.63 3.64 3.24 3.47 3.71 Computerized 3.49 3.60 3.64 3.27 3.55 3.64 3.54 3.24 3.39 3.62
Improvement Dierence -0.07 0.09 0.03 0.05 -0.04 0.02 -0.10 0.00 -0.07 -0.09 Weighted Score 0.000 0.011 0.002 0.009 -0.009 0.002 -0.004 0.000 -0.001 -0.001
212
Factor
Average of Individual Scores Percentage 0.63% 1.26% 0.63% 1.26% 0.00% 3.14% 0.63% 0.63% 0.00% 0.00% 0.63% 100.00% Manual 2.69 2.75 2.86 3.55 3.57 3.27 3.47 3.79 3.31 3.36 1.81 Computerized 4.24 4.33 4.40 3.62 3.65 3.25 3.25 3.59 3.26 3.33 1.65
Improvement Dierence 1.54 1.59 1.54 0.07 0.08 -0.02 -0.22 -0.20 -0.04 -0.03 -0.16 Weighted Score 0.010 0.020 0.010 0.001 0.000 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001 0.000 0.000 -0.001 0.044
Design and layout of application form Durability of certicates Legibility of printouts Security of data Condentiality and privacy of data Corruption of working system Dependence of intermediaries Costs of availing service Time and eort in availing service Eort in document preparation Communication by department on progess Total BMC Factor
Average of Individual Scores Percentage 4.90% 13.99% 6.29% 5.59% 6.29% 9.09% 9.09% 4.90% 2.80% 1.40% 4.20% 1.40% 1.40% 0.00% 7.69% 11.89% Manual 3.63 3.52 3.42 3.45 3.41 3.57 3.38 3.52 3.40 3.50 3.70 3.62 3.84 3.63 3.53 3.19 Computerized 3.76 3.85 3.68 3.73 3.55 3.68 3.74 3.79 3.75 3.81 3.92 3.98 4.02 3.96 3.92 3.79
Improvement Dierence 0.13 0.33 0.26 0.28 0.14 0.11 0.36 0.27 0.35 0.31 0.22 0.36 0.18 0.33 0.39 0.60 Weighted Score 0.007 0.046 0.016 0.016 0.009 0.010 0.033 0.013 0.010 0.004 0.009 0.005 0.002 0.000 0.030 0.072
Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Ability to complain Accountability of ocers Location of service center Convenience of working hours Management of queuing system Responsiveness of functionaries Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application form Durability of certicates Legibility of printouts Security of data Condentiality and privacy of data Corruption of working system
213
Factor
Average of Individual Scores Percentage 0.00% 1.40% 2.10% 2.10% 3.50% 100.00% Manual 3.36 3.47 3.33 3.38 3.07 Computerized 3.67 3.75 3.62 3.51 3.08
Improvement Dierence 0.32 0.29 0.29 0.13 0.01 Weighted Score 0.000 0.004 0.006 0.003 0.000 0.295
Dependence of intermediaries Costs of availing service Time and eort in availing service Eort in document preparation Communication by department on progess Total
Table 2.2 Death Certicate

NDMC Average of Individual Scores Factor Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Ability to complain Accountability of ocers Location of service center Convenience of working hours Management of queuing system Responsiveness of functionaries Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application form Durability of certicates Legibility of printouts Security of data Condentiality and privacy of data Corruption of working system Dependence of intermediaries Costs of availing service Time and eort in availing service Percentage 0.00% 38.10% 19.05% 4.76% 0.00% 9.52% 23.81% 0.00% 0.00% 4.76% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Manual 3.50 3.27 3.20 3.18 3.30 3.55 3.27 3.73 3.64 3.27 3.64 3.64 3.64 3.00 3.10 3.36 3.00 3.18 3.36 Computerized 3.00 3.20 3.50 3.38 2.90 3.50 3.40 3.30 3.00 3.70 4.00 3.50 3.80 3.20 3.56 3.50 3.60 3.10 3.00 Improvement Dierence -0.50 -0.07 0.30 0.19 -0.40 -0.05 0.13 -0.43 -0.64 0.43 0.36 -0.14 0.16 0.20 0.46 0.14 0.60 -0.08 -0.36 Weighted Score 0.000 -0.028 0.057 0.009 0.000 -0.004 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
214
Average of Individual Scores Factor Eort in document preparation Communication by department on progess Total GHMC Average of Individual Scores Factor Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Ability to complain Accountability of ocers Location of service center Convenience of working hours Management of queuing system Responsiveness of functionaries Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application form Durability of certicates Legibility of printouts Security of data Condentiality and privacy of data Corruption of working system Dependence of intermediaries Costs of availing service Time and eort in availing service Eort in document preparation Communication by department on progess Total Percentage 0.00% 10.87% 5.98% 14.13% 5.98% 17.39% 7.61% 2.72% 4.89% 3.80% 1.63% 17.39% 0.54% 5.43% 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% Manual 2.57 2.31 2.23 2.28 2.10 2.24 2.11 2.20 2.14 2.22 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.39 2.31 2.29 2.22 2.27 2.26 2.27 2.32 Computerized 4.00 3.75 3.75 4.00 4.00 3.75 3.75 4.00 3.75 4.00 3.75 3.50 3.75 4.00 3.75 3.50 3.25 3.25 3.50 3.25 3.25 Percentage 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% Manual 3.18 3.10 Computerized 3.40 2.20
Improvement Dierence 0.22 -0.90 Weighted Score 0.000 0.000 0.085
Improvement Dierence 1.43 1.44 1.52 1.72 1.90 1.51 1.64 1.80 1.61 1.78 1.47 1.22 1.47 1.61 1.44 1.21 1.03 0.98 1.24 0.98 0.93 Weighted Score 0.000 0.156 0.091 0.243 0.113 0.262 0.125 0.049 0.079 0.068 0.024 0.212 0.008 0.087 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.538
215
KMC Average of Individual Scores Factor Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Ability to complain Accountability of ocers Location of service center Convenience of working hours Management of queuing system Responsiveness of functionaries Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application form Durability of certicates Legibility of printouts Security of data Condentiality and privacy of data Corruption of working system Dependence of intermediaries Costs of availing service Time and eort in availing service Eort in document preparation Communication by department on progess Total BMC Average of Individual Scores Factor Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Ability to complain Percentage 5.00% 7.50% 17.50% 7.50% Manual 3.95 3.90 3.90 3.73 Computerized 3.50 3.67 4.00 3.11 Improvement Dierence -0.45 -0.24 0.10 -0.62 Weighted Score -0.023 -0.018 0.017 -0.047 Percentage 0.71% 9.93% 3.55% 21.28% 23.40% 12.06% 0.71% 8.51% 2.84% 1.42% 2.84% 2.13% 0.71% 1.42% 0.71% 5.67% 0.71% 0.71% 0.00% 0.00% 0.71% 100.00% Manual 3.63 3.61 3.62 3.21 3.40 3.61 3.56 3.37 3.45 3.65 3.04 2.95 3.01 3.40 3.52 3.11 3.17 3.57 3.39 3.28 1.77 Computerized 3.77 3.59 3.69 3.21 3.58 3.80 3.64 3.42 3.53 3.80 4.23 4.21 4.21 3.85 3.79 3.14 3.28 3.63 3.52 3.56 1.58 Improvement Dierence 0.14 -0.02 0.07 0.00 0.18 0.19 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.15 1.19 1.27 1.20 0.45 0.27 0.03 0.11 0.06 0.14 0.28 -0.20 Weighted Score 0.001 -0.002 0.003 0.000 0.041 0.023 0.001 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.034 0.027 0.009 0.006 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.001 0.154
216
Average of Individual Scores Factor Accountability of ocers Location of service center Convenience of working hours Management of queuing system Responsiveness of functionaries Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application form Durability of certicates Legibility of printouts Security of data Condentiality and privacy of data Corruption of working system Dependence of intermediaries Costs of availing service Time and eort in availing service Eort in document preparation Communication by department on progess Total Percentage 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 0.00% 7.50% 0.00% 2.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.50% 7.50% 0.00% 0.00% 12.50% 5.00% 17.50% 100.00% Manual 3.74 3.84 3.84 3.77 3.77 3.84 3.74 3.77 4.26 3.71 3.65 3.26 3.48 3.61 3.58 3.65 3.19 Computerized 3.13 3.75 3.25 3.50 3.33 3.11 3.67 3.67 3.89 3.67 3.44 3.33 3.44 3.11 2.78 3.33 3.22
Improvement Dierence -0.62 -0.09 -0.59 -0.27 -0.44 -0.73 -0.08 -0.11 -0.37 -0.04 -0.20 0.08 -0.04 -0.50 -0.80 -0.31 0.03 Weighted Score -0.015 -0.002 -0.015 0.000 -0.033 0.000 -0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.005 0.006 0.000 0.000 -0.100 -0.016 0.005 -0.248
Table 2.3 Utility Payments

NDMC Average of Individual Scores Factor Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Ability to complain Accountability of ocers Location of service center Percentage 2.13% 18.87% 10.05% 6.24% 11.26% 15.98% Manual 3.56 3.63 3.50 3.37 3.45 3.72 Computerized 3.75 3.84 3.81 3.62 3.74 3.85 Improvement Dierence 0.19 0.21 0.32 0.25 0.29 0.12 Weighted Score 0.004 0.039 0.032 0.015 0.033 0.020
217
Average of Individual Scores Factor Convenience of working hours Management of queuing system Responsiveness of functionaries Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application form Durability of certicates Legibility of printouts Security of data Condentiality and privacy of data Corruption of working system Dependence of intermediaries Costs of availing service Time and eort in availing service Eort in document preparation Communication by department on progess Total GHMC Average of Individual Scores Factor Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Ability to complain Accountability of ocers Location of service center Convenience of working hours Management of queuing system Responsiveness of functionaries Percentage 0.17% 10.24% 7.47% 8.68% 4.69% 15.28% 7.47% 3.65% 2.43% Manual 2.53 2.41 2.25 2.35 2.17 2.25 2.25 2.22 2.12 Computerized 3.20 3.51 3.34 3.36 3.51 3.53 3.53 3.32 3.38 Percentage 7.31% 16.59% 1.22% 1.98% 1.83% 2.44% 2.28% 0.00% 0.76% 0.30% 0.00% 0.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.46% 100.00% Manual 3.34 3.81 3.40 3.58 3.75 3.67 3.89 3.54 3.38 3.39 3.30 2.32 3.00 2.97 3.17 Computerized 3.72 3.88 3.76 3.92 4.08 4.11 4.14 3.79 3.60 3.74 3.79 3.11 3.41 3.39 3.31
Improvement Dierence 0.39 0.06 0.36 0.34 0.33 0.44 0.25 0.25 0.22 0.34 0.49 0.80 0.40 0.42 0.15 Weighted Score 0.028 0.010 0.004 0.007 0.006 0.011 0.006 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.221
Improvement Dierence 0.67 1.10 1.09 1.01 1.33 1.28 1.28 1.10 1.25 Weighted Score 0.001 0.112 0.082 0.088 0.063 0.195 0.096 0.040 0.030
218
Average of Individual Scores Factor Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application form Durability of certicates Legibility of printouts Security of data Condentiality and privacy of data Corruption of working system Dependence of intermediaries Costs of availing service Time and eort in availing service Eort in document preparation Communication by department on progess Total KMC Average of Individual Scores Factor Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Ability to complain Accountability of ocers Location of service center Convenience of working hours Management of queuing system Responsiveness of functionaries Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application form Durability of certicates Legibility of printouts Security of data Percentage 1.51% 21.11% 0.50% 19.10% 13.07% 3.52% 5.53% 15.58% 3.02% 0.50% 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 1.01% Manual 3.46 3.46 3.44 2.62 3.04 3.54 3.30 2.93 3.16 3.27 3.28 3.14 3.30 3.37 Computerized 2.90 3.04 3.35 2.57 3.01 3.52 3.14 2.84 2.91 3.33 3.83 3.79 3.73 3.41 Percentage 6.42% 1.74% 19.10% 1.39% 8.85% 0.69% 0.69% 0.35% 0.52% 0.17% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% Manual 2.19 2.37 2.30 2.27 2.33 2.33 2.25 2.25 2.32 2.23 2.22 2.33 Computerized 3.50 3.47 3.44 3.42 3.47 3.44 3.51 3.45 3.53 3.33 3.32 3.36
Improvement Dierence 1.31 1.11 1.14 1.15 1.14 1.10 1.26 1.20 1.21 1.10 1.09 1.03 Weighted Score 0.084 0.019 0.217 0.016 0.101 0.008 0.009 0.004 0.006 0.002 0.000 0.000 1.173
Improvement Dierence -0.56 -0.42 -0.09 -0.05 -0.03 -0.02 -0.16 -0.09 -0.25 0.06 0.55 0.65 0.43 0.04 Weighted Score -0.008 -0.089 0.000 -0.009 -0.004 -0.001 -0.009 -0.014 -0.008 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000
219
Average of Individual Scores Factor Condentiality and privacy of data Corruption of working system Dependence of intermediaries Costs of availing service Time and eort in availing service Eort in document preparation Communication by department on progess Total BMC Average of Individual Scores Factor Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Ability to complain Accountability of ocers Location of service center Convenience of working hours Management of queuing system Responsiveness of functionaries Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application form Durability of certicates Legibility of printouts Security of data Condentiality and privacy of data Corruption of working system Dependence of intermediaries Costs of availing service Percentage 2.89% 8.19% 8.43% 5.06% 8.43% 7.71% 14.70% 6.75% 4.58% 2.17% 2.17% 1.93% 3.86% 0.00% 5.06% 8.67% 0.48% 2.17% Manual 3.72 3.42 3.36 3.36 3.40 3.48 3.30 3.36 3.40 3.32 3.53 3.51 3.73 3.57 3.46 3.28 3.34 3.31 Computerized 3.83 3.60 3.56 3.49 3.55 3.60 3.50 3.50 3.55 3.44 3.59 3.74 3.90 3.60 3.59 3.40 3.42 3.45 Percentage 2.51% 8.54% 0.50% 1.01% 0.00% 0.50% 2.01% 100.00% Manual 3.32 2.56 2.75 3.06 3.04 3.07 2.08 Computerized 3.41 2.66 2.75 2.90 3.00 3.15 2.07
Improvement Dierence 0.09 0.11 0.01 -0.16 -0.04 0.08 -0.01 Weighted Score 0.002 0.009 0.000 -0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.128
Improvement Dierence 0.11 0.17 0.20 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.06 0.22 0.17 0.04 0.13 0.12 0.08 0.15 Weighted Score 0.003 0.014 0.017 0.006 0.013 0.010 0.029 0.010 0.007 0.003 0.001 0.004 0.007 0.000 0.007 0.010 0.000 0.003
220
Average of Individual Scores Factor Time and eort in availing service Eort in document preparation Communication by department on progess Total Percentage 0.72% 1.20% 4.82% 100.00% Manual 3.26 3.37 2.89 Computerized 3.44 3.57 3.06
Improvement Dierence 0.18 0.20 0.17 Weighted Score 0.001 0.002 0.008 0.157
Table 2.4 Grievance

GHMC Average of Individual Scores Factor Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Ability to complain Accountability of ocers Location of service center Convenience of working hours Management of queuing system Responsiveness of functionaries Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application form Durability of certicates Legibility of printouts Security of data Condentiality and privacy of data Corruption of working system Dependence of intermediaries Costs of availing service Time and eort in availing service Eort in document preparation Communication by department on progess Total Percentage 0.00% 7.55% 1.89% 15.09% 3.77% 16.98% 11.32% 5.66% 11.32% 9.43% 0.00% 11.32% 0.00% 0.00% 1.89% 3.77% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% Manual 2.00 2.27 2.45 2.39 2.16 2.16 2.09 2.03 2.17 2.03 2.50 2.16 2.30 2.23 2.28 2.06 2.13 2.58 2.36 2.23 2.31 Computerized 3.50 3.30 3.45 3.55 3.45 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.45 3.50 3.40 3.65 3.50 3.40 3.65 3.25 3.25 3.10 3.10 3.35 3.20 Improvement Dierence 1.50 1.03 1.00 1.16 1.29 1.34 1.41 1.47 1.28 1.47 0.90 1.49 1.20 1.17 1.37 1.19 1.12 0.52 0.74 1.12 0.89 Weighted Score 0.000 0.078 0.019 0.174 0.049 0.228 0.160 0.083 0.145 0.138 0.000 0.169 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.045 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.313
221
BMC Average of Individual Scores Factor Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Ability to complain Accountability of ocers Location of service center Convenience of working hours Management of queuing system Responsiveness of functionaries Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application form Durability of certicates Legibility of printouts Security of data Condentiality and privacy of data Corruption of working system Dependence of intermediaries Costs of availing service Time and eort in availing service Eort in document preparation Communication by department on progess Total Percentage 3.64% 10.91% 14.55% 3.64% 3.64% 5.45% 9.09% 1.82% 7.27% 1.82% 7.27% 0.00% 3.64% 1.82% 9.09% 7.27% 1.82% 0.00% 1.82% 3.64% 1.82% 100.00% Manual 3.89 2.97 3.06 2.91 2.88 3.24 3.00 2.94 3.12 3.12 3.29 3.21 3.35 3.12 3.12 3.03 3.03 3.06 3.18 3.24 2.74 Computerized 3.50 2.86 2.90 2.57 2.67 3.10 2.81 2.76 2.57 2.70 2.60 2.72 3.05 2.65 2.75 2.48 2.57 2.81 2.48 2.60 2.43 Improvement Dierence -0.39 -0.11 -0.15 -0.34 -0.22 -0.14 -0.19 -0.18 -0.55 -0.42 -0.69 -0.48 -0.31 -0.47 -0.37 -0.55 -0.46 -0.25 -0.70 -0.64 -0.31 Weighted Score -0.014 -0.012 -0.022 -0.012 -0.008 -0.008 -0.017 -0.003 -0.040 -0.008 -0.050 0.000 -0.011 -0.009 -0.033 -0.040 -0.008 0.000 -0.013 -0.023 -0.006 -0.338
Table 2.5 Renewal of Traders License

GHMC Average of Individual Scores Factor Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Percentage 0.38% 11.32% 6.79% Manual 2.60 2.37 2.21 Computerized 3.42 3.48 4.00 Improvement Dierence 0.82 1.11 1.79 Weighted Score 0.003 0.125 0.122
222
Average of Individual Scores Factor Ability to complain Accountability of ocers Location of service center Convenience of working hours Management of queuing system Responsiveness of functionaries Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application form Durability of certicates Legibility of printouts Security of data Condentiality and privacy of data Corruption of working system Dependence of intermediaries Costs of availing service Time and eort in availing service Eort in document preparation Communication by department on progess Total KMC Average of Individual Scores Factor Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Ability to complain Percentage 0.62% 22.22% 2.47% 19.75% Manual 2.30 3.05 3.26 2.35 Computerized 2.63 3.08 3.35 2.51 Percentage 5.28% 8.68% 22.64% 5.66% 3.77% 4.15% 10.19% 4.91% 7.92% 1.13% 3.77% 0.00% 2.26% 1.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% Manual 2.37 2.11 2.07 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.14 2.21 2.19 2.18 2.23 2.23 2.12 2.14 2.16 2.12 2.14 2.30 Computerized 3.77 3.89 3.97 4.01 3.95 4.08 3.80 4.12 4.02 3.96 3.61 3.90 4.15 3.97 3.88 4.01 3.99 4.15
Improvement Dierence 1.40 1.78 1.90 1.92 1.84 1.96 1.66 1.91 1.83 1.77 1.37 1.67 2.03 1.82 1.72 1.89 1.85 1.85 Weighted Score 0.074 0.155 0.431 0.109 0.070 0.082 0.169 0.094 0.145 0.020 0.052 0.000 0.046 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.716
Improvement Dierence 0.33 0.03 0.09 0.15 Weighted Score 0.002 0.006 0.002 0.030
223
Improvement Dierence 0.18 0.33 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.34 0.63 0.83 0.90 0.39 0.36 0.23 0.44 0.07 0.43 0.43 -0.02 Weighted Score 0.034 0.006 0.002 0.037 0.010 0.002 0.000 0.005 0.006 0.002 0.002 0.017 0.008 0.001 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.178
BMC Average of Individual Scores Factor Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Ability to complain Percentage 2.83% 10.38% 10.38% 3.77% Manual 3.72 3.64 3.57 3.54 Computerized 3.64 3.78 3.95 3.55 Improvement Dierence -0.08 0.14 0.38 0.01 Weighted Score -0.002 0.014 0.040 0.000
224
Improvement Dierence 0.07 0.12 0.17 0.15 0.23 0.32 0.27 0.27 0.32 0.28 0.13 0.32 0.33 0.14 0.23 0.22 0.00 Weighted Score 0.007 0.007 0.021 0.004 0.006 0.015 0.013 0.003 0.009 0.005 0.006 0.024 0.009 0.001 0.004 0.006 0.000 0.194
Table 2.6 New Traders License

GHMC Average of Individual Scores Factor Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Percentage 0.40% 12.45% Manual 2.68 2.29 Computerized 4.50 3.87 Improvement Dierence 1.82 1.58 Weighted Score 0.007 0.197
225
Average of Individual Scores Factor Ease of access to data Ability to complain Accountability of ocers Location of service center Convenience of working hours Management of queuing system Responsiveness of functionaries Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application form Durability of certicates Legibility of printouts Security of data Condentiality and privacy of data Corruption of working system Dependence of intermediaries Costs of availing service Time and eort in availing service Eort in document preparation Communication by department on progess Total KMC Average of Individual Scores Factor Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Ability to complain Accountability of ocers Percentage 2.00% 23.00% 2.00% 22.00% 15.00% Manual 2.33 2.82 3.12 2.31 2.62 Computerized 2.93 3.18 3.42 2.51 3.06 Percentage 7.63% 12.45% 6.02% 17.67% 7.23% 3.61% 3.61% 8.84% 1.61% 12.45% 2.01% 1.61% 0.00% 1.20% 1.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% Manual 2.16 2.31 2.04 2.12 2.10 2.12 2.12 2.17 2.24 2.20 2.21 2.24 2.23 2.18 2.21 2.22 2.17 2.17 2.29 Computerized 4.24 3.89 3.89 3.91 3.80 3.93 3.93 4.00 3.95 3.96 4.04 3.73 3.87 4.11 4.00 3.84 3.96 3.98 4.15
Improvement Dierence 2.08 1.58 1.85 1.79 1.70 1.80 1.80 1.83 1.71 1.76 1.82 1.49 1.65 1.93 1.79 1.62 1.80 1.81 1.85 Weighted Score 0.159 0.197 0.111 0.316 0.123 0.065 0.065 0.162 0.027 0.220 0.037 0.024 0.000 0.023 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.754
Improvement Dierence 0.60 0.36 0.30 0.20 0.44 Weighted Score 0.012 0.083 0.006 0.045 0.066
226
Average of Individual Scores Factor Location of service center Convenience of working hours Management of queuing system Responsiveness of functionaries Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application form Durability of certicates Legibility of printouts Security of data Condentiality and privacy of data Corruption of working system Dependence of intermediaries Costs of availing service Time and eort in availing service Eort in document preparation Communication by department on progess Total BMC Average of Individual Scores Factor Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Ability to complain Accountability of ocers Location of service center Convenience of working hours Percentage 0.88% 7.89% 7.89% 1.75% 11.40% 8.77% 9.65% Manual 3.79 3.51 3.63 3.40 3.44 3.60 3.48 Computerized 4.00 3.56 3.46 3.40 3.52 3.84 3.52 Percentage 2.00% 2.00% 12.00% 2.00% 2.00% 0.00% 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.00% 0.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.00% 100.00% Manual 3.28 3.04 2.73 2.72 3.20 3.22 3.22 3.30 3.24 3.16 2.38 2.33 2.88 2.68 2.78 1.93 Computerized 3.56 3.36 2.96 3.04 3.48 3.74 3.78 3.94 3.50 3.49 2.70 2.68 2.76 2.98 3.06 1.96
Improvement Dierence 0.28 0.32 0.23 0.32 0.28 0.52 0.56 0.64 0.26 0.33 0.32 0.34 -0.12 0.30 0.28 0.03 Weighted Score 0.006 0.006 0.027 0.006 0.006 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.039 0.000 -0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.305
Improvement Dierence 0.21 0.05 -0.17 0.00 0.08 0.24 0.04 Weighted Score 0.002 0.004 -0.013 0.000 0.009 0.021 0.004
227
Average of Individual Scores Factor Management of queuing system Responsiveness of functionaries Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application form Durability of certicates Legibility of printouts Security of data Condentiality and privacy of data Corruption of working system Dependence of intermediaries Costs of availing service Time and eort in availing service Eort in document preparation Communication by department on progess Total Percentage 2.63% 5.26% 3.51% 7.02% 3.51% 2.63% 1.75% 7.89% 9.65% 0.88% 0.88% 2.63% 2.63% 0.88% 100.00% Manual 3.48 3.40 3.27 3.59 3.44 3.68 3.52 3.52 3.22 3.24 3.27 3.22 3.35 2.98 Computerized 3.49 3.61 3.55 3.59 3.69 3.90 3.80 3.57 3.43 3.53 3.41 3.25 3.39 2.82
Improvement Dierence 0.01 0.21 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.22 0.27 0.05 0.21 0.29 0.14 0.03 0.04 -0.16 Weighted Score 0.000 0.011 0.010 0.000 0.008 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.020 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001 -0.001 0.095
Table 2.7 Mutation

KMC Average of Individual Scores Factor Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Ability to complain Accountability of ocers Location of service center Convenience of working hours Percentage 0.00% 30.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Manual 3.00 2.70 2.90 2.30 2.70 2.90 2.90 Computerized 2.33 2.80 3.40 1.90 2.90 3.60 3.30 Improvement Dierence -0.67 0.10 0.50 -0.40 0.20 0.70 0.40 Weighted Score 0.000 0.030 0.000 -0.080 0.000 0.000 0.000
228
Improvement Dierence -0.10 0.40 0.80 0.50 0.70 0.70 0.30 0.40 -0.20 -0.60 0.20 0.30 -0.10 -0.30 Weighted Score -0.010 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.060 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.090
Table 2.8 Building Approval

NDMC Average of Individual Scores Factor Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Ability to complain Accountability of ocers Location of service center Convenience of working hours Percentage 2.70% 10.81% 2.70% 5.41% 0.00% 13.51% 8.11% Manual 3.67 3.89 3.89 3.33 3.33 4.56 4.67 Computerized 4.14 3.96 3.82 3.68 3.64 4.68 4.68 Improvement Dierence 0.48 0.08 -0.07 0.35 0.31 0.12 0.01 Weighted Score 0.013 0.008 -0.002 0.019 0.000 0.017 0.001
229
Improvement Dierence 0.05 0.19 0.18 0.09 -0.10 -0.10 -0.02 -0.02 -0.21 -0.29 -0.49 -0.27 -0.08 -0.34 Weighted Score 0.000 0.046 0.020 0.005 -0.005 -0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.113
GHMC Average of Individual Scores Factor Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Ability to complain Accountability of ocers Location of service center Convenience of working hours Management of queuing system Responsiveness of functionaries Percentage 0.00% 3.61% 9.64% 4.82% 7.23% 16.87% 9.64% 3.61% 8.43% Manual 2.51 2.57 2.31 2.21 2.35 2.48 2.32 2.29 2.13 Computerized 3.33 2.92 3.17 3.08 3.50 3.42 3.42 2.82 3.75 Improvement Dierence 0.82 0.35 0.86 0.88 1.15 0.94 1.10 0.53 1.62 Weighted Score 0.000 0.012 0.083 0.042 0.083 0.159 0.106 0.019 0.136
230
Average of Individual Scores Factor Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application form Durability of certicates Legibility of printouts Security of data Condentiality and privacy of data Corruption of working system Dependence of intermediaries Costs of availing service Time and eort in availing service Eort in document preparation Communication by department on progess Total Percentage 3.61% 2.41% 18.07% 0.00% 9.64% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.41% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% Manual 2.12 2.51 2.32 2.39 2.48 2.55 2.48 2.17 2.25 2.27 2.34 2.42 Computerized 3.25 3.17 3.17 3.00 3.45 3.50 2.92 3.50 2.92 2.83 3.00 2.36
Improvement Dierence 1.13 0.66 0.85 0.61 0.98 0.95 0.44 1.33 0.67 0.56 0.66 -0.05 Weighted Score 0.041 0.016 0.153 0.000 0.094 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.960
KMC Average of Individual Scores Factor Adherence to the time frame Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Ease of access to data Ability to complain Accountability of ocers Location of service center Convenience of working hours Management of queuing system Responsiveness of functionaries Accuracy of transactions Design and layout of application form Percentage 0.00% 10.00% 0.00% 15.00% 15.00% 10.00% 0.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 0.00% 3.10 3.20 3.10 2.80 3.20 3.30 2.90 3.00 3.00 3.10 Manual Computerized 3.00 3.00 3.30 2.20 3.00 3.50 3.30 3.20 2.60 3.20 3.90 -0.10 0.10 -0.90 0.20 0.30 0.00 0.30 -0.40 0.20 0.80 Improvement Dierence Weighted Score 0.000 -0.010 0.000 -0.135 0.030 0.030 0.000 0.015 -0.020 0.010 0.000
231
Average of Individual Scores Factor Durability of certicates Legibility of printouts Security of data Condentiality and privacy of data Corruption of working system Dependence of intermediaries Costs of availing service Time and eort in availing service Eort in document preparation Communication by department on progess Total Percentage 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 30.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% 100.00% Manual 3.00 2.70 3.30 3.20 2.80 3.30 2.50 2.70 2.50 2.11 Computerized 3.90 4.00 3.50 3.60 2.70 3.30 1.78 2.00 2.30 1.11
Improvement Dierence 0.90 1.30 0.20 0.40 -0.10 0.00 -0.72 -0.70 -0.20 -1.00 Weighted Score 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.050 -0.160
232
ANNEXURE 3
Prole of Intermediaries
Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 3.8 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Birth Registration Death Registration Building Approval Payments Property, Water and electricity Mutation Grievances Trades License New Trades License Renewal Prole of the respondents (Intermediary) (M) Cost to client (Me ans and Standard Errors) (M) Service Quality Issues: Proportions (M) Governance and Corruption Issues (M) Role of Intermediaries (M) Most Important Aributes of the services (M)
Prole of intermediaries
The prole character of the intermediaries as respondents is given below. Table 3.1 Birth Registration Delhi
Characteristics Age > 40 years Gender Male Education Matric and above Occupation Executive/Clerical Type of house Permanent Monthly income Rs. 5001-10000 N 100 1 100 1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Manual Computerized
Mumbai
Characteristics Age 30-40 years > 40 years Gender Male Female Education Primary Middle Matric and above Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Other Type of house Permanent Monthly income Rs. 5001-10000 Rs. 10001-30000 N 75 25 4 100 0 2 100 100 25 50 25 100 0 0 25 0 75 0 50 50 75 25 100 0 50 50 100 0 Manual Computerized
235
Hyderabad Characteristics Age 30-40 years Gender Male Education Matric and above Occupation Businessman Type of house Semi-permanent Monthly income Rs. 10001-30000 N 100 1 100 1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Manual Computerized
Table 3.2 Death Registration

Mumbai Characteristics Age > 40 years Gender Male Education Matric and above Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Type of house Permanent Monthly income Rs. 10001-30000 N 100 2 100 2 100 100 50 50 50 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 Manual Computerized
236
Table 3.3 Building Approval

Delhi Characteristics Age 30-40 years > 40 years Gender Male Education Matric and above Occupation Businessman Dependant/Student Type of house Permanent Monthly income Rs. 10001-30000 > 30000 Rs. N 100 0 1 0 100 2 100 100 0 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 0 100 50 50 Manual Computerized
Table 3.4 Payments Property, Water and electricity

Delhi Characteristics Age < 30 years 30-40 years > 40 years Gender Male Female Education Matric and above Occupation Executive/Clerical Businessman Other Type of house Permanent Monthly income Rs. 10001-30000 > 30000 Rs. N 0 100 1 25 75 4 100 100 0 0 100 25 50 25 100 100 0 100 75 25 0 0 100 25 25 50 Manual Computerized
237
Table 3.5 Mutation

Mumbai Characteristics Age 30-40 years Gender Male Education Primary Middle Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Type of house Permanent Monthly income Rs. 2000-5000 > 30000 Rs. N 50 50 2 50 50 2 100 100 100 100 50 50 50 50 100 100 100 100 Manual Computerized
Table 3.6 Grievances

Mumbai Characteristics Age 30-40 years > 40 years Gender Male Education Middle Matric and above Occupation Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Type of house Permanent Monthly income Rs. 2000-5000 Rs. 5001-10000 Rs. 10001-30000 N 0 50 50 2 33.3 66.7 0 3 100 100 50 50 0 33.3 33.3 33.3 0 100 33.3 66.7 100 100 50 50 0 100 Manual Computerized
238
Table 3.7 Trades License New

Delhi Characteristics Age 30-40 years > 40 years Gender Male Education Primary Middle Matric and above Occupation Businessman Type of house Permanent Monthly income Rs. 5001-10000 Rs. 10001-30000 > 30000 Rs. N 14.3 71.4 14.3 7 14.3 71.4 14.3 7 100 100 100 100 14.3 14.3 71.4 14.3 14.3 71.4 100 100 57.1 42.9 57.1 42.9 Manual Computerized
Mumbai Characteristics Age < 30 years 30-40 years > 40 years Gender Male Education Middle Matric and above Occupation Executive/Clerical Businessman Type of house Permanent Monthly income 5001-10000 10001-30000 N 50 50 2 60 40 5 100 100 50 50 0 100 0 100 20 80 100 100 50 0 50 0 80 20 Manual Computerized
239
Hyderabad Characteristics Age < 30 years Gender Male Education Literate without education/Below primary Matric and above Occupation Businessman Type of house Semi-permanent Monthly income Rs. 10001-30000 N 100 1 100 1 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 Manual Computerized
Table 3.8 Trades License Renewal

Delhi Characteristics Age < 30 years > 40 years Gender Male Female Education Matric and above Occupation Executive/Clerical Businessman Other Type of house Permanent Monthly income Rs. 10001-30000 > 30000 Rs. N 75 25 4 75 25 4 100 100 25 50 25 25 50 25 100 100 75 25 75 25 25 75 25 75 Manual Computerized
240
Mumbai Characteristics Age < 30 years Gender Male Education Matric and above Occupation Businessman Type of house Permanent Monthly income Rs. 5001-10000 N 100 1 100 1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Manual Computerized
Hyderabad Characteristics Age < 30 years 30-40 years > 40 years Gender Male Education Primary Matric and above Occupation Businessman Type of house Permanent Semi-permanent Monthly income Rs. 10001-30000 > 30000 Rs. N 100 0 1 85.7 14.3 7 0 100 14.3 85.7 100 100 0 100 14.3 85.7 100 100 0 100 0 57.1 28.6 14.3 Manual Computerized
241
Table 4.1 : Prole of the respondents (Intermediary) (M)

MUMBAI Characteristics Age < 30 years 30-40 years > 40 years Gender Male Female Education Illiterate Literate without education/Below primary Primary Middle Matric and above Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Type of house Permanent Semi-permanent Temporary Monthly income < 2000 Rs. Rs.2000-5000 Rs. 5001-10000 Rs. 10001-30000 > 30000 Rs. N 2.1 19.1 42.6 25.5 10.6 47 2.4 19 38.1 33.3 7.1 42 93.6 4.3 2.1 100 0 0 10.6 21.3 23.4 29.8 14.9 19 16.7 19 19 26.2 2.1 0 8.5 12.8 76.6 4.8 2.4 4.8 11.9 76.2 91.5 8.5 78.6 21.4 10.6 17 72.3 16.7 23.8 59.5 Manual Computerized
242
Table 4.2 :Cost to client (Me ans and Standard Errors) (M)
Particulars Number of trips N S.E. Travel cost in each trip (in Rs.) N S.E. Waiting time (Minutes) N S.E. Service charge paid (Rs) N S.E. Total payment made (Rs)* N S.E. Total elapsed time in availing service (Days)* N S.E. 47 42 Manual 1.106 47 2.78e-17 7.894 47 3.33e-16 31.19 47 4.44e-16 10343.51 47 5.97e-13 10343.51 47 5.97e-13 Computerized 1.095 42 4.34e-18 8.762 42 4.16e-17 35.12 42 3.75e-16 20480.33 42 2.90e-12 20480.33 42 2.90e-12 2.30e-12 2.30e-12 10136.82 Yes Yes 8.19e-16 10136.82 Yes Yes 2.91e-16 3.93 Yes Yes 3.21e-17 0.868 Yes Yes Change -0.011 Signicant at 95% CL Yes Signicant at 99% CL Yes
Table 4.3: Service Quality Issues: Proportions (M)

Particulars Manual Overall service quality score (5-point scale) N S.E. * signicant at 95% CL ** signicant at 99% CL 4.043 47 5.55e-17 Traders License Renewal Computerized 3.929 42 2.78e-17 8.33e-17 Change (C-M) -0.114 Signicance *Yes **Yes
243
Table 4.4: Governance and Corruption Issues (M)

Particulars Manual Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) N S.E. Overall governance score (5-point scale) N S.E. 0 47 0 3.809 47 1.73e-17 Traders License Renewal Computerized 0 42 0 3.881 42 1.25e-16 1.42e-16 0.072 *Yes **Yes Change (C-M) NA Signicance
* signicant at 95% CL, ** signicant at 99% CL
Table 4.5: Role of Intermediaries (M)

Particulars Manual Proportion using an Intermediary (Percentage) N SE Service charge paid to Intermediary (Rs) N S.E. *signicant at 95% CL, ** signicant at 99% CL 47 42 dropped 47 42 Traders License Renewal Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance
Table 4.6 : Most Important Aributes of the services (M)

Sr. No. 11 16 15 2 20 5 Most Important Aributes of the service Design and layout of application form Corruption of working system Condentiality and privacy of data Clarity and simplicity of rules and procedures Eort in document preparation Accountability of ocers Frequency 14 14 12 11 10 9 Percent of responses 9.93 9.93 8.51 7.80 7.09 6.38 Percent of cases 29.79 29.79 25.53 23.40 21.28 19.15
244
Sr. No. 10 19 18 7 14 21 1 9 17 8 3 4 6 12 13
Most Important Aributes of the service Accuracy of transactions Time and eort in availing service Costs of availing service Convenience of working hours Security of data Communication by department on progress Adherence to the time frame Responsiveness of functionaries Dependence of intermediaries Management of queuing system Ease of access to data Ability to complain Location of service center Durability of certicates Legibility of print outs
Frequency 8 8 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 3 3 2 2 1
Percent of responses 5.67 5.67 4.96 4.26 4.26 4.26 3.55 3.55 3.55 2.84 2.13 2.13 1.42 1.42 0.71
Percent of cases 17.02 17.02 14.89 12.77 12.77 12.77 10.64 10.64 10.64 8.51 6.38 6.38 4.26 4.26 2.13
Hyderabad Characteristics Age < 30 years 30-40 years Gender Male Education Literate without education/Below primary Matric and above Occupation Businessman Type of house Semi-permanent Monthly income Rs. 10001-30000 N 100 2 100 2 100 100 100 100 50 50 50 50 100 100 50 50 50 50 Manual Computerized
245
ANNEXURE 4
Desegregated Analysis
Delhi
Table 1: Cost to client (Building Approval)
Total payment made Manual Mean 1669.5 159 3579.5 1536.3 0 0 0 0 1669.5 0 0 159 1329.5 3350 159 159 2339.8 3350 899.4 8 5210.5 19 2 4650 2 4 5221.7 23 1300 0 4311.1 ** 63.6 8 12 19 2 4940 5 4781 2881.9 2 0 -159 NC ** 4 5157.1 28 1807.1 2 4850 2 3520.5 ** 4 0 -159 NC 47.5 142.5 99.5 50 45 87 167.5 4 2 4 2 2 4 2 12 12 0 2 28 0 5 23 2 10 5136.7 30 3467.2 ** 87.3 10 12 30 6 5177.3 22 3641 ** 100.7 6 22 -100.7 0 0 0 0 -75.3 0 0 -47.5 -130.5 -99.5 -50 -45 -75 -167.5 0 -51.6 ** 27 NC NC NC ** NC NC 4 4 32 2 7 27 4 ** 40 2 4957.1 7 1377.6 84.5 2 12 7 -72.5 NC 2 5500 1 5341 NC 50 2 1 -50 NC 10 5136.7 30 3467.2 ** 87.3 10 12 30 -75.3 ** N Mean N Mean N Mean N 40 3 9 28 Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance N Total elapsed time in availing service
Purpose
Building Approval (N=#)
Age (in Years)
< 30 (N=#)
30-40 (N=#)
>40 (N=#)
Education
Illiterate (N=#)
Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#)
Primary (N=#)
Middle (N=#)
Matric & Above (N=#)
Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Delhi)
Income (in Rs.)
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
5001-10000 (N=#)
10,000-30000 (N=#)
>30000 (N=#)
Occupation
Cultivation/Labourer/Worker
Executive/Clerical
Businessman
Dependant/Student
Other
Respondents who picked Cost of availing service or Time and eort in availing service in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 4750 2 5009.1
Respondents who did not pick Cost of availing service or Time and eort in availing service in Overall Assessment section (N=#)
11
259.1
182
11
-182
NC
13
249
Table 2: Service quality improvement (Building Approval)

Purpose
Dierence in Overall quality of service score Manual Computerized Mean 4.3 4.0 4.4 4.3 Change (C-M) N 30 1 7 22 0.1 1.5 -0.1 -0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 10 4.3 30 0.1 0.0 0.0 -3.5 -0.5 -0.4 -4.5 1.9 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 ** Signicance
Building Approval (N=#) Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#) 30-40 (N=#) >40 (N=#) Education Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#) Middle (N=#) Matric & Above (N=#) Income ( in Rs.) <2000 (N=#) 2000-5000 (N=#) 5001-10000 (N=#) 10,000-30000 (N=#) >30000 (N=#) Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Respondents who picked Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#)
Mean 4.2 2.5 4.5 4.7
N 10 2 2 6
3.5 4.5 4.8 4.5 2.5 4.8 4.5
4 2 4 2 2 4 2
4.0 4.4
0 2 28 0 5 23 2
4.4 4.3 4.5
4.0
4.6
4.2
4.3
23
0.1
4.5
4.4
11
-0.1
4.1
4.3
19
0.2
250
Purpose
Dierence in Overall quality of service score Manual Mean N 2 Computerized Mean 4.3 N 7 -0.2 Change (C-M) Signicance
Respondents who picked Durability and/or legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick either Durability nor legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#)
4.5
4.1
4.3
23
0.2
4.0
4.2
0.2
4.2
4.4
25
0.2
5.0
5.0
4.2
10
4.3
28
0.1
251
252
Table 3: Governance and corruption (Building Approval)
Signicance N Mean 4.4 10 4.2 30 -0.2 40 N Mean N Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) ComputeChange Manual rized (C-M) ProporProportion N N tion 0.0 10 6.7 30 6.7 Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale) ComputeChange SigniManual rized (C-M) cance 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 9.1 22 9.1 4.3 6 4.2 22 -0.1 2 0.0 7 0.0 4.5 2 4.4 7 -0.1 2 0.0 1 0.0 4.5 2 4.0 1 -0.5 3 9 28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 6.7 30 6.7 4.4 10 4.2 30 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 7.1 28 7.1 2 0.0 2 0.0 4 0 0.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4 2 4 4.5 4.2 0 2 28 0.0 0.0 -4.5 0.5 -0.3 4 4 32 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 2 4 8.7 23 2 0.0 5 2 0 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.5 2 2 4 2 4.6 4.2 4.0 0 5 23 2 -4.5 0.1 -0.1 -0.5 0.0 0.0 2 7 27 4
Purpose
Age (in Years)
< 30 (N=#)
30-40 (N=#)
>40 (N=#)
Education
Illiterate (N=#)
Primary (N=#)
Middle (N=#)
Income (in Rs.)
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
5001-10000 (N=#)
10,000-30000 (N=#)
>30000 (N=#)
Occupation
Executive/Clerical
Businessman
Dependant/Student
Other
Respondents who picked Accountability of ocers in Overall Assessment section (N=#)
Proportion paying bribes (Percentage)
Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale)
Purpose Manual Manual N
Computerized N Proportion N Mean N Mean N 6.7 30 6.7 4.4 10 4.2 30 -0.2
Change (C-M)
Signicance
Computerized
Change (C-M)
Signicance
Proportion
0.0
10
40
Respondents who picked Ease of access to data pertaining to your records in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 0.0 1 0 0.0 4.0 1 0 -4.0 0.0 9 6.7 30 6.7 4.4 9 4.2 30 -0.2
Respondents who did not pick Ease of access to data pertaining to your records in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 0 0.0 1 0.0 0 4.0 1
39
Respondents who picked Corruption in the working of the system in Overall Assessment section (N=#)
4.0
Respondents who did not pick Corruption in the working of the system in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 0.0 10 6.9 29 6.9 4.4 10
4.2
29
-0.2
39
253
254
Table 1: Cost to client (Birth )
Total payment made Computerized N 43 0 26 17 2 0 0 6 35 0 2 7 23 11 1 18 8 2 14 7.9 12 5.5 2 12.5 2 2.9 2.5 -35.3 15.0 22 -7.4 20.0 2 15.0 5.0 3 -22.9 NC 15.1 20 -15.9 10.8 13 2.1 20 43 14 3 40 10 4 26 8.0 3 -0.5 5 20.0 1 20.0 NC 1 7.0 5.5 7.0 7.2 7.0 7.0 6.3 7.0 6.7 12.8 35 -14.3 70 6.7 12.0 3 -10.2 9 7.0 6 36 0 2 8 23 11 1 19 8 2 14 6.0 1 6.0 NC 1 0 10.0 1 10.0 NC 1 0 11.0 7.0 9.7 8.0 7.0 8.0 8.7 8.6 4.0 11.0 9.0 6.5 7.0 6.7 0.0 0 -8.0 NC 2 7.0 2 16.8 9 -21.0 26 7.2 17 8.2 9 0 1 1 3 35 1 3 13 20 3 2 22 2 2 12 12.1 26 -5.4 52 6.4 27 7.5 26 7.2 5 7.2 NC 5 0 11.8 5 11.8 1.1 1.0 -7.0 11.0 7.0 2.7 1.3 7.0 1.0 3.2 1.6 -3.2 4.0 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 NC ** ** NC NC NC NC 12.5 40 -13.0 83 6.8 44 8.2 40 1.4 NC Mean N N Mean N Mean N Change (C-M) cance Manual rized cance N 84 5 53 26 2 1 1 9 71 1 5 21 43 14 3 41 10 4 26 Change (C-M) SigniComputeSigniTotal elapsed time in availing service Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Delhi)
Delhi
Purpose
Manual
Mean
Birth Registration (N=#)
25.5
Age (in Years)
< 30 (N=#)
0.0
30-40 (N=#)
17.5
>40 (N=#)
37.8
Education
Illiterate (N=#)
8.0
0.0
Primary (N=#)
0.0
Middle (N=#)
22.2
27.1
Income (in Rs.)
<2000 (N=#)
0.0
2000-5000 (N=#)
8.5
5001-10000 (N=#)
8.7
10,000-30000 (N=#)
31.0
>30000 (N=#)
27.9
Occupation
5.0
Executive/Clerical
22.4
Businessman
9.6
Dependant/Student
3.0
Other
43.2
Purpose Computerized rized N Mean N N cance N Mean N N Mean Change (C-M) cance Manual Change (C-M) ComputeSigniSigni-
Total payment made
Total elapsed time in availing service
Manual
Mean
Respondents who picked Cost of availing service or Time and eort in availing service in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 8 16.5 11 -44 19 7.5 8 7.9 11 0.4 19
60.5
255
Table 2: Service quality improvement (Birth )

Purpose Manual Mean Birth Registration (N=#) Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#) 30-40 (N=#) >40 (N=#) Education Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#) Middle (N=#) Matric & Above (N=#) Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#) 2000-5000 (N=#) 5001-10000 (N=#) 10,000-30000 (N=#) >30000 (N=#) Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/ Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Respondents who picked Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 5.0 3.5 3.3 4.5 3.9 4.2 1 19 8 2 14 5 4.0 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.8 3.9 2 22 2 2 12 7 -1.0 0.3 0.2 -1.0 -0.1 -0.3 NC 3 41 10 4 26 12 5.0 3.8 3.6 3.5 0 2 8 23 11 4.0 2.7 3.9 3.9 3.3 1 3 13 20 3 4.0 -2.3 0.1 0.3 -0.2 NC ** 1 5 21 43 14 4.0 3.6 4.0 2 0 0 6 36 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7 0 1 1 3 35 -4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.1 NC NC NC 2 1 1 9 71 3.5 3.9 0 27 17 3.4 3.7 4.0 5 26 9 3.4 0.2 0.1 NC 5 53 26 3.7 N 44 Dierence in Overall quality of service score Computerized Mean 3.8 N 40 0.1 84 Change (C-M) Signicance N
3.6
39
3.7
33
0.1
72
3.4
10
4.0
0.6
**
18
256
Purpose Manual Mean Respondents who did not pick Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Durability and/or legibility of certicates/ printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick either Durability nor legibility of certicates/ printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#)
Dierence in Overall quality of service score Computerized N Mean N Change (C-M) Signicance N
3.7
34
3.7
32
0.0
66
3.3
3.7
16
0.4
25
3.7
35
3.8
24
0.1
59
4.1
4.0
-0.1
16
3.6
37
3.7
31
0.1
68
3.6
11
3.7
0.1
14
3.7
33
3.8
37
0.1
70
257
Table 3: Governance and corruption (Birth )

Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) Manual Proportion 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 4 40 11 33 2 42 2 8 19 1 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.6 11 0.0 23 5.0 8 0.0 13 20 3 2 22 2 2 12 3 37 6 34 1 39 2 0.0 3 0.0 1 36 2.9 35 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0v 2.7 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.6 6 0.0 3 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 2 0 0.0 17 0.0 9 0.0 27 3.8 26 3.8 0.0 5 0.0 5 53 26 2 1 1 9 71 1 5 21 43 14 3 41 10 4 26 7 77 17 67 3 81 44 2.5 40 2.5 84 N Proportion N Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance N
258
Purpose
Age (in Years)
< 30 (N=#)
30-40 (N=#)
>40 (N=#)
Education
Illiterate (N=#)
Primary (N=#)
Middle (N=#)
Income (in Rs.)
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
5001-10000 (N=#)
10,000-30000 (N=#)
>30000 (N=#)
Occupation
Executive/Clerical
Businessman
Dependant/Student
Other
Respondents who did not pick Accountability of ocers in Overall Assessment section (N=#)
Respondents who did not pick Ease of access to data pertaining to your records in Overall Assessment section (N=#)
Respondents who did not pick Corruption in the working of the system in Overall Assessment section (N=#)
Delhi
Table 1: Cost to client (Death)
Total payment made Manual Mean 22.7 5.0 31.4 8.3 3 17.9 7 9.6 10 48.0 3 70.9 7 7 10.0 3 -21.4 10 90.3 7 80.0 3 1 0.0 0 -5.0 NC 1 40.0 1 0 -40.0 -10.3 22.9 11 15.5 10 -7.2 21 74.2 11 73.6 10 -0.6 N Mean N Mean N Mean N 21 1 10 10 Computerized N Manual N Change (C-M) Signicance Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Total elapsed time in availing service
Purpose
Death Registration (N=#)
Age (in Years)
< 30 (N=#)
30-40 (N=#)
>40 (N=#)
Education 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 24.5 10 15.5 10 -9.0 20 76.0 1 0.0 0 -5.0 NC 1 56.0 1 10 73.6 0.0 0.0 0 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -56 -2.4 1 20
Illiterate (N=#)
Primary (N=#)
Middle (N=#)
Income (in Rs.) 0.0 5.0 5.0 29.2 21.7 3 6.7 3 -15.0 6 19.3 7 -9.9 1 0.0 0 -5.0 NC 1 13 6 1 0.0 0 -5.0 NC 1 0.0 0.0 56.0 40.0 69.3 101.3 1 1 6 3 58.3 109.3 0 0 7 3 0.0 -56.0 -40.0 -11.0 8.0 1 1 13 6
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
5001-10000 (N=#)
10,000-30000 (N=#)
>30000 (N=#)
Occupation 5.0 8.3 20.0 5.0 1 0.0 0 3 10.0 5 3 15.0 1 6.7 -10.0 -5.0 NC 1 15.0 2 10.0 ** ** 3 4 8 1 56.0 48.0 106.7 40.0 1 3 3 1 60.0 56.0 89.6 2 1 5 0 4.0 8.0 -17.1 -40.0 3 4 8 1
Executive/Clerical
Businessman
Dependant/Student
259
260
Total payment made Manual Mean 51.7 3 30.0 2 -21.7 5 85.3 3 56.0 2 -29.3 5 N Mean N Mean N Mean N Computerized N Manual N Change (C-M) Signicance Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Total elapsed time in availing service
0.0 0 10.0 1 10.0 NC 1 0 56.0 1
56.0 1
Purpose
Other
Respondents who picked Cost of availing service or Time and effort in availing service in Overall Assessment section (N=#)
Respondents who did not pick Cost of availing service or Time and effort in availing service in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 22.7 11 16.1 9 -6.6 20 74.2 11 75.6 9
1.4
20
Table 2: Service quality improvement (Death)

Purpose Manual Mean Death Registration (N=#) Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#) 30-40 (N=#) >40 (N=#) Education Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#) Middle (N=#) Matric & Above (N=#) Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#) 2000-5000 (N=#) 5001-10000 (N=#) 10,000-30000 (N=#) >30000 (N=#) Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Respondents who picked Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Durability and/or legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick either Durability nor legibility of certicates/ printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 5.0 4.0 3.3 3.0 3.3 3.3 1 3 3 1 3 3 4.5 3.0 4.5 3.0 3.6 2 1 5 0 2 1 -0.5 -1.0 0.3 -3.0 1.2 -0.3 ** 3 4 8 1 5 4 5.0 3.0 3.8 3.0 1 1 6 3 4.1 3.3 0 0 7 3 0.0 -5.0 -3.0 0.3 0.3 1 1 13 6 5.0 3.5 1 10 3.9 0 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 -5.0 0.4 1 20 3.0 3.6 4.0 1 7 3 3.7 4.0 0 3 7 -3.0 0.1 0.0 1 10 10 3.6 N 11 Dierence in Overall quality of service score Computerized Mean 3.9 N 10 0.3 21 Change (C-M) Signicance N
3.8
4.0
0.2
17
3.5
4.4
0.9
3.7
3.4
-0.3
14
3.5
3.5
0.0
3.7
4.0
0.3
17
261
Purpose Manual Mean Respondents who picked Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 3.8
Dierence in Overall quality of service score Computerized N 4 Mean 4.0 N 5 0.2 9 Change (C-M) Signicance N
3.6
3.8
0.2
12
3.3
4.0
0.7
**
3.8
3.9
0.1
17
262
Table 3: Governance and corruption (Death)
Purpose N N
Manual
Proportion 11 10.0 10 10.0 21 3.4 11 3.5 10 0.1 21
Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) Change SigniComputerized (C-M) cance N Proportion N
Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale) ComputeChange SigniManual (C-M) cance rized Mean N Mean N
0.0
Age (in Years) 1 7 3 0.0 7 0.0 10 4.3 3 3.4 7 -0.9 33.3 3 33.3 10 3.0 7 3.7 3 0.7 ** 0 0.0 1 3.0 1 0 -3.0 NC 1 10 10
< 30 (N=#)
0.0
30-40 (N=#)
0.0
>40 (N=#)
0.0
Education 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 10 10.0 10 10.0 20 3.2 10 0 0.0 1 5.0 1 3.5 0 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 -5.0 0.3 NC 1 20
Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#)
Middle (N=#)
0.0
0.0
Income (in Rs.) 0.0 1 1 6 3 33.3 3 33.3 6 0.0 7 0.0 13 0 0.0 1 3.0 3.2 3.3 0 0.0 1 5.0 1 1 6 3 3.7 3.0 0 0 7 3 0.0 -5.0 -3.0 0.5 -0.3 NC NC 1 1 13 6
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
0.0
5001-10000 (N=#)
0.0
10,000-30000 (N=#)
0.0
>30000 (N=#)
0.0
Occupation 1 3 3 1 3 0.0 0.0 2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 5 20.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 3 4 8 1 5 0 5.0 4.3 2.7 3.0 2.7 1 3 3 1 3 4.5 4.0 3.0 3.0 2 1 5 0 2 -1.0 -1.3 0.3 -3.0 1.8 0.0 NC ** ** 3 4 8 1 5 0
0.0
Executive/Clerical
0.0
Businessman
0.0
Dependant/Student
0.0
Other
0.0
0.0
263
264
Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) Computerized N Mean N Mean N Manual N N Proportion N Change (C-M) Signicance Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale) 0.0 11 10.0 10 10.0 21 3.4 11 3.5 10 0.1 21 0.0 4 0.0 1 0.0 5 3.5 4 3.0 1 -0.5 5 0.0 7 11.1 9 11.1 16 3.3 7 3.6 9 0.3 16 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 11 10.0 10 10.0 21 3.4 11 3.5 10 0.1 21
Purpose
Manual
Proportion
Respondents who picked Ease of access to data pertaining to your records in Overall Assessment section (N=#)
Respondents who did not pick Cost of availing service or Time and eort in availing service in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 35 11 29 -6.5 64
17.5
6.6
36
8.3
29
1.7
**
65
NDMC - Payment of utility bills Delhi

Table 1: Cost to client (Payment)
Total payment made Manual 918.7 744.1 933.0 1015.8 550.0 745.0 966.0 967.0 920.0 0.0 0 936.6 911.4 915.4 796.0 874.5 1803.3 702.1 716.4 597.6 976.6 277 50 81 56 578.9 810.2 546.9 880.2 40 1210.6 147 810.4 3 550.3 10 128 50 72 75 68 267 12 1102.4 31 222 802.9 215 -108.5 187.0 -245.7 -64.1 -592.7 -123.2 93.8 -50.7 -96.4 93 746.4 84 -190.2 544.4 5 544.4 NC ** 5 177 437 43 13 275 90 128 156 118 544 296 809.0 312 -111.0 608 20 647.7 11 -319.3 31 6 800.0 1 -166 7 1 1118.8 4 373.8 ** 5 4 1055.7 7 505.7 11 110 875.6 117 -140.2 227 144 911.9 116 -21.1 260 73 627.2 102 -116.9 175 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 812.6 -106.1 662 0.0 N Computerized N Change (C-M) Signicance N Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Total elapsed time in availing service
Purpose
Payment of utility bills
Age (in Years)
< 30 (N=#)
30-40 (N=#)
>40 (N=#)
Education
Illiterate (N=#)
Primary (N=#)
Middle (N=#)
Income (in Rs.)
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
5001-10000 (N=#)
10,000-30000 (N=#)
>30000 (N=#)
Occupation
Executive/Clerical
Businessman
Dependant/Student
Other
Respondents who picked Cost of availing service or Time and eort in availing service in Overall Assessment section (N=#)
265
Table 2: Service quality improvement (Payment)

Purpose Manual Payment of utility bills Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#) 30-40 (N=#) >40 (N=#) Education Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#) Middle (N=#) Matric & Above (N=#) Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#) 2000-5000 (N=#) 5001-10000 (N=#) 10,000-30000 (N=#) >30000 (N=#) Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Respondents who picked Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Durability and/or legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick either Durability nor legibility of certicates/ printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.5 3 147 40 56 81 34 2.9 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.9 10 128 50 72 75 70 -0.4 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 ** ** ** 13 275 90 128 156 104 3.4 3.4 3.5 0 93 222 12 4.0 3.5 3.6 4.0 5 84 215 31 0.0 4.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 ** NC 5 177 437 43 4.3 2.0 2.8 3.3 3.4 4 1 6 20 296 4.0 3.3 4.0 3.6 3.6 7 4 1 11 312 -0.3 1.3 1.2 0.3 0.2 ** ** ** 11 5 7 31 608 3.5 3.4 3.4 73 144 110 3.5 3.6 3.7 102 116 117 0.0 0.2 0.3 ** ** 175 260 227 3.4 Dierence in Overall quality of service score N Computerized 3.6 N Change (C-M) 0.2 Signicance ** N 662
3.4
293
3.5
265
0.1
558
3.4
27
3.3
36
-0.1
63
3.4
300
3.6
299
0.2
**
599
3.3
77
3.5
80
0.2
157
3.4
250
3.6
255
0.2
**
505
3.4
75
3.7
62
0.3
137
266
Purpose Manual Respondents who did not pick Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#)
Dierence in Overall quality of service score N Computerized 3.6 N Change (C-M) 0.2 Signicance ** N
3.4
252
273
525
3.5
37
3.5
73
0.0
110
3.4
290
3.6
262
0.2
**
552
267
268
Table 3: Governance and corruption (Payment)
Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) Manual 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 257 1.3 302 70 0.0 33 81 0.0 75 0.0 0.0 1.3 56 0.0 72 0.0 40 4.0 50 4.0 NC NC NC ** 147 1.6 128 1.6 3 0.0 10 0.0 NC 13 275 90 128 156 103 559 12 9.7 31 9.7 43 222 0.5 215 0.5 437 93 0.0 84 0.0 NC 177 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 0.0 5 0.0 NC 5 0 93 222 12 3 147 40 56 81 70 257 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 2.9 3.5 3.3 3.6 3.7 3.2 3.5 5 84 215 31 10 128 50 72 75 33 302 296 1.3 312 1.3 ** 608 3.3 296 20 0.0 11 0.0 NC 31 3.2 20 3.4 3.5 6 0.0 1 0.0 NC 7 3.3 6 4.0 1 0.0 4 0.0 NC 5 2.0 1 2.8 4 0.0 7 0.0 NC 11 3.5 4 4.1 7 4 1 11 312 110 1.7 117 1.7 227 3.3 110 3.5 117 144 0.9 116 0.9 260 3.3 144 3.5 116 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 4.0 0.1 0.2 0.9 -0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 -0.1 0.2 ** ** ** ** ** ** NC ** ** 73 1.0 102 1.0 175 3.3 73 3.5 102 0.2 ** ** 1.2 1.2 ** 662 3.3 3.5 0.2 ** N Computerized N N Manual N N Change (C-M) Signicance Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale)
Purpose
Age (in Years)
< 30 (N=#)
30-40 (N=#)
>40 (N=#)
Education
Illiterate (N=#)
Primary (N=#)
Middle (N=#)
Income (in Rs.)
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
5001-10000 (N=#)
10,000-30000 (N=#)
>30000 (N=#)
Occupation
Executive/Clerical
Businessman
Dependant/Student
Other
Purpose Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) Manual N Computerized N N Manual N N 0.0 69 0.0 NC 96 3.2 27 3.7 69 0.5 ** Change (C-M) Signicance Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale)
Respondents who picked Ease of access to data pertaining to your records in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 0.0 27 0.0 300 1.5 266 1.5 ** 566 3.3 300 3.5 266 0.2 **
Respondents who did not pick Ease of access to data pertaining to your records in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 0.0 12 0.0 14 0.0 NC 26 3.7 12 3.5 14 -0.2
Respondents who picked Corruption in the working of the system in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 0.0 315 1.2 321 1.2 636 3.3 315 3.5 321
0.2
**
269
270
Table 1: Cost to client (Utility Bill payments)
Manual 711.0 ### -222 ** 578 0.0 N cance ual N Total payment made ComputChange N erized (C-M) SigniManTotal elapsed time in availing service ComputChange SigniN N erized (C-M) cance 675.8 714.7 719.4 183 ### 81 -199.3 ** 264 150 ### 57 -288.8 ** 207 59 ### 48 -164.3 107 0.0 0.0 0.0 583.8 721.5 638.4 572.5 744.3 284 ### 139 -246 ** 423 28 ### 14 -138.6 42 29 ### 14 -323.9 ** 43 22 ### 7 -284.6 29 29 ### 12 95.9 41 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 543.0 601.2 612.4 755.1 1049 32 ### 9 179 ### 61 115 ### 72 -160.2 -272.3 -649.6 ** ** 64 ### 42 -31.2 2 ### 2 162.0 4 106 187 240 41 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Hyderabad)
GHMC
Purpose
Utility bill payments
Age (in Years)
< 30 (N=#)
30-40 (N=#)
>40 (N=#)
Education
Illiterate (N=#)
Literate without Education/ Below
Primary (N=#)
Primary (N=#)
Middle (N=#)
Income (in Rs.)
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
5001-10000 (N=#)
10,000-30000 (N=#)
>30000 (N=#)
Purpose Manual N erized (C-M) cance ual erized (C-M) cance N N N N ComputChange SigniManComputChange Signi-
Total payment made
Total elapsed time in availing service
Occupation 627.4 554.5 819.1 471.8 398.3 49 ### 33 -8.1 82 35 ### 25 43.8 60 266 ### 82 -285 ** 348 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 ### 25 -136.5 46 0.0 21 ### 21 -106.4 42 0.0
Executive/Clerical
Businessman
Dependant/Student
Other
Respondents who picked Cost of avail630.0 102 ### 34 -217.6 ** 136 0.0
ing service or Time and eort in availing
service in Overall Assessment section
(N=#)
Respondents who did not pick Cost 739.5 290 ### 152 -233.4 ** 442 0.0
of availing service or Time and eort in
Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Hyderabad)
availing service in Overall Assessment
section (N=#)
271
Table 2: Service quality improvement (Utility Bill payments)

Purpose Manual Utility bill payments Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#) 30-40 (N=#) >40 (N=#) Education Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#) Middle (N=#) Matric & Above (N=#) Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#) 2000-5000 (N=#) 5001-10000 (N=#) 10,000-30000 (N=#) >30000 (N=#) Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Respondents who picked Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Durability and/or legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick either Durability nor legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 2.9 3.2 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.9 3.5 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.6 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.9 59 150 183 29 22 29 28 284 2 64 115 179 32 21 21 266 35 49 58 334 Dierence in Overall quality of service score N Computerized 3.2 3.6 3.3 2.9 3.6 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.2 4.0 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.2 3.5 3.1 48 57 81 12 7 14 14 139 2 42 72 61 9 21 25 82 25 33 25 161 N Change (C-M) 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.2 Signicance ** ** ** N 578 107 207 264 41 29 43 42 423 4 106 187 240 41 42 46 348 60 82 83 495
** **
**
** ** **
** ** ** ** **
2.8
86
2.9
21
0.1
107
2.9
306
3.2
165
0.3
**
471
2.8
189
3.0
95
0.2
**
284
2.9
203
3.4
91
0.5
**
294
2.9
50
3.3
31
0.4
**
81
2.9
342
3.2
155
0.3
**
497
2.8
61
3.0
26
0.2
87
2.9
331
3.2
160
0.3
**
491
272
Table 3: Governance and corruption (Utility Bill payments)

Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) N 0.5 59 150 183 29 22 29 28 284 2 64 115 179 32 0.0 9 -31.3 ** 41 1.6 61 -30.2 ** 240 0.0 72 -8.7 ** 187 2.6 2.5 2.4 0.0 42 -1.6 106 2.9 0.0 2 0.0 NC 4 1.5 2 64 115 179 32 0.7 139 -21.5 ** 423 2.6 284 0.0 14 -28.6 ** 42 2.7 28 0.0 14 -13.8 ** 43 2.3 29 2.9 2.7 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.1 2.9 3.2 0.0 7 -9.1 29 2.8 22 3.0 7 14 14 139 2 42 72 61 9 0.0 12 -3.4 41 2.7 29 3.4 12 0.0 81 -18.0 ** 264 2.5 183 3.0 81 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.5 1.5 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.8 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 0.0 57 -26.7 ** 207 2.7 150 3.0 57 0.3 2.1 48 -6.4 107 2.6 59 3.3 48 0.7 ** ** ** ** -19.4 ** 578 2.6 3.1 0.5 Computerized N N Manual N N Change (C-M) Signicance Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale)
Purpose
Manual
Utility bill payments
19.9
Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#)
8.5
30-40 (N=#)
26.7
>40 (N=#)
18
Education
Illiterate (N=#)
3.4
Literate without Education/
Below Primary (N=#)
9.1
Primary (N=#)
13.8
Middle (N=#)
28.6
22.2
Income (in Rs.)
<2000 (N=#)
0.0
2000-5000 (N=#)
1.6
5001-10000 (N=#)
8.7
10,000-30000 (N=#)
31.8
>30000 (N=#)
31.3
Occupation 21 21 266 35 49 0.0 33 0.0 25 0. 0 -2. 0 1.2 82 -26.6 0.0 25 -14.3 ** NC 0.0 21 0.0 NC 42 46 348 60 82 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.5 21 21 266 35 49 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.2 21 25 82 25 33 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.7 ** ** **
0.0
Executive/Clerical
14.3
Businessman
27.8
Dependant/Student
0.0
Other
2.0
273
274
Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) N Computerized N N Manual N N Change (C-M) Signicance Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale) 38 0.0 7 -21.1 ** 45 2.7 38 2.9 7 0.2 354 0.6 179 -19.2 ** 533 2.6 354 3.1 179 0.5 ** 43 0.0 18 -20.9 ** 61 2.5 43 3.3 18 0.8 ** 349 0.6 168 -19.2 ** 517 2.6 349 3.0 168 0.4 ** 60 0.0 18 -31.7 ** 78 2.5 60 3.1 18 0.6 ** 332 0.6 168 -17.2 ** 500 2.6 332 3.1 168 0.5 ** Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Hyderabad)
Purpose
Manual
Respondents who picked Ac-
countability of ocers in Overall
21.1
Assessment section (N=#)
Respondents who did not pick
Accountability of ocers in Overall
19.8
Respondents who picked Ease
of access to data pertaining to your
records in Overall Assessment
20.9
section (N=#)
Ease of access to data pertaining to
your records in Overall Assess-
19.8
ment section (N=#)
Respondents who picked Corrup-
tion in the working of the system in
31.7
Overall Assessment section (N=#)
Corruption in the working of the
system in Overall Assessment
17.8
section (N=#)
GHMC
Table 1: Cost to client (New Traders license )
Total payment made N 18681.4 17953.2 251 9.2 9.9 0.7 Computerized N N Manual N N Change (C-M) Signicance Computerized Change (C-M) Total elapsed time in availing service Signicance
Purpose
Manual
New traders licenses
728.2
Age (in Years) 33 88 74 875 6 131.4 80 9.2 74 12.0 36568.2 28 35839.1 116 8.2 88 10.3 28 6 772.8 22 81.7 55 11.8 33 9.0 22 -2.8 2.1 2.8
< 30 (N=#)
691.1
30-40 (N=#)
729.1
>40 (N=#)
743.6
Education 10 10 17 11 147 20447.3 51 19683.4 198 750 2 187.6 13 5.3 8.7 500 1 -164.1 18 11.5 675 2 -152 12 15.3 10 17 11 147 0 -396 NC 10 10.4 10 6.5 10.0 14.5 9.9 0 2 1 2 51 -10.4 -8.8 -1.5 9.2 1.2
396
Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#)
827
664.1
Middle (N=#)
562.4
763.9
Income (in Rs.) 1.0 13 51 105 25 641.7 12 -286.7 892.6 39 121.2 ** 200729.8 5 200115.7 0 -483.8 NC 0 -186 NC 1 13 56 144 37 8.0 8.4 8.4 8.4 14.3 1 13 51 105 25 12.8 10.2 8.0 0 0 5 39 12 -8.0 -8.4 4.4 1.8 -6.3
<2000 (N=#)
186
2000-5000 (N=#)
483.8
5001-10000 (N=#)
614.1
10,000-30000 (N=#)
771.4
>30000 (N=#)
928.4
Occupation 8.0 11 1000 2 0 -379.4 598.2 NC 8 13 9.1 7.6 8 11 16.5 0 2 -9.1 8.9
379.4
Executive/Clerical
401.8
275
276
Total payment made N 145 15 16 0 -360.6 NC 16 11 16 0 -11 0 -390.1 NC 15 8.9 15 0 -8.9 19336.3 54 18488.6 199 Computerized N N Change (C-M) Signicance Total elapsed time in availing service ComChange SigniManual N puteN (C-M) cance rized 9.1 145 9.7 54 0.6 59 780.9 20 122.2 79 9.2 59 9.6 20 0.4 136 28626.2 36 27867.9 172 9.2 136 10.2 36 1.0 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Hyderabad)
Purpose
Manual
Businessman
847.7
Dependant/Student
390.1
Other
360.6
658.7
758.3
Table 2: Service quality improvement (New Traders license )

Purpose Manual New traders licenses Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#) 30-40 (N=#) >40 (N=#) Education Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#) Middle (N=#) Matric & Above (N=#) Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#) 2000-5000 (N=#) 5001-10000 (N=#) 10,000-30000 (N=#) >30000 (N=#) Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Respondents who picked Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 8 11 145 15 16 35 3.6 3.5 3.5 0 2 54 0 0 13 -3.0 0.6 0.5 -3.0 -2.9 0.7 ** NC NC ** NC 8 13 199 15 16 48 4.0 3.1 2.9 3.1 2.9 1 13 51 105 25 3.8 3.6 3.1 0 0 5 39 12 -4.0 -3.1 0.9 0.5 0.2 NC NC ** ** 1 13 56 144 37 3.0 3.1 2.8 2.9 3.0 10 10 17 11 147 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 0 2 1 2 51 -3.0 0.9 1.2 0.1 0.5 ** NC ** ** 10 12 18 13 198 3.2 3.0 2.9 33 88 74 3.4 3.6 3.8 22 28 6 0.2 0.6 0.9 ** ** 55 116 80 3.0 N Dierence in Overall quality of service score Computerized 3.5 N Change (C-M) 0.5 Signicance ** N 251
3.0
160
3.5
43
0.5
**
203
3.0
53
3.3
15
0.3
68
3.0
142
3.6
41
0.6
**
183
277
Purpose Manual Respondents who picked Durability and/or legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick either Durability nor legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Convenience of working hours of the centre/ oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) N
Dierence in Overall quality of service score Computerized N Change (C-M) Signicance N
3.0
85
3.7
25
0.7
**
110
3.0
110
3.4
31
0.4
**
141
3.1
24
3.3
0.2
33
3.0
171
3.6
47
0.6
**
218
2.8
31
3.6
0.8
**
39
3.0
164
3.5
48
0.5
**
212
278
Table 3: Governance and corruption (New Traders license )

Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) N 3.6 -20.5 ** 2.6 3.1 0.5 ** Computerized N N N N Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale)
Purpose
Manual
New traders licenses
24.1
Age (in Years) 33 88 74 0.0 6 -24.3 ** 80 2.5 74 3.5 6 3.6 28 -29.4 ** 116 2.7 88 3.0 28 4.5 22 4.5 55 2.3 33 3.0 22 0.7 0.3 1.0 ** **
< 30 (N=#)
0.0
30-40 (N=#)
33.0
>40 (N=#)
24.3
Education 10 10 17 11 147 3.9 51 -22.6 ** 198 0.0 2 -45.5 ** 13 2.9 2.6 0.0 1 -11.8 18 2.3 17 11 147 0.0 2 0.0 NC 12 2.5 10 0 -10 NC 10 2.6 10 3.0 2.0 3.5 3.1 0 2 1 2 51 -2.6 0.5 -0.3 0.6 0.5 ** NC ** **
Illiterate (N=#)
10.0
0.0
Primary (N=#)
11.8
Middle (N=#)
45.5
26.5
Income (in Rs.) 1 13 51 105 25 0.0 12 -24 5.1 39 -27.3 0.0 5 -13.7 0 0.0 NC ** ** ** 0 0.0 NC 1 13 56 144 37 2.0 3.0 2.6 2.6 2.3 1 13 51 105 25 3.4 3.2 2.5 0 0 5 39 12 -2.0 -3.0 0.8 0.6 0.2 NC NC ** **
<2000 (N=#)
0.0
2000-5000 (N=#)
0.0
5001-10000 (N=#)
13.7
10,000-30000 (N=#)
32.4
>30000 (N=#)
24.0
Occupation 8 0 0.0 NC 8 2.5 8 0 -2.5 NC
0.0
279
280
Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) N 11 145 15 16 18 0.0 3 -22.2 ** 21 2.7 18 2.7 3 0 0.0 NC 16 2.4 16 0 -2.4 0.0 0 0.0 NC 15 2.3 15 0 -2.3 3.7 54 -26.6 ** 199 2.6 145 3.0 54 0.4 ** NC NC 0.0 2 -27.3 13 2.5 11 4.0 2 1.5 ** Computerized N N N N Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale) 177 3.8 53 -20.5 ** 230 2.6 177 3.1 53 0.5 ** 18 0.0 6 -27.8 ** 24 2.5 18 3.3 6 0.8 ** 177 4.0 50 -19.7 ** ## 2.6 177 3.0 50 0.4 ** 31 0.0 8 -35.5 ** 39 2.7 31 2.6 8 -0.1 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Hyderabad) 164 4.2 48 -17.8 ** ## 2.6 164 3.1 48 0.5 **
Purpose
Manual
Executive/Clerical
27.3
Businessman
30.3
Dependant/Student
0.0
Other
0.0
22.2
24.3
27.8
23.7
35.5
22.0
GHMC Table 1: Cost to client (Death Registration)

Total payment made Computerized N Mean -246.0 ** 113 62.4 180 110.0 4 47.6 N Mean N 184 N 109 47.5 4 Mean N Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Total elapsed time in availing service Change SigniComput(C-M) cance erized N
Purpose
Manual
Mean
293.5
Age (in Years) 22 35 52 30.0 1 -246.7 ** 53 66.0 77 160.0 1 65.0 2 -236.0 ** 37 58.1 76 60.0 2 30.0 1 -291.5 ** 23 64.1 27 160.0 1 95.9 1.9 94.0 ** ** 28 78 78
< 30 (N=#)
321.5
30-40 (N=#)
301.0
>40 (N=#)
276.7
Education 14 1 16 5 73 30.0 2 -260.8 ** 75 55.7 0 -299.2 NC 5 53.6 100.0 1 -186.3 ** 17 92.4 18 10 131 108.0 0 -500.0 NC 1 49.6 5 64.0 30.0 1 -269.3 ** 15 92.6 16 160.0 1 0 1 0 2 67.4 -49.6 -28.4 -53.6 52.3 ** NC ** NC 17 5 19 10 133
Illiterate (N=#)
299.3
500.0
Primary (N=#)
286.3
Middle (N=#)
299.2
290.8
Income (in Rs.) 1 15 55 37 1 5 11 0 0 -289.0 -332.3 0 -300.0 0 -298.4 47.5 4 -236.9 ** NC NC NC NC 0 -321.7 NC 0 -186.0 NC 1 15 59 37 1 5 11 64.0 65.8 67.3 57.8 26.7 58.7 59.3 1 27 73 76 3 6 15 110.0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 -64.0 -65.8 42.7 -57.8 -26.7 -58.7 -59.3 NC NC NC NC NC NC 1 27 77 76 3 6 15
<2000 (N=#)
186.0
2000-5000 (N=#)
321.7
5001-10000 (N=#)
284.4
10,000-30000 (N=#)
298.4
>30000 (N=#)
300.0
Occupation
289.0
Executive/Clerical
332.3
281
282
Total payment made Total elapsed time in availing service Signicance N Mean -280.1 -329.5 -234.9 ** 27 82.9 28 110.0 4 27.1 NC 16 67.2 21 0 -67.2 NC NC 54 56.9 110 0 -56.9 NC 110 21 32 N Mean N N Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Computerized N 54 16 23 47.5 4 0 0 Mean N Change (C-M) 27 0 -311.5 NC 27 56.6 47 0 -56.6 NC 47 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Hyderabad) 82 47.5 4 -240.1 ** 86 64.4 133 110 4 45.6 137
Purpose
Manual
Mean
Businessman
280.1
Dependant/Student
329.5
Other
282.4
311.5
287.6
Table 2: Service quality improvement (Death Registration)

Dierence in Overall quality of service score Purpose Manual Mean Death Registration (N=#) Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#) 30-40 (N=#) >40 (N=#) Education Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#) Middle (N=#) Matric & Above (N=#) Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#) 2000-5000 (N=#) 5001-10000 (N=#) 10,000-30000 (N=#) >30000 (N=#) Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Respondents who picked Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Durability and/or legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 2.8 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 3.0 6 15 110 21 28 23 2.8 0 0 0 0 4 0 -2.8 -3.1 -3.0 -2.9 0.0 -3.0 NC NC NC NC NC 6 15 110 21 32 23 4.0 2.7 3.0 2.9 3.3 1 27 73 76 3 2.8 0 0 4 0 0 -4.0 -2.7 -0.2 -2.9 -3.3 NC NC NC NC 1 27 77 76 3 2.9 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.9 16 5 18 10 131 3.5 2.0 2.0 1 0 1 0 2 -0.9 -3.2 -1.0 -2.8 0.6 ** NC ** NC 17 5 19 10 133 2.9 3.1 2.9 27 76 77 4.0 2.5 2.0 1 2 1 1.1 -0.6 -0.9 ** ** 28 78 78 2.9 N 180 Computerized Mean 2.8 N 4 -0.1 184 Change (C-M) Signicance N
2.9
157
2.8
-0.1
161
2.9
45
4.0
1.1
**
46
3.0
135
2.3
-0.7
**
138
2.9
86
2.3
-0.6
89
283
Dierence in Overall quality of service score Purpose Manual Mean Respondents who did not pick either Durability nor legibility of certicates/ printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) N Computerized Mean N Change (C-M) Signicance N
3.0
94
4 .0
**
95
2.9
24
-2.9
NC
24
2.9
156
2.8
-0.1
160
2.8
33
3.5
0.7
35
3 .0
147
2 .0
-1
**
149
284
Table 3: Governance and corruption (Death Registration)

Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) Computerized N Mean -18.9 184 2.7 180 3.0 4 0.3 N Mean N 184 N N 180 0 4 Proportion N Change (C-M) Signicance
Purpose
Manual
Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale) ComChange SignifManputer(C-M) icance ual ized
Proportion 18.9
Age (in Years) 11.1 27.6 13.0 77 0 1 -13.0 78 2.5 77 2.0 1 76 0 2 -27.6 78 2.8 76 3.0 2 27 0 1 -11.1 28 2.5 27 4.0 1 1.5 0.2 -0.5 ** ** 28 78 78
< 30 (N=#)
30-40 (N=#)
>40 (N=#) Education 0.0 20.0 11.1 30.0 21.4 131 0 2 -21.4 133 10 0 -30.0 10 2.8 2.7 18 0 1 -11.1 19 2.3 5 0 -20.0 5 3.4 5 18 10 131 4.0 2.0 16 0 1 0.0 17 2.6 16 2.0
Illiterate (N=#)
1 0 1 0 2
-0.6 -3.4 -0.3 -2.8 1.3
** NC ** NC **
17 5 19 10 133
Primary (N=#)
Middle (N=#)
Income (in Rs.) 0.0 3.7 8.2 32.9 66.7 3 0 76 0 -32.9 -66.7 73 0 4 -8.2 27 0 -3.7 1 0 0.0 1 27 77 76 3 2.0 3.1 2.6 2.6 2.7 1 27 73 76 3 3.0 0 0 4 0 0 -2.0 -3.1 0.4 -2.6 -2.7 NC NC NC NC 1 27 77 76 3
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
5001-10000 (N=#)
10,000-30000 (N=#)
>30000 (N=#)
285
286
Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) Computerized N Mean N Mean N N N Proportion N Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale) ComChange SignifManputer(C-M) icance ual ized 0.0 20.0 27.3 0.0 3.6 11.8 17 0 -11.8 17 2.9 17 28 0 4 -3.6 32 2.7 28 3 4 0 21 0 0.0 21 2.4 21 0 110 0 -27.3 110 2.7 110 0 -2.7 -2.4 0.3 -2.9 NC 15 0 -20 15 2.3 15 0 -2.3 6 0 0.0 6 3.0 6 0 -3.0 NC NC NC NC 6 15 110 21 32 17 19.6 163 0 4 -19.6 167 2.6 163 3 4 0.4 167 13.6 22 0 -13.6 22 2.5 22 0 -2.5 NC 22 19.6 158 0 4 -19.6 162 2.7 158 3 4 0.3 162 33.3 24 0 1 -33.3 25 2.8 24 4 1 1.2 ** 25 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Hyderabad) 16.7 156 0 3 -16.7 159 2.6 156 2.7 3 0.1 159
Purpose
Manual
Proportion
Occupation
Executive/Clerical
Businessman
Dependant/Student
Other
GHMC

Total payment made Computerized N Mean 8248.7 6983.3 10958.9 7986 -787.5 -434.3 7146 22635.7 6851.5 0 20 25 24 2 24000 2 22200 ** 6010 10 5041.7 ** 0 -608.2 NC 0 -594.5 NC 20 25 34 4 6.8 10.4 11.8 11 20 25 24 2 2.4 4.7 0 0 10 2 ** 54 8.5 ** 8 19.3 7 44 ** 6 13.4 5 NC 7 5.6 7 2.8 5.6 2.5 NC 8 11 8 0 0 1 1 10 45 9.7 41 2.8 4 27 11 24 2.4 3 ** 11 6.7 6 3 5 -3.7 -8.6 -6.9 -11 -5.6 -10.6 -13.7 -6 0 -6.8 -10.4 -9.4 -6.3 NC NC ** 20 25 34 4 ** ** NC NC ** ** ** ** 83 9.9 71 2.8 12 -7.1 ** N Mean N 83 11 27 45 8 7 6 8 54 N 71 6 24 41 8 7 5 7 44 7710 10 23000 1 8000 1 0 0 8875 4 11533.3 3 7600 5 9008.3 12 Mean N Change (C-M) Significance Manual N Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Total elapsed time in availing service
Purpose
Manual
Mean
759.6
Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#)
616.7
30-40 (N=#)
574.4
>40 (N=#)
889
Education
Illiterate (N=#)
787.5
434.3
Primary (N=#)
854
Middle (N=#)
364.3
858.5
Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
594.5
5001-10000 (N=#)
608.2
10,000-30000 (N=#)
968.3
>30000 (N=#)
1800
Occupation 5 3 9600 6 0 -530 8928.3 NC ** 5 9 9.8 6 5 3 2.2 0 6 -9.8 -3.8 NC 5 9
530
Executive/Clerical
671.7
287
288
Total payment made Computerized N Mean 11948.4 3299.3 -313.8 NC 16 13.1 16 0 -13.1 NC ** 13 8 10 3.1 3 -4.9 40 9.3 37 3.5 3 -5.8 ** 40 13 16 N Mean N N N 37 10 16 0 3833.3 3 13000 3 Mean N Change (C-M) Significance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Total elapsed time in availing service 13 13750 4 13241.5 ** 17 10.6 13 2.4 4 -8.2 ** 17 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Hyderabad) 58 6637.5 8 5821.6 ** 66 9.7 58 3 8 -6.7 ** 66
Purpose
Manual
Mean
Businessman
1051.6
Dependant/Student
534
Other
313.8
508.5
815.9

Dierence in Overall quality of service score Purpose Manual Mean Building Approval (N=#) Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#) 30-40 (N=#) >40 (N=#) Education Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#) Middle (N=#) Matric & Above (N=#) Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#) 2000-5000 (N=#) 5001-10000 (N=#) 10,000-30000 (N=#) >30000 (N=#) Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Respondents who picked Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 2.8 2.3 2.9 2.5 2.7 2.7 5 3 37 10 16 3 4 3.2 3.3 3.7 0 6 3 3 0 2 -2.8 0.9 0.4 1.2 -2.7 1.3 ** NC ** NC 5 9 40 13 16 5 2.6 2.8 2.9 3 20 25 24 2 3.4 3 0 0 10 2 2.5 2.7 3 2.7 2.8 8 7 5 7 44 3 2 3.5 0 0 1 1 10 -2.5 -2.7 0 -0.7 0.7 0 -2.6 -2.8 0.5 0 NC NC 20 25 34 4 ** ** NC NC 8 7 6 8 54 3.2 3 2.6 6 24 41 3.6 3.7 2.8 5 3 4 0.4 0.7 0.2 11 27 45 2.8 N 71 Computerized Mean 3.3 N 12 0.5 ** 83 Change (C-M) Signicance N
2.8
68
3.2
10
0.4
78
2.8
11
3.3
0.5
15
2.8
60
3.4
0.6
**
68
289
Dierence in Overall quality of service score Purpose Manual Mean Respondents who picked Durability and/or legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick either Durability nor legibility of certicates/ printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 2.7 N 35 Computerized Mean 3.5 N 4 0.8 ** 39 Change (C-M) Signicance N
2.9
36
3.3
0.4
44
2.8
14
4.0
1.2
**
16
2.8
57
3.2
10
0.4
67
2.8
12
4.0
1.2
**
13
2.8
59
3.3
11
0.5
70
290

Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale) Signicance N N Mean 47.0 ** 83 2.5 71 2.9 12 0.4 N Mean N 83 Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Computerized N 71 58.3 12 Proportion N Change (C-M)
Purpose
Manual
Proportion
11.3
Age (in Years) 6 24 41 75.0 4 62.8 ** 45 2.4 41 2.8 4 33.3 3 25.0 27 2.6 24 3.0 3 0.4 0.4 60.0 5 43.3 11 3.2 6 3.0 5 -0.2 ** 11 27 45
< 30 (N=#)
16.7
30-40 (N=#)
8.3
>40 (N=#)
12.2
Education 8 7 5 7 44 0.0 20 25 24 2 50.0 2 0.0 60.0 10 35.0 0 -4.0 NC 0 0.0 NC 20 25 34 4 2.6 2.7 2.3 2.0 20 25 24 2 3.1 2.0 0 0 10 2 60.0 10 44.1 ** 54 2.5 0.0 1 0.0 NC 8 2.4 7 44 100.0 1 100.0 NC 6 2.2 5 0 -14.3 NC 7 2.9 7 4.0 1.0 3.0 0 0.0 NC 8 2.4 8 0 0 1 1 10 -2.4 -2.9 1.8 -1.4 0.5 0.0 -2.6 -2.7 0.8 0.0 NC NC ** 20 25 34 4 NC NC ** ** ** 8 7 6 8 54
Illiterate (N=#)
0.0
14.3
Primary (N=#)
0.0
Middle (N=#)
0.0
15.9
Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
0.0
5001-10000 (N=#)
4.0
10,000-30000 (N=#)
25
>30000 (N=#)
50
Occupation 5 3 37 33.3 3 66.7 6 0 0.0 66.7 11.7 NC ** 5 9 40 2.6 3.7 2.5 5 3 37 3.0 2.7 0 6 3 -2.6 -0.7 0.2 NC 5 9 40
0.0
Executive/Clerical
0.0
Businessman
21.6
291
292
Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) Computerized N Mean 66.7 0.0 NC 16 2.4 16 0 -2.4 NC ** 13 2.6 10 3.0 3 0.4 13 16 N Mean N N N 10 16 0 66.7 3 Proportion N Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale) 10 50.0 2 20.0 12 2.5 10 2.5 2 0.0 12 61 60.0 10 51.8 ** 71 2.5 61 3.0 10 0.5 ** 71 13 0 -15.4 NC 13 2.5 13 0 -2.5 NC 13 58 58.3 12 48.0 ** 70 2.5 58 2.9 12 0.4 70 9 50.0 2 38.9 11 2.1 9 3.0 2 0.9 ** 11 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Hyderabad) 62 60.0 10 48.7 ** 72 2.6 62 2.9 10 0.3 72
Purpose
Manual
Proportion
Dependant/Student
0.0
Other
0.0
30.0
8.2
15.4
10.3
11.1
11.3
GHMC
Table 1: Cost to client (Grievances)
Total payment made N 0.0 0.0 13 20 1 0.0 0 4 28 0.0 0.0 6 26 1 0.0 1 25 0.0 7 0.0 1 0.0 -707.6 NC ** 2 32 0.3 1.6 1 25 4.0 6.1 1 7 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 18 -516.9 ** NC 0.0 1 -808.3 ** 7 44 2 2.7 1.3 0.1 6 26 1 4.0 3.8 20.0 1 18 1 0.0 19 -503.2 ** 47 1.2 0 -900 NC 4 2.0 4 28 4.7 0.0 1 0.0 NC 1 0 4.0 1 0 19 0 -600 NC 1 8.0 1 0.0 18 -474 ** 38 1.5 20 4.8 18 0 0.0 2 -677.7 ** 15 1.6 13 3.0 2 0.0 1.4 3.3 -8.0 0.0 4.0 -2.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.5 19.9 0.0 3.7 4.5 NC ** NC NC NC ** ** ** NC -554.2 ** 53 1.5 4.7 3.2 Computerized N N N N Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance ** Total elapsed time in availing service
Purpose
Manual
Grievances Age (in Years)
554.2
< 30 (N=#)
30-40 (N=#)
677.7
>40 (N=#)
474.0
Education
Illiterate (N=#)
600.0
Primary (N=#)
Middle (N=#)
900.0
503.2
Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#) 2000-5000 (N=#)
5001-10000 (N=#)
808.3
10,000-30000 (N=#)
516.9
>30000 (N=#)
0.0
Occupation
Executive/Clerical
0.0
Businessman
707.6
293
294
Total payment made N 1 6 0.0 12 -100.0 18 1.4 6 3.8 12 2.4 0 0.0 NC 1 0.1 1 0 -0.1 NC Computerized N N N N Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Total elapsed time in availing service 16 0.0 8 -472.5 ** 24 1.4 16 3.4 8 2.0 ** Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Hyderabad) 17 0.0 12 -631.2 ** 29 1.6 17 5.5 12 3.9 **
Purpose
Manual
Dependant/Student
0.0
Other
100.0
472.5
631.2
Table 2: Service quality improvement (Grievances)

Purpose Manual Grievances Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#) 30-40 (N=#) >40 (N=#) Education Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#) Middle (N=#) Matric & Above (N=#) Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#) 2000-5000 (N=#) 5001-10000 (N=#) 10,000-30000 (N=#) >30000 (N=#) Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Respondents who picked Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 2.8 24 3.2 17 0.4 41 2.8 9 4.0 3 1.2 ** 12 2.7 29 3.5 13 0.8 ** 42 3.0 4 3.0 7 0.0 11 2.0 2.9 3.0 2.3 1 25 1 6 3.4 4.0 3.1 1 7 0 12 0.0 2.0 0.2 -3.0 1.1 NC ** NC 2 32 1 18 3.8 2.5 3.0 6 26 1 3.0 3.4 3 1 18 1 2.5 2.8 0 4 28 3.0 3.4 1 0 19 3.0 1 0 -3.0 0.0 3.0 -2.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 -0.8 0.9 0.0 NC NC ** 1 4 47 NC 1 2.8 Dierence in Overall quality of service score N Computerized 3.4 N Change (C-M) 0.6 0.0 -0.4 0.8 ** Signicance ** N 53
2.9 2.6
13 20
2.5 3.4
2 18
15 38
** ** NC
7 44 2
295
Purpose
Dierence in Overall quality of service score Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance
Manual Respondents who picked Durability and/or legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick either Durability nor legibility of certicates/ printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Convenience of working hours of the centre/ oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Convenience of working hours of the centre/ oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 2.8 2.5 2.8 2.8 3.2 2.3
16
3.6
1.3
**
24
17
3.2
12
0.0
29
3.3
0.5
29
3.4
17
0.6
**
46
3.0
0.5
**
27
3.4
18
0.6
**
45
296
Table 3: Governance and corruption (Grievances)

Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) N erized 0.0 -36.4 ** 53 2.6 3.5 0.9 (C-M) cance ual ized (C-M) ** ComputN SigniN N N Change ManComputerChange Significance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale)
Purpose
Manual
Grievances
36.4
Age (in Years) 0.0 13 20 0.0 18 -25 ** 38 2.5 20 3.6 0.0 2 -53.8 ** 15 2.7 13 3.0 2 18 0.0 0.3 1.1 **
< 30 (N=#)
30-40 (N=#)
53.8
>40 (N=#)
25.0
Education 1 0.0 0 4 28 0.0 19 -32.1 ** 47 0 -75.0 NC 4 3.3 2.5 0.0 1 0.0 NC 1 0 4 28 3.5 3.0 1 0 19 0 0.0 NC 1 3.0 1 0 -3.0 0 .0 3.0 -3.3 1.0 NC NC ** NC
Illiterate (N=#)
0.0
Below Primary (N=#)
Primary (N=#)
Middle (N=#)
75.0
32.1
Income (in Rs.) 0.0 0.0 6 26 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 NC 2 2.0 1 4.0 1 0.0 18 -38.5 0.0 1 -33.3 ** NC 7 44 2 3.8 2.3 2.0 6 26 1 3.0 3.5 4.0 1 18 1 0.0 0.0 -0.8 1.2 2.0 0.0 2.0 NC ** ** NC
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
5001-10000 (N=#)
33.3
10,000-30000 (N=#)
38.5
>30000 (N=#)
0.0
Occupation
Executive/Clerical
0.0
297
298
Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) Computerized 0 0 0 0 -50.0 NC 2 3.0 2 0 -3.0 12 0.0 NC 18 2.2 6 3.5 12 1.3 0.0 NC 1 2.0 1 0 -2.0 NC ** NC 7 -48.0 ** 32 2.8 25 3.4 7 0.6 ** N (C-M) cance ual ized (C-M) icance N N N Change SigniManComputerChange SignifDierence in overall governance score (5-point scale) N 25 1 6 2 31 0 20 -35.5 ** 51 2.6 31 3.5 20 0.9 ** 0 0 1 0.0 NC 1 0 4.0 1 4v NC 33 0 19 -36.4 ** 52 2.6 33 3.5 19 0.9 ** 7 0 3 -57.1 ** 10 2.3 7 3.3 3 1.0 ** 26 0 17 -30.8 ** 43 2.7 26 3.5 17 0.8 ** Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Hyderabad)
Purpose
Manual
Businessman
48
Dependant/Student
0.0
Other
0.0
Respondents who picked Ac-
countability of ocers in Overall
50.0
35.5
section (N=#)
your records in Overall Assess-
36.4
ment section (N=#)
57.1
system in Overall Assessment sec-
30.8
tion (N=#)
GHMC
Table 1: Cost to client (Birth)
Total payment made Computerized N 105 12 35 58 12 8 6 11 68 0 27 36 37 5 0 -155.0 NC 170.0 12 -32.7 49 5 165.0 10 -40.7 46 125.0 4 -158 ** 31 0 0.0 NC 0 8.0 7.6 9.6 7.3 10.6 178.4 19 -37.0 87 7.8 147 1 49 65 79 19 8.8 7.5 9.2 50.0 1 -164.2 ** 12 10.1 18 83.3 3 -103.4 9 11.7 10 8.3 7.0 8.7 150.0 1 -95.0 ** 9 9.2 17 8.0 175.0 2 -95.0 ** 14 8.8 21 9.0 2 1 3 2 20 0 4 11 13 0 172.5 4 -25.0 62 8.7 115 7.2 5 188.0 15 -46.6 50 7.8 66 7.8 15 0.0 -1.5 0.2 -1.2 -3.4 -3.1 0.9 -8.0 1.2 -2.1 1.9 -10.6 NC NC 97.1 7 -207.5 ** 19 8.5 32 10.6 8 2.1 161.2 26 -60.9 ** 131 8.4 213 8.5 28 0.1 Mean N Mean N Mean N 241 40 81 120 23 18 13 20 167 1 53 76 92 19 (C-M) cance N ual ized (C-M) cance Change SigniManComputerChange SigniN Total elapsed time in availing service
Purpose
Manual
Mean
222.1
Age (in Years)
< 30 (N=#)
304.6
30-40 (N=#)
234.6
>40 (N=#) Education
197.5
Illiterate (N=#)
270.0
Below Primary (N=#)
245.0
Primary (N=#)
186.7
Middle (N=#)
214.2
215.4
Income (in Rs.)
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
283.0
5001-10000 (N=#)
205.7
10,000-30000 (N=#)
202.7
>30000 (N=#)
155.0
Occupation 7 5 61 140.0 19 -82.2 20.0 1 -253.0 400.0 1 209.3 ** ** ** 8 6 80 9.1 4.9 8.2 16 13 134 3.0 7.0 8.6 2 1 19 -6.1 2.1 0.4 ** ** 18 14 153
Cultivation/Labourer/
Worker
190.7
Executive/Clerical
273.0
Businessman
222.2
299
300
Total payment made Computerized N 8 24 222.0 5 32.2 29 10.0 32 9.2 5 -0.8 0 -313.8 NC 8 8.8 18 15.0 1 6.2 ** 19 37 Mean N Mean N Mean N (C-M) cance N ual ized (C-M) cance N Change SigniManComputerChange SigniTotal elapsed time in availing service 30 300.0 2 102.3 32 8.0 48 5.0 2 -3.0 32 75 149.6 24 -82.3 ** 99 8.5 165 8.8 26 0.3 99 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Hyderabad)
Purpose
Manual
Mean
Dependant/Student
313.8
Other
189.8
Respondents who picked
Cost of availing service or
Time and eort in availing ser-
197.7
vice in Overall Assessment
section (N=#)
Respondents who did not
pick Cost of availing service
or Time and eort in availing
231.9
service in Overall Assess-
ment section (N=#)
Table 2: Service quality improvement (Birth)

Dierence in Overall quality of service score Manual Mean Birth Registration (N=#) Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#) 30-40 (N=#) >40 (N=#) Education Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#) Middle (N=#) Matric & Above (N=#) Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#) 2000-5000 (N=#) 5001-10000 (N=#) 10,000-30000 (N=#) >30000 (N=#) Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Respondents who picked Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 2.9 170 3.0 26 0.1 196 2.6 43 3.5 2 0.9 45 2.8 182 3.0 24 0.2 206 3.0 31 3.3 4 0.3 35 2.5 3.2 2.8 2.9 2.7 16 13 134 18 32 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.6 2 1 19 1 5 0.5 -0.2 0.1 0.1 0.9 ** ** 18 14 153 19 37 3.0 2.7 2.8 2.8 3.0 1 49 65 79 19 3.5 3.1 2.9 0 4 11 13 0 -3.0 0.8 0.3 0.1 -3.0 NC NC ** ** 1 53 76 92 19 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.8 21 17 10 18 147 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.0 2 1 3 2 20 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.8 0.2 23 18 13 20 167 3.2 2.9 2.7 32 66 115 3.3 2.9 3.2 8 15 5 0.1 0.0 0.5 ** 40 81 120 2.8 N 213 Computerized Mean 3.1 N 28 0.3 ** 241 Change (C-M) Signicance N
Purpose
301
Purpose Manual Mean Respondents who picked Durability and/or legibility of certicates/ printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick either Durability nor legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 2.9 176 2.7 37 2.8 184 2.8 29 2.9 105 2.8 108 N
Dierence in Overall quality of service score Change SigniComputerized (C-M) cance Mean N
3.0
21
0.2
129
3.4
0.5
**
112
4.0
1.2
**
31
3.0
26
0.2
210
2.7
0.0
43
3.2
22
0.3
**
198
302
Table 3: Governance and corruption (Birth)

Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) Computerized N Mean -13.8 ** 241 2.6 213 3.1 28 0.5 ** N Mean N 241 N N 213 3.6 28 Proportion N Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale)
Purpose
Manual
Proportion
17.4
Age (in Years) 32 66 115 21 17 10 18 147 1 49 65 79 19 0 -31.6 0.0 13 -29.1 ** NC 9.1 11 -1.7 0.0 4 -2.0 53 76 92 19 0 0.0 NC 1 1.0 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.6 5.0 20 -14.7 ** 167 2.6 0.0 2 -22.2 ** 20 2.7 18 147 1 49 65 79 19 3.3 3.3 2.9 0.0 3 -30.0 ** 13 2.3 10 0.0 1 -5.9 18 2.8 17 3.0 3.3 3.0 3.0 0.0 2 0.0 NC 23 2.7 21 3.5 2 1 3 2 20 0 4 11 13 0 0.0 5 -15.7 ** 120 2.6 115 2.6 5 6.7 15 -16.0 81 2.6 66 3.1 15 0.5 0.0 0.8 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.4 -1.0 0.4 0.6 0.4 -2.6 ** 0.0 8 -12.5 ** 40 2.9 32 3.5 8 0.6 ** 40 81 120 23 18 13 20 167 1 53 76 92 19
< 30 (N=#)
12.5
30-40 (N=#)
22.7
>40 (N=#)
15.7
Education
Illiterate (N=#)
0.0
Primary (N=#)
5.9
Primary (N=#)
30.0
Middle (N=#)
22.2
19.7
Income (in Rs.)
<2000 (N=#)
0.0
2000-5000 (N=#)
2.0
5001-10000 (N=#)
10.8
10,000-30000 (N=#)
29.1
>30000 (N=#)
31.6
Occupation 16 13 134 0.0 19 0.0 1 50.0 2 50.0 -7.7 -26.1 ** 18 14 153 2.7 2.8 2.6 16 13 134 2.0 4.0 3.2 2 1 19 -0.7 1.2 0.6 ** ** ** 18 14 153
0.0
Executive/Clerical
7.7
Businessman
26.1
303
304
Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) Computerized N N N 18 32 0.0 5 -3.1 37 2.6 32 3.0 5 0.4 0.0 1 0.0 NC 19 2.8 18 4.0 1 1.2 ** Proportion N Mean N Mean N 19 37 Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale) 24 0.0 2 -20.8 ** 26 2.8 24 3.0 2 0.2 26 189 3.8 26 -13.1 ** 215 2.6 189 3.1 26 0.5 ** 215 23 0.0 5 -17.4 ** 28 2.7 23 3.0 5 0.3 28 190 4.3 23 -13.1 ** 213 2.6 190 3.1 23 0.5 ** 213 35 0.0 1 -22.9 ** 36 2.4 35 2.0 1 -0.4 ** 36 178 3.7 27 -12.6 ** 205 2.7 178 3.1 27 0.4 ** 205 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Hyderabad)
Purpose
Manual
Proportion
Dependant/Student
0.0
Other
3.1
Respondents who picked Account-
ability of ocers in Overall Assess-
20.8
ment section (N=#)
16.9
records in Overall Assessment sec-
17.4
tion (N=#)
your records in Overall Assessment
17.4
section (N=#)
22.9
16.3
tion (N=#)
KMC
Table 1: Cost to client (Birth)
Total payment made Computerized N 20 79.1 31 26.6 51 1.3 75 2.7 84 1.4 Mean N Mean N Mean N 159 (C-M) cance N ized (C-M) icance Manual Change SigniComputerChange SignifN Total elapsed time in availing service
Purpose
Manual
Mean
52.5
Age (in Years) 3 11 6 87.3 7 43.1 13 0.9 33 3.5 72.5 17 16.6 28 1.1 28 2.4 39 17 87.1 7 30.4 10 2.5 14 2.6 28 0.1 1.3 2.6 42 67 50
< 30 (N=#)
56.7
30-40 (N=#)
55.9
>40 (N=#)
44.2
Education 0 1 1 6 12 79.4 14 26.5 26 94.6 11 50.4 ** 17 0.8 1.8 75.0 2 -25.0 3 0.5 37.5 4 -12.5 5 0.8 9 10 17 37 0.0 0 0.0 NC 0 0.1 2 1.0 1.8 7.4 2.7 2.4 2 8 5 30 39 0.9 1.0 6.9 1.9 0.6 NC ** 4 17 15 47 76
Illiterate (N=#)
0.0
Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Kolkata)
Below Primary (N=#)
50.0
Primary (N=#)
100.0
Middle (N=#)
44.2
52.9
Income (in Rs.) 2 11 5 2 0 75.0 2 90.0 3 82.5 75.0 96.2 6 -28.8 ** NC 72.8 18 41.0 ** 72.5 2 42.5 4 29 11 5 2 0.4 1.3 1.5 1.0 6 42 18 9 0 6.0 3.0 1.6 2.0 1.2 6 48 16 9 5 5.6 1.7 0.1 1.0 1.2 NC 12 90 34 18 5
<2000 (N=#)
30.0
2000-5000 (N=#)
31.8
5001-10000 (N=#)
125
10,000-30000 (N=#)
7.5
>30000 (N=#)
0.0
305
306
Total payment made Computerized N Mean N Mean N Mean N (C-M) cance N ized (C-M) icance Manual N Change SigniComputerChange SignifTotal elapsed time in availing service 1 0 11 0 8 77.9 17 47.9 ** 25 1.7 39 2.6 47 0 0.0 NC 0 0.1 6 5.0 3 4.9 0.9 79.8 11 10.7 22 1.1 27 2.9 28 1.8 ** 83.3 3 83.3 NC 3 0.1 1 1.6 5 1.5 ** -50.0 NC 1 0.1 2 1.0 1 0.9 NC 3 6 55 9 86 1 68.0 2 43.0 3 5.5 6 3.0 4 -2.5 10 19 79.9 29 26.0 48 0.9 69 2.7 80 1.8 ** 149 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Kolkata)
Purpose
Manual
Mean
Occupation
50.0
Executive/Clerical
Businessman
69.1
Dependant/Student
Other
30.0
Respondents who picked Cost of
availing service or Time and eort
in availing service in Overall As-
25.0
sessment section (N=#)
Cost of availing service or Time and
eort in availing service in Overall
53.9
Table 2: Service quality improvement (Birth)

Dierence in Overall quality of service score Purpose Manual Mean Birth Registration (N=#) Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#) 30-40 (N=#) >40 (N=#) Education Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#) Middle (N=#) Matric & Above (N=#) Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#) 2000-5000 (N=#) 5001-10000 (N=#) 10,000-30000 (N=#) >30000 (N=#) Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Respondents who picked Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 3.0 1 3.5 13 0.5 ** 14 3.6 73 3.6 80 0.0 153 4.0 2 3.0 4 -1.0 ** 6 4.0 3.0 3.6 2.8 3.7 2 1 27 6 39 3.0 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.6 1 5 28 3 47 -1.0 0.4 -0.1 1.2 -0.1 ** NC 3 6 55 9 86 3.7 3.8 3.3 3.2 6 42 18 9 0 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.6 3.8 6 48 16 9 5 0.1 -0.3 0.0 0.4 3.8 NC ** 12 90 34 18 5 4.0 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.5 2 9 10 17 37 3.5 3.6 3.8 3.5 3.5 2 8 5 30 39 -0.5 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.0 4 17 15 47 76 3.9 3.7 3.4 14 28 33 3.6 3.5 3.5 28 39 17 -0.3 -0.2 0.1 42 67 50 3.6 N 75 Computerized Mean 3.5 N 84 -0.1 159 Change (C-M) Signicance N
307
Dierence in Overall quality of service score Purpose Manual Mean Respondents who did not pick Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Durability and/or legibility of certicates/ printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick either Durability nor legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 3.6 59 3.5 57 -0.1 116 3.6 16 3.6 27 0.0 43 3.6 72 3.5 75 -0.1 147 3.3 3 3.7 9 0.4 12 3.5 50 3.5 82 0.0 132 3.8 25 4 2 0.2 ** 27 3.6 74 3.5 71 -0.1 145 N Computerized Mean N Change (C-M) Signicance N
308
Table 3: Governance and corruption (Birth)

Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) Computerized N Mean 0.9 159 3.4 75 3.4 84 0.0 N Mean N 159 Manual N 75 3.6 84 Proportion N Change (C-M) Signicance Computerized Change (C-M) Significance N Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale)
Purpose
Manual
Proportion 2.7
Age (in Years) 0.0 7.1 0.0 33 0.0 17 0.0 50 3.2 33 3.5 28 7.7 39 0.6 67 3.5 28 3.3 39 17 14 0.0 28 0.0 42 3.5 14 3.5 28 0.0 -0.2 0.3 42 67 50
< 30 (N=#)
30-40 (N=#)
>40 (N=#)
Education 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 37 2.6 39 -2.8 76 17 3.3 30 3.3 47 10 0.0 5 0.0 15 3.5 3.2 3.3 9 12.5 8 12.5 17 3.8 9 10 17 37 2 0.0 2 0.0 4 3.5 2 3.0 3.5 3.8 3.4 3.4 2 8 5 30 39 -0.5 -0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 4 17 15 47 76
Illiterate (N=#)
Literate without Education/ Be-
low Primary (N=#)
Primary (N=#)
Middle (N=#)
Income (in Rs.) 0.0 2.4 5.6 0.0 0 0.0 5 9 0.0 9 0.0 0.0 18 0.0 16 -5.6 42 6.3 48 3.9 6 0.0 6 0.0 12 90 34 18 5 3.7 3.5 3.1 3.0 6 42 18 9 0 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.6 3.8 6 48 16 9 5 0.0 -0.1 0.2 0.6 3.8 12 90 34 18 5
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
5001-10000 (N=#)
10,000-30000 (N=#)
>30000 (N=#)
Occupation 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 2 0.0 1 5 0.0 0.0 3 6 3.5 3.0 2 1 3.0 3.4 1 5 -0.5 0.4 3 6
Executive/Clerical
309
310
Dierence in overall governance score Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) (5-point scale) Computerized N 27 6 39 3.5 47 0.0 4.0 3 1.2 3.3 28 0.0 ** Mean N 55 9 86 (C-M) icance N Change SignifComputerized N 27 6 39 2.1 47 2.1 86 3.5 0.0 3 0.0 9 2.8 7.1 28 -0.3 55 3.3 Proportion N Mean (C-M) cance N Manual Change Signi7.4 0.0 0.0 8.0 25 5.4 37 -2.6 62 3.2 25 3.2 37 0.0 62 0.0 50 2.1 47 2.1 97 3.5 50 3.6 47 0.1 97 0.0 5 0.0 4 0.0 9 2.8 5 3.3 4 0.5 9 2.9 70 3.8 80 0.9 150 3.4 70 3.4 80 0.0 150 0.0 39 7.7 39 7.7 78 3.3 39 3.3 39 0.0 78 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Kolkata) 5.6 36 0.0 45 -5.6 81 3.4 36 3.5 45 0.1 81
Purpose
Manual
Proportion
Businessman
Dependant/Student
Other
Respondents who picked Account-
ability of ocers in Overall Assess-
ment section (N=#)
records in Overall Assessment sec-
tion (N=#)
section (N=#)
tion (N=#)
KMC Table 1: Cost to client (Death)

Total payment made Computerized N Mean 35.7 ** 37 9.2 75 9.9 66 0.7 N Mean N 141 Manual N 17 81.3 20 Mean N Change (C-M) Signicance Computerized Change (C-M) Significance N Total elapsed time in availing service
Purpose
Manual
Mean
45.6
Age (in Years) 3 8 6 50.0 7 17.5 13 10.9 43 2.2 21 102.8 9 45.9 17 9.4 22 14.0 30 87.8 4 46.1 7 0.9 10 12.3 15 11.4 4.6 -8.7 25 52 64
< 30 (N=#)
41.7
30-40 (N=#)
56.9
>40 (N=#)
32.5
Education 1 2 1 3 10 70.5 11 28.5 21 86.8 6 55.1 ** 9 15.2 5.2 0 -40 NC 1 23.6 7 20 35 40.0 2 5.0 4 2.4 10 250.0 1 100.0 NC 2 4.0 3 1.4 2.5 1.3 17.0 9.9 5 6 4 17 34 -2.6 0.1 -22.3 1.8 4.7 8 16 11 37 69
Illiterate (N=#)
150.0
Below Primary (N=#)
35.0
Primary (N=#)
40
Middle (N=#)
31.7
42.0
Income (in Rs.) 2 10 2 1 2 0 -10.0 50.0 1 25.0 160.0 1 142.5 ** NC NC 71.5 17 11.0 200.0 1 155.0 ** 3 27 3 2 2 23.6 2.3 7.4 64.5 9.5 7 42 20 4 2 37.9 5.5 5.0 1.0 1.0 10 45 4 6 1 14.3 3.2 -2.4 -63.5 -8.5 NC NC 17 87 24 10 3
<2000 (N=#)
45.0
2000-5000 (N=#)
60.5
5001-10000 (N=#)
17.5
10,000-30000 (N=#)
25.0
>30000 (N=#)
10.0
Occupation 0 0 0.0 NC 0 0 2.0 1 2.0 ** 1
311
312
Total payment made Computerized N Mean 55.0 32.8 15.0 37.6 13 2.8 27 12.4 25 9.6 5 3.0 15 1.0 6 -2.0 ** 14 15.8 25 2.5 21 -13.3 5 21.6 8 21.8 13 0.2 ** 21 46 21 52 N Mean N Manual N N 1 7 3 6 105.9 7 50.0 2 66.4 7 80.0 4 Mean N Change (C-M) Signicance Computerized Change (C-M) Significance Total elapsed time in availing service 1 43.0 5 -7.0 6 2.8 9 14.9 10 12.1 19 16 94.1 15 48.8 ** 31 10.0 66 9 56 -1.0 122 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Kolkata)
Purpose
Manual
Mean
Executive/Clerical
25.0
Businessman
33.6
Dependant/Student
35.0
Other
68.3
Cost of availing service or Time
and eort in availing service in
50.0
(N=#)
45.3
service in Overall Assessment
section (N=#)
Table 2: Service quality improvement (Death)

Purpose Manual Mean Death Registration (N=#) Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#) 30-40 (N=#) >40 (N=#) Education Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#) Middle (N=#) Matric & Above (N=#) Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#) 2000-5000 (N=#) 5001-10000 (N=#) 10,000-30000 (N=#) >30000 (N=#) Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Respondents who picked Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 2.4 9 3.5 17 1.1 ** 26 3.4 68 3.6 64 0.2 132 3.7 7 3.0 2 -0.7 ** 9 3.0 3.5 3.3 3.7 0 8 25 15 27 3.0 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.5 1 13 21 6 25 3.0 0.7 0.1 0.4 -0.2 1 21 46 21 52 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.3 4.0 7 42 20 4 2 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.3 4.0 10 45 4 6 1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 17 87 24 10 3 3.0 3.7 3.1 3.4 3.5 3 10 7 20 35 3.4 3.7 4.0 3.4 3.6 5 6 4 17 34 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.1 8 16 11 37 69 3.2 3.5 3.5 10 22 43 3.3 3.7 3.7 15 30 21 0.1 0.2 0.2 25 52 64 3.5 N 75 Dierence in Overall quality of service score Change Signicance Computerized (C-M) Mean 3.6 N 66 0.1 141
313
Dierence in Overall quality of service score Purpose Manual Mean Respondents who did not pick Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Durability and/or legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick either Durability nor legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 3.5 58 3.7 45 0.2 103 3.4 17 3.4 21 0.0 38 3.5 73 3.6 64 0.1 137 3.0 2 4.5 2 1.5 4 3.4 50 3.6 63 0.2 113 3.6 25 3.7 3 0.1 28 3.6 66 3.6 49 0.0 115 N Computerized Mean N Change (C-M) Signicance N
314
Table 3: Governance and corruption (Death)

Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) Computerized N N Proportion N Mean N Mean N Change (C-M) Significance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Significance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale)
Purpose
Manual
Proportion 1.3 75 3.0 66 1.7 141 3.3 75 3.5 66 0.2
Age (in Years) 0.0 0.0 2.3 43 0.0 21 -2.3 64 3.3 43 22 6.7 30 6.7 52 3.4 22 3.5 3.6 10 0.0 15 0.0 25 3.2 10 3.3 15 30 21 0.1 0.1 0.3 **
< 30 (N=#)
30-40 (N=#)
>40 (N=#)
Education 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 35 2.9 34 0.0 20 0.0 17 0.0 7 0.0 4 0.0 11 37 69 10 16.7 6 16.7 16 3.5 2.9 3.3 3.4 3 0.0 5 0.0 8 3.3 3 10 7 20 35 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.5 5 6 4 17 34 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.1
Illiterate (N=#)
Primary (N=#)
Primary (N=#)
Middle (N=#)
Income (in Rs.) 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 4 0.0 6 1 20 0.0 4 42 2.2 45 7 10v 10 10.0 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 87 24 10 3 3.7 3.3 3.2 3.0 4.0 7 42 20 4 2 3.6 3.5 3.8 3.3 3.0 10 45 4 6 1 -0.1 0.2 0.6 0.3 -1.0 NC
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
5001-10000 (N=#)
10,000-30000 (N=#)
>30000 (N=#)
315
316
Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) Computerized N Mean N Mean N N Proportion N Change (C-M) Significance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Significance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale) 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 27 0.0 25 -3.7 52 3.5 27 3.5 15 0.0 6 0.0 21 3.2 15 3.7 25 4.8 21 4.8 46 3.4 25 3.4 21 6 25 8 7.7 13 7.7 21 2.9 8 3.5 13 0.6 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1 0 3.0 1 3.0 NC 2.9 34 5.0 20 2.1 54 3.1 34 3.5 20 0.4 ** 0.0 41 2.2 46 2.2 87 3.5 41 3.5 46 0.0 0.0 2 20.0 5 20.0 7 3.5 2 3.2 5 -0.3 1.4 73 1.6 61 0.2 134 3.3 73 3.5 61 0.2 3.4 29 3.4 29 0.0 58 3.2 29 3.5 29 0.3 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Kolkata) 0.0 46 2.7 37 2.7 83 3.4 46 3.5 37 0.1
Purpose
Manual
Proportion
Occupation
Executive/Clerical
Businessman
Dependant/Student
Other
KMC
Total payment made Computerized N Mean 2712.5 ** 20 18.5 10 6 10 -12.5 N Mean N ** 20 N 10 4190 10 Mean N Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Total elapsed time in availing service N
Purpose
Manual
Mean
1477.5
Age (in Years) 0 3 7 3800 5 1975 12 17.4 7 4.8 4233.3 3 3566.6 ** 6 21 3 6.9 5100 2 5100 NC 2 0 7.5 2 3 5 7.5 -14.1 -12.6 ** NC 2 6 12
< 30 (N=#)
30-40 (N=#)
666.7
>40 (N=#)
1825
Education 0 0 0 2 8 4414.3 7 2904.9 3666.7 3 2316.7 ** 5 15 25 16.9 2 8 3.5 7 3 7 0 0 0 -21.5 -9.9 ** 5 15
Illiterate (N=#)
Below Primary (N=#)
Primary (N=#)
Middle (N=#)
1350
1509.4
Income (in Rs.) 0 4 6 4816.7 2500 2 6 131.2 3933.4 ** 6 12 17.3 19.3 4 6 2.5 6.6 2 6 0 -14.8 -12.7 ** 6 12
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
2368.8
5001-10000 (N=#)
883.3
317
318
Total payment made Computerized N Mean 4000.0 0.0 0.0 NC 2 0 7.5 2 7.5 NC N Mean N 2 N N 0 4000.0 2 Mean N Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Total elapsed time in availing service 0.0 2 4 1 3 3240.0 5 1906.7 ** 8 22.7 3 0 -700.0 NC 1 25.0 1 5.9 5625.0 4 4256.2 ** 8 21.3 4 5.7 3200.0 1 900.0 3 3.5 2 7.5 1 4 0 5 0.0 4.0 -15.6 -25.0 -16.8 ** ** NC 3 8 1 8 2 2440.0 5 -560.0 7 14.5 2 4.5 5 -10.0 7 8 5940.0 5 4843.1 ** 13 19.5 8 7.4 5 -12.1 ** 13 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Kolkata)
Purpose
Manual
Mean
10,000-30000 (N=#)
>30000 (N=#)
Occupation
Executive/Clerical
2300.0
Businessman
1368.8
Dependant/Student
700.0
Other
1333.3
Respondents who picked Cost
of availing service or Time and ef-
fort in availing service in Overall
3000.0
1096.9
(N=#)

Purpose Manual Mean Building Approval (N=#) Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#) 30-40 (N=#) >40 (N=#) Education Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#) Middle (N=#) Matric & Above (N=#) Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#) 2000-5000 (N=#) 5001-10000 (N=#) 10,000-30000 (N=#) >30000 (N=#) Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Respondents who picked Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 2.0 2 2.0 1 0.0 ** 3 2.8 10 2.6 8 -0.2 18 0 3.5 2 3.5 ** 2 2.0 2.8 4.0 3.0 2 4 1 3 3.0 3.0 2.5 1 4 0 5 0.0 1.0 -0.3 -4 0.0 3 8 1 8 2.0 3.3 4 6 0 3.5 2.7 2.5 2 6 2 0.0 1.5 -0.6 2.5 0.0 ** ** 6 12 2 4.0 2.5 2 8 3.0 2.7 3 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.0 0.2 5 15 3.0 2.7 0 3 7 2.5 2.7 3.0 2 3 5 2.5 -0.3 0.3 2 6 12 2.8 N 10 Dierence in Overall quality of service score Computerized Mean 2.8 N 10 0.0 20 Change (C-M) Signicance N
319
Purpose Manual Mean Respondents who did not pick Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Durability and/or legibility of certicates/ printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick either Durability nor legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 2.8 8 3.0 2 2.8 10 2.8 10 3.0 8 N
Dierence in Overall quality of service score Computerized Mean N Change (C-M) Signicance N
2.9
-0.1
17
0.0
2.8
10
0.0
20
0.0
2.8
10
0.0
20
2.0
-1.0
3.1
0.3
15
320

Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) Computerized N N 10 50.0 10 20.0 20 2.8 10 2.7 10 -0.1 Proportion N Mean N Mean N 20 Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance N Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale)
Purpose
Manual
Proportion
30
Age (in Years) 0 3 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 8 0.0 4 6 0 0.0 50.0 2 50.0 33.3 6 16.6 100.0 2 50.0 6 12 2 2.0 3.3 4 6 0 3.5 2.5 2.5 2 6 2 28.6 7 3.6 15 2.5 100.0 3 50.0 5 4.0 2 8 2.7 2.7 3 7 60.0 5 17.1 12 2.7 7 3.0 33.3 3 33.3 6 3.0 3 2.3 3 5 50.0 2 50.0 2 0 2.5 2 2.5 -0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.3 0.2 0.0 1.5 -0.8 2.5 0.0 6 12 2 5 15 2 6 12
< 30 (N=#)
30-40 (N=#)
0.0
>40 (N=#)
42.9
Education
Illiterate (N=#)
Primary (N=#)
Middle (N=#)
50.0
25.0
Income (in Rs.)
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
50.0
5001-10000 (N=#)
16.7
10,000-30000 (N=#)
>30000 (N=#)
321
322
Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) Computerized N Mean N Mean N N N Proportion N Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale) 0.0 2 4 1 3 60.0 5 -6.7 8 3.0 3 2.8 5 0 0.0 1 4.0 1 0 50.0 4 25.0 8 2.8 4 2.5 4 -0.3 -4.0 -0.2 0.0 1 0.0 3 2.0 2 3.0 1 1.0 0.0 3 8 1 8 4 66.7 6 66.7 ** 10 2.8 4 2.5 6 -0.3 10 6 25.0 4 -25.0 10 2.8 6 3.0 4 0.2 10 0.0 0.0 10 50.0 10 20.0 20 2.8 10 2.7 10 -0.1 20 9 50.0 8 27.8 17 2.7 9 2.5 8 -0.2 17 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Kolkata) 1 50.0 2 -50.0 3 4.0 1 3.5 2 -0.5 3
Purpose
Manual
Proportion
Occupation
Executive/Clerical
0.0
Businessman
25.0
Dependant/Student
0.0
Other
66.7
0.0
50.0
30.0
22.2
100.0
KMC
Table 1: Cost to client (Trader's License Renewal)
Total payment made N ized 537.2 205.0 ** 162 0.9 -0.9 (C-M) cance ual ized (C-M) ComputerN N N N Change SigniManComputerChange Total elapsed time in availing service Significance
Purpose
Man-
ual
Trader's License Renewal
332.2
Age (in Years) 3 28 51 587.4 41 276.3 ** 92 1.1 51 460.3 31 94.2 59 0.5 28 577.5 8 204.2 11 0.0 3 0 0 0 0.0 -0.5 -1.1
< 30 (N=#)
373.3
30-40 (N=#)
366.1
>40 (N=#)
311.1
Education 0.0 3 7 18 54 577.8 56 237.4 ** 110 461.0 15 117.9 33 512.5 4 218.9 11 0.9 2.9 0.3 331.0 5 122.7 8 0.0 3 7 18 54 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 -0.9 -2.9 -0.3
Illiterate (N=#)
Below Primary (N=#)
208.3
Primary (N=#)
293.6
Middle (N=#)
343.1
340.4
Income (in Rs.) 3 59 18 1 1 625.0 2 430.0 5 660.5 32 247.2 130.0 275.0 428.0 38 125.7 725.0 3 288.3 ** 6 97 50 6 3 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 3 59 18 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 -1.1 -0.6 0.0 0.0
<2000 (N=#)
436.7
2000-5000 (N=#)
302.3
5001-10000 (N=#)
413.3
10,000-30000 (N=#)
300.0
>30000 (N=#)
350.0
323
324
Total payment made N ized (C-M) cance ual ized (C-M) icance ComputerN N N N Change SigniManComputerChange SignifTotal elapsed time in availing service 0.0 0.0 80 0 2 0 -217.5 NC 2 0.0 2 600.0 1 600.0 NC 1 0 0 0 536.4 79 201.4 ** 159 0.9 80 0 0.0 -0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 23 558.5 23 213.1 ** 46 0.1 23 0 -0.1 59 528.6 57 201.6 116 1.2 59 0 -1.2 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Kolkata)
Purpose
Man-
ual
Occupation
Executive/Clerical
Businessman
335.0
Dependant/Student
Other
217.5
345.4
327.0
Table 2: Service quality improvement (Trader's License Renewal)

Purpose Manual Trader's License Renewal Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#) 30-40 (N=#) >40 (N=#) Education Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#) Middle (N=#) Matric & Above (N=#) Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#) 2000-5000 (N=#) 5001-10000 (N=#) 10,000-30000 (N=#) >30000 (N=#) Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Respondents who picked Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 3.1 63 3.2 59 0.1 122 2.3 19 3.3 21 1.0 ** 40 2.9 78 3.2 72 0.3 ** 150 3.0 4 3.4 8 0.4 12 3.5 2.9 80 0 2 3.2 4.0 79 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.3 4.0 -3.5 ** NC NC 159 1 2 2.7 3.1 2.7 2.0 3.0 3 59 18 1 1 2.7 3.3 3.2 3.6 3.0 3 38 32 5 2 0.0 0.2 0.5 1.6 0.0 ** ** NC 6 97 50 6 3 0.0 3.3 3.3 3.1 2.8 3 7 18 54 3.4 3.0 3.5 3.2 5 4 15 56 0.1 -0.3 0.4 0.4 ** 8 11 33 110 3.0 3.1 2.9 3 28 51 3.1 3.2 3.3 8 31 41 0.1 0.1 0.4 ** 11 59 92 2.9 N Dierence in Overall quality of service score Computerized 3.2 N Change (C-M) 0.3 Signicance ** N 162
325
Purpose Manual Respondents who picked Durability and/or legibility of certicates/ printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick either Durability nor legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 2.8 49 3.1 33 2.9 79 2.7 3 2.9 74 3.5 8 N
3.0
-0.5
11
3.2
77
0.3
**
151
3.2
11
0.5
14
3.2
69
0.3
**
148
3.5
26
0.4
**
59
3.1
54
0.3
103
326
Table 3: Governance and corruption (Trader's License Renewal)

Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale)
Purpose N 2.5 -6.0 162 2.8 3.0 0.2 Computerized N N N N Change (C-M) Significance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance
Manual
Trader's License Renewal
8.5
Age (in Years) 3 28 51 0.0 41 -5.9 92 2.7 51 3.1 41 6.5 31 -7.8 59 2.9 28 2.8 31 0.0 8 0.0 NC 11 3.3 3 2.8 8 -0.5 -0.1 0.4 **
< 30 (N=#)
0.0
30-40 (N=#)
14.3
>40 (N=#)
5.9
Education 0.0 3 7 18 54 0.0 56 -9.3 ** 110 13.3 15 7.7 33 3.0 2.7 0.0 4 -14.3 11 2.9 0.0 5 0.0 NC 8 3.3 3 7 18 54 3.2 3.0 3.2 2.9 5 4 15 56 0.0 -0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2
Illiterate (N=#)
Primary (N=#)
0.0
Primary (N=#)
14.3
Middle (N=#)
5.6
9.3
Income (in Rs.) 3 59 18 1 1 0.0 2 0.0 5 0.0 0.0 3.1 32 -13.6 NC NC 2.6 38 -4.2 0.0 3 0.0 NC 6 97 50 6 3 2.7 2.9 2.5 1.0 3.0 3 59 18 1 1 2.7 3.1 2.8 3.4 3.0 3 38 32 5 2 0.0 0.2 0.3 2.4 0.0 ** NC
<2000 (N=#)
0.0
2000-5000 (N=#)
6.8
5001-10000 (N=#)
16.7
10,000-30000 (N=#)
0.0
>30000 (N=#)
0.0
327
328
Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) N Computerized N N N N Change (C-M) Significance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale) 0.0 0.0 80 0 2 0 0.0 NC 2 3.5 2 0 0.0 1 0.0 NC 1 0 3.0 1 2.5 79 -6.3 159 2.8 80 3.0 79 0.2 3.0 -3.5 NC NC 0.0 0.0 26 5.6 36 1.8 62 2.6 26 2.8 36 0.2 56 0.0 44 -10.7 ** 100 2.9 56 3.2 44 0.3 ** 3 0.0 1 0.0 NC 4 3.0 3 3.0 1 0.0 NC 79 2.5 79 -6.4 158 2.8 79 3.0 79 0.2 28 0.0 19 -14.3 ** 47 2.6 28 2.9 19 0.3 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Kolkata) 54 3.3 61 -2.3 115 2.9 54 3.0 61 0.1
Purpose
Manual
Occupation
Executive/Clerical
Businessman
8.8
Dependant/Student
Other
0.0
3.8
10.7
0.0
8.9
14.3
5.6
KMC Table 1: Cost to client (Payment of utility bills )

Total payment made N 1435.7 -59534.2 ** 199 0.0 Computerized N N Manual N N Change (C-M) Signicance Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Total elapsed time in availing service
Purpose
Manual
60969.9
Age (in Years) 2 12 85 1929.0 62 -45523.8 ** 147 492.5 28 -83035.6 40 1018.4 10 -499081.1 12 0.0 0.0 0.0
< 30 (N=#)
500099.5
30-40 (N=#)
83528.1
>40 (N=#)
47452.8
Education 2 7 9 19 62 698.0 74 -80329 ** 136 1422.1 11 1309.2 30 421.6 7 282.4 ** 16 9166.1 8 -134941.5 15 0 -97.5 NC 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Illiterate (N=#)
97.5
Below Primary (N=#)
144107.6
Primary (N=#)
139.2
Middle (N=#)
112.9
81027.0
Income (in Rs.) 6 51 29 8 5 410.0 4 734.8 19 755.7 29 2348.8 45 -56721.0 -34050.6 -124488.3 -200084.0 119.7 3 -1518.0 9 96 58 27 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
<2000 (N=#)
1637.7
2000-5000 (N=#)
59069.8
5001-10000 (N=#)
34806.3
10,000-30000 (N=#)
125223.1
>30000 (N=#)
200494.0
329
330
Total payment made N Computerized N N Manual N N Change (C-M) Signicance Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Total elapsed time in availing service 0.0 7 30 43 19 667.5 26 137.5 45 588.9 26 -69482.2 69 0.0 0.0 2636.4 40 -64265.9 70 0.0 681.5 8 -143007.9 15 0.0 0.0 14 663.3 19 293.9 33 0.0 85 1616.9 81 -69334.3 ** 166 0.0 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Kolkata)
Purpose
Manual
Occupation
Executive/Clerical
143689.4
Businessman
66902.3
Dependant/Student
70071.1
Other
530.0
availing service or Time and eort in
availing service in Overall Assess-
369.4
ment section (N=#)
70951.2
Table 2: Service quality improvement (Payment of utility bills )

Dierence in Overall quality of service score Manual Payment of utility bills Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#) 30-40 (N=#) >40 (N=#) Education Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#) Middle (N=#) Matric & Above (N=#) Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#) 2000-5000 (N=#) 5001-10000 (N=#) 10,000-30000 (N=#) >30000 (N=#) Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Respondents who picked Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 3.1 21 3 23 -0.1 44 3.1 95 3.2 93 0.1 188 3.5 4 3.4 7 -0.1 11 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.2 7 30 43 19 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.3 8 40 26 26 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 15 70 69 45 3.3 3.3 2.9 3.4 3.0 6 51 29 8 5 3.7 3.3 3.2 3.2 2.5 3 45 29 19 4 0.4 0.0 0.3 -0.2 -0.5 9 96 58 27 9 3.0 3.7 3.3 3.2 3.0 2 7 9 19 62 3.5 3.7 3.2 3.2 0 8 7 11 74 -3.0 -0.2 0.4 0.0 0.2 2 15 16 30 136 3 3.3 3.1 2 12 85 3.0 3.1 3.3 10 28 62 0.0 -0.2 0.2 12 40 147 3.2 N Computerized 3.2 N Change (C-M) 0.0 Signicance N 199
Purpose
331
Purpose Manual Respondents who did not pick Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Durability and/or legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick either Durability nor legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 3.1 59 3.2 40 3.1 89 3.5 10 3.1 87 3.4 12 3.2 78 N
3.3
77
0.1
155
3.3
-0.1
16
3.2
96
0.1
183
3.1
-0.4
19
3.2
91
0.1
180
3.4
36
0.2
76
3.1
64
0.0
123
332
Table 3: Governance and corruption (Payment of utility bills )

Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) N 0.0 0.0 199 3.0 3.0 0.0 Computerized N N Manual Signicance Change (C-M) Signicance Computerized Change (C-M) Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale)
Purpose
Manual
0.0
Age (in Years) 2 12 85 0.0 62 0.0 147 3.0 3.2 0.0 28 0.0 40 2.9 2.8 -0.1 0.2 0.0 10 0.0 12 3.0 2.5 -0.5
< 30 (N=#)
0.0
30-40 (N=#)
0.0
>40 (N=#)
0.0
Education 2 7 9 19 62 0.0 74 0.0 136 0.0 11 0.0 30 0.0 7 0.0 16 3.3 3.1 3.0 0.0 8 0.0 15 3.1 0.0 0 0.0 2 3.0 3.4 3.3 3.4 2.9 -3.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 -0.1
Illiterate (N=#)
0.0
Below Primary (N=#)
0.0
Primary (N=#)
0.0
Middle (N=#)
0.0
0.0
Income (in Rs.) 6 51 29 8 5 0.0 4 0.0 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 0.0 0.0 45 0.0 0.0 3 0.0 9 96 58 27 9 3.2 3.2 2.8 3.4 2.4 3.3 3.1 2.9 3.1 2.5 0.1 -0.1 0.1 -0.3 0.1
<2000 (N=#)
0.0
2000-5000 (N=#)
0.0
5001-10000 (N=#)
0.0
10,000-30000 (N=#)
0.0
>30000 (N=#)
0.0
333
334
Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) N Computerized N N Manual Signicance Change (C-M) Signicance Computerized Change (C-M) Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale) 0.0 7 30 43 19 0.0 26 0.0 45 3.3 3.2 -0.1 0.0 26 0.0 69 3.0 2.9 -0.1 0.0 40 0.0 70 2.9 3.0 0.1 0.0 8 0.0 15 3.1 2.8 -0.3 0.0 0.0 36 0.0 36 0.0 72 2.8 2.7 -0.1 63 0.0 64 0.0 127 3.2 3.2 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.0 2 2.5 2.5 99 0.0 98 0.0 197 3.0 3.0 0.0 37 0.0 35 0.0 72 2.9 2.8 -0.1 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Kolkata) 62 0.0 65 0.0 127 3.1 3.1 0.0
Purpose
Manual
Occupation
0.0
Executive/Clerical
0.0
Businessman
0.0
Dependant/Student
0.0
Other
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
KMC
Table 1: Cost to client (Obtaining new trader's licenses)
Total payment made N erized 658.9 -59719.9 100 7.2 20.7 (C-M) cance ized (C-M) 13.5 ComputN N Manual N N Change SigniComputerChange
Total elapsed time in availing service Signicance **
Purpose
Manual
Obtaining new trader's
licenses
60378.8
Age (in Years) 3 14 33 521.3 23 -90634.4 56 7.9 33 582.2 16 107.2 30 6.6 14 24.1 23.3 1058.2 11 -325.1 14 1.3 3 10.5 11 16 23 9.2 17.5 15.4 ** ** **
< 30 (N=#)
1383.3
30-40 (N=#)
475.0
>40 (N=#)
91155.7
Education 2 3 5 7 33 737.1 36 -90545.8 535.6 9 92.7 16 69 260.0 4 -75.2 9 550.0 1 383.3 ** 4 0.7 6.0 12 6.9 0 -662.5 NC 2 7.5 2 3 5 7 33 90.0 5.5 14.1 22.2 0 1 4 9 36 -7.5 89.3 -0.5 2.1 15.3 ** NC **
Illiterate (N=#)
662.5
Below Primary (N=#)
166.7
Primary (N=#)
335.2
Middle (N=#)
442.9
91282.9
Income (in Rs.) 1 30 12 6 1 375.0 500.0 1 2 909.2 13 587.7 32 -66477.8 -82684.1 53.3 125.0 535.0 2 -390.0 ** 3 62 25 7 3 7.0 6.5 11.8 2.5 0.0 1 30 12 6 1 15.5 18.3 27.2 8.0 30.0 2 32 13 1 2 8.5 11.8 15.4 5.5 30.0 ** NC **
<2000 (N=#)
925.0.0
2000-5000 (N=#)
67065.5
5001-10000 (N=#)
83593.3
10,000-30000 (N=#)
446.7
335
>30000 (N=#)
250.0
336
Total payment made N erized (C-M) cance ized (C-M) cance ComputN N Manual N N Change SigniComputerChange SigniTotal elapsed time in availing service 0.0 0.0 50 0.0 0.0 658.9 50 -59719.9 100 7.2 50 20.7 50 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 ** 0.0 12 669.2 12 -166366.1 24 6.8 12 19.9 12 13.1 38 655.7 38 -26042.1 76 7.3 38 21 38 13.7 ** Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Kolkata)
Purpose
Manual
Occupation
Worker
Executive/Clerical
Businessman
60378.8
Dependant/Student
Other
167035.3
(N=#)
pick Cost of availing service or
26697.8
section (N=#)
Table 2: Service quality improvement (Obtaining new trader's licenses)

Dierence in Overall quality of service score Purpose Manual Obtaining new trader's licenses Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#) 30-40 (N=#) >40 (N=#) Education Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#) Middle (N=#) Matric & Above (N=#) Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#) 2000-5000 (N=#) 5001-10000 (N=#) 10,000-30000 (N=#) >30000 (N=#) Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/ Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Respondents who picked Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 2.8 48 3.1 47 0.3 95 3.5 2 3.3 3 -0.2 5 2.8 50 3.1 50 0 0 0.3 0 0 100 3 2.8 2.8 3.3 1 1 30 12 6 1 2.5 3.3 3.1 3 2.5 2 32 13 1 2 -0.5 0.5 0.3 -0.3 1.5 ** ** 3 62 25 7 3 2.5 3.3 2.8 2.6 2.9 2 3 5 7 33 3 2.5 3 3.3 0 1 4 9 36 -2.5 -0.3 -0.3 0.4 0.4 ** NC 2 4 9 16 69 3.3 2.9 2.8 3 14 33 3.3 2.9 3.3 11 16 23 0 0 0.5 ** 14 30 56 2.8 N Computerized 3.1 N Change (C-M) 0.3 Signicance N
337
Purpose Manual Respondents who picked Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Durability and/or legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick either Durability nor legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 2.7 29 3.0 21 2.8 47 3.3 3 2.8 47 3.3 3 2.9 42 2.7 8 N
3.3
15
0.6
15
3.1
85
0.2
85
3.3
0.0
3.1
44
0.3
91
3.5
0.2
3.1
44
0.3
91
3.2
19
0.2
40
3.1
31
0.4
60
338
Table 3: Governance and corruption (Obtaining new trader's licenses)

Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) N 10.0 -4.0 100 2.6 2.9 0.3 Computerized N N Manual N N Change (C-M) Signicance Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale)
Purpose
Manual
Obtaining new trader's licenses
14.0
Age (in Years) 3 14 33 4.3 23 -10.9 56 2.6 33 2.9 18.8 16 11.7 30 2.6 14 2.7 16 23 9.1 11 -24.2 14 3.3 3 3.2 11 -0.1 0.1 0.3
< 30 (N=#)
33.3
30-40 (N=#)
7.1
>40 (N=#)
15.2
Education 2 3 5 7 33 11.1 36 -1.0 69 0.0 9 -28.6 16 2.6 2.6 25.0 4 5.0 9 2.4 5 7 33 0.0 1 0.0 4 3.3 3 0 0.0 2 2.5 2 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.9 0 1 4 9 36 -2.5 -0.3 -0.4 0.4 0.3 NC
Illiterate (N=#)
0.0
Primary (N=#)
0.0
Primary (N=#)
20.0
Middle (N=#)
28.6
12.1
Income (in Rs.) 1 30 12 6 1 0.0 2 0.0 1 -16.7 0.0 7.7 13 -9.0 9.4 32 -3.9 50.0 2 50.0 3 62 25 7 3 3.0 2.6 2.5 3.2 1.0 1 30 12 6 1 2.0 3.0 2.7 3.0 2.5 2 32 13 1 2 -1.0 0.4 0.2 -0.2 1.5 ** **
<2000 (N=#)
0.0
2000-5000 (N=#)
13.3
5001-10000 (N=#)
16.7
10,000-30000 (N=#)
16.7
>30000 (N=#)
0.0
339
340
Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) N Computerized N N Manual N N Change (C-M) Signicance Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale) 0.0 0.0 50 0.0 0.0 10.0 50 -4.0 100 2.6 50 2.9 50 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 22.2 18 -8.6 31 2.5 13 2.4 18 -0.1 37 3.1 32 -5.0 69 2.7 37 3.1 32 0.4 ** 2 0.0 2 0.0 4 3.0 2 3.0 2 0.0 NC 48 10.4 48 -4.2 96 2.6 48 2.9 48 0.3 24 16.7 18 0.0 42 2.3 24 2.7 18 0.4 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Kolkata) 26 6.3 32 -5.2 58 2.9 26 3.0 32 0.1
Purpose
Manual
Occupation
Executive/Clerical
Businessman
14.0
Dependant/Student
Other
30.8
8.1
0.0
14.6
16.7
11.5
KMC
Table 1: Cost to client (Mutation)
Total payment made N 785.0 -2.7 20 30.6 8.5 -22.1 Computerized N N N N Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M)
Total elapsed time in availing service Signicance **
Purpose
Manual
Mutation
787.7
Age (in Years) 0.0 0.0 10 785.0 10 -2.7 20 30.6 10 8.5 10 0.0 0.0 -22.1 **
< 30 (N=#)
30-40 (N=#)
>40 (N=#)
787.7
Education 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 10 800.0 9 12.3 650.0 1 650.0 1 19 30.6 0 10 1.9 9.2 1 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 -21.4 NC **
Illiterate (N=#)
Below Primary (N=#)
Primary (N=#)
Middle (N=#)
787.7
Income (in Rs.) 0.0 1 5 2 2 0 750.0 2 400.0 4 1187.5 4 1087.5 -820.0 425.0 -513.5 5 9 4 2 0.1 36.0 37.5 25.3 1 5 2 2 6.1 14.5 1.2 4 4 2 0 0.0 6.0 -21.5 -36.3 -25.3 ** NC **
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
100.0
5001-10000 (N=#)
1220.0
10,000-30000 (N=#)
325.0
>30000 (N=#)
513.5.
341
342
Total payment made N Computerized N N N N Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Total elapsed time in availing service 0.0 0 2 7 1 0 -100.0 1 0.1 1 0 550.0 4 -461.0 11 28.7 7 14.8 4 -13.9 -0.1 NC 1162.5 4 812.5 6 52.5 2 4.3 4 -48.2 500.0 2 500.0 2 0 4.4.0 2 4.4 0.0 NC ** 3 500.0 1 200.0 4 41.7 3 2.1 1 -39.6 ** 7 816.7 9 -180.0 16 25.8 7 9.2 9 -16.6 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Kolkata)
Purpose
Manual
Occupation
Executive/Clerical
Businessman
350.0
Dependant/Student
1011.0
Other
100.0
300.0
996.7
Table 2: Service quality improvement (Mutation)

Purpose Manual Mutation Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#) 30-40 (N=#) >40 (N=#) Education Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#) Middle (N=#) Matric & Above (N=#) Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#) 2000-5000 (N=#) 5001-10000 (N=#) 10,000-30000 (N=#) >30000 (N=#) Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Respondents who picked Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 3.0 1 4.0 2 1.0 ** 3 2.6 10 2.8 10 0.2 20 0.0 ** 3.0 2.4 3.0 0 2 7 1 3.5 2.3 3.0 2 4 4 0 0.0 3.5 -0.7 0.6 -3.0 2 6 11 1 3.0 2.6 2.0 3.0 1 5 2 2 2.3 3.0 3.5 4 4 2 0 0.0 -0.7 0.4 1.5 -3.0 5 9 4 2 2.6 0 10 3.0 2.8 1 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.2 1 19 2.6 10 2.8 10 0.0 0.0 0.2 20 2.6 N Dierence in Overall quality of service score Computerized 2.8 N Change (C-M) 0.2 Signicance N 20
343
Purpose Manual Respondents who did not pick Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Durability and/or legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick either Durability nor legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 2.8 8 2.0 2 2.6 10 2.6 10 2.6 9 N
2.5
-0.1
17
0.0
2.8
10
0.2
20
0.0
2.8
10
0.2
20
3.5
1.5
2.3
-0.5
14
344
Table 3: Governance and corruption (Mutation)

Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale)
Purpose N 10.0 0.0 20 2.6 2.5 -0.1 Computerized N N Manual N N Change (C-M) Signicance Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance
Manual
Mutation
10.0
Age (in Years) 0.0 0.0 10 10.0 10 0.0 20 2.6 10 2.5 10 0.0 0.0 -0.1
< 30 (N=#)
30-40 (N=#)
>40 (N=#)
10.0
Education 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 10 11.1 9 1.1 19 0.0 1 0.0 1 2.6 0 10 3.0 2.4 1 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 -0.2
Illiterate (N=#)
Below Primary (N=#)
Primary (N=#)
Middle (N=#)
10.0
Income (in Rs.) 0.0 1 5 2 2 0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 -20.0 25.0 4 25.0 5 9 4 2 3.0 2.6 2.0 3.0 1 5 2 2 2.3 2.5 3.0 4 4 2 0 0.0 -0.7 -0.1 1.0 -3.0
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
0.0
5001-10000 (N=#)
20.0
10,000-30000 (N=#)
0.0
>30000 (N=#)
0.0
345
346
Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) N Computerized N N Manual N N Change (C-M) Signicance Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale) 0.0 0 2 7 1 3 20.0 5 20.0 8 2.3 3 1.8 0 0.0 1 3.0 1 0 5 0.0 4 -14.3 11 2.4 7 2.8 4 25.0 4 25.0 6 3.0 2 2.3 4 -0.7 0.4 -3.0 -0.5 0.0 2 0.0 2 0 2.5 2 2.5 0.0 7 0.0 5 -14.3 12 2.7 7 3.2 5 0.5 0.0 0.0 10 10.0 10 0.0 20 2.6 10 2.5 10 -0.1 8 20.0 5 7.5 13 2.5 8 2.0 5 -0.5 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Kolkata) 2 0.0 5 0.0 7 3.0 2 3.0 5 0.0
Purpose
Manual
Occupation
Executive/Clerical
Businessman
0.0
Dependant/Student
14.3
Other
0.0
0.0
14.3
10.0
12.5
0.0
BMC Table 1: Cost to client (Birth Registration)

Total payment made Computerized Mean 73.7 55 7.4 122 4.8 93 3.7 55 -1.1 N N Mean N Mean N N 148 Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Total elapsed time in availing service
Purpose
Manual
Mean
66.3
67
Age (in Years) 6 64.9 86.2 14 37.5 43 3.6 45 5.4 14 28 -8.7 60 4.8 39 3.2 28 79.1 13 -33.9 19 10.6 9 3.0 13 -7.6 -1.6 1.8 22 67 59
< 30 (N=#)
113.0
30-40 (N=#)
73.6
32
>40 (N=#)
48.7
29
Education 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0
Illiterate (N=#)
0.0
Literate without Educa2 60.0 1 47.5 ** 3 1.1 4 1.0 1 -0.1 5
Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Mumbai)
tion/ Below Primary
12.5
(N=#) 7 69.7 74.0 39 -1.1 79 11 13.2 29 7.1 4.4 84.3 4 27.2 11 2.8 8 23 58 3.8 4.0 3.7 4 11 39 1.0 -3.1 -0.7 12 34 97
Primary (N=#)
57.1
Middle (N=#)
56.5
18
75.1
40
Income (in Rs.) 0 68.2 83.9 60.1 0 17 31.9 -83.8 28 9.7 ** NC 10 -5.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 22 67 29 4 7.2 4.4 4.8 3.0 0 13 55 20 5 2.2 4.4 3.5 10 28 17 0.0 -5.0 0.0 -1.3 -3.0 23 83 37 5
<2000 (N=#)
0.0
2000-5000 (N=#)
73.2
12
5001-10000 (N=#)
74.2
39
10,000-30000 (N=#) 4
28.2
12
>30000 (N=#)
83.8
347
348
Total payment made Computerized Mean N N Mean N Mean N N Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Total elapsed time in availing service 76.2 60.8 55.4 98.8 98.5 11 63.3 ** 24 4.9 17 3.3 11 -1.6 4 13.6 10 9.5 7 4.8 4 -4.7 14 -19.2 35 6.5 32 3.0 14 -3.5 12 -7.0 18 1.9 14 6.2 12 4.3 ** 14 4.6 35 2.7 23 2.4 14 -0.3 37 26 46 11 28 6 6 57.9 9 27.5 26 3.6 17 3.8 9 0.2 26 76.7 46 3.3 123 5.0 76 3.7 46 -1.3 122 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Mumbai)
Purpose
Manual
Mean
Occupation
Cultivation/Labourer/ Worker
71.6
21
Executive/Clerical
67.8
Businessman
74.6
21
Dependant/Student
85.2
Other
35.2
13
Time and eort in availing
30.4
11
ment section (N=#)
Respondents who did
not pick Cost of avail-
ing service or Time and
eort in availing service in
73.4
56
Overall Assessment sec-
tion (N=#)
Table 2: Service quality improvement (Birth Registration)

Dierence in Overall quality of service score Purpose Manual Mean Birth Registration (N=#) Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#) 30-40 (N=#) >40 (N=#) Education Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#) Middle (N=#) Matric & Above (N=#) Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#) 2000-5000 (N=#) 5001-10000 (N=#) 10,000-30000 (N=#) >30000 (N=#) Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Respondents who picked Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 3.4 22 3.6 14 0.2 36 3.5 89 3.7 52 0.2 141 3.8 5 3.0 3 -0.8 8 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.9 24 14 32 7 17 3.6 3.4 3.6 4.5 3.7 14 12 14 4 11 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 -0.2 38 26 46 11 28 3.2 3.6 3.9 2.8 14 55 20 5 2.9 3.8 3.9 10 28 17 0 0.0 -0.3 0.2 0.0 -2.8 NC 24 83 37 5 3.5 3.1 3.6 3.6 4 9 23 58 3.0 4.0 3.5 3.7 1 4 11 39 0.0 -0.5 0.9 -0.1 0.1 5 13 34 97 2.9 3.6 3.6 9 40 45 4.2 3.5 3.5 13 28 14 1.3 -0.1 -0.1 ** 22 68 59 3.5 N 94 Computerized Mean 3.7 N 55 0.2 149 Change (C-M) Signicance N
349
Purpose Manual Mean Respondents who did not pick Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Durability and/or legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick either Durability nor legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.6
Dierence in Overall quality of service score Computerized N Mean N Change (C-M) Signicance N
72
3.7
41
0.1
113
19
3.8
12
0.2
31
75
3.6
43
0.1
118
15
4.3
12
1.0
**
27
79
3.5
43
-0.1
122
15
3.9
0.2
22
79
3.6
48
0.1
127
350
Table 3: Governance and corruption (Birth Registration)

Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale) N Manual N Mean -0.4 148 3.4 94 3.5 55 0.1 N Mean N 149 Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Computerized N 93 1.8 55 Proportion N Change (C-M) Signicance
Purpose
Manual
Proportion
2.2
Age (in Years) 9 39 45 0.0 14 -4.4 59 3.3 45 3.7 14 3.6 28 3.6 67 3.5 40 3.2 28 0.0 13 0.0 22 2.7 9 3.8 13 1.1 -0.3 0.4 ** 22 68 59
< 30 (N=#)
0.0
30-40 (N=#)
0.0
>40 (N=#)
4.4
Education 0.0 4 8 23 58 2.6 39 -0.8 97 0.0 11 0.0 34 3.5 3.3 0.0 4 0.0 12 3.0 9 23 58 0.0 1 0.0 5 3.3 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.4 1 4 11 39 0.0 0.7 1.0 0.0 0.1 ** 5 13 34 97
Illiterate (N=#)
0.0
Below Primary (N=#)
0.0
Primary (N=#)
0.0
Middle (N=#)
0.0
3.4
Income (in Rs.) 0.0 13 55 20 5 0 5.9 17 5.9 0.0 0.0 28 -3.6 0.0 10 0.0 0.0 23 83 37 5 0.0 3.1 3.3 3.6 3.2 14 55 20 5 0.0 3.1 3.5 3.6 10 28 17 0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 -3.2 24 83 37 5
<2000 (N=#)
0.0
2000-5000 (N=#)
0.0
5001-10000 (N=#)
3.6
10,000-30000 (N=#)
0.0
>30000 (N=#)
0.0
351
352
Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) Computerized N Mean -4.3 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 -6.3 25 3.2 17 3.2 9 28 3.5 17 3.5 11 11 3.6 7 4.3 4 0.7 0.0 0.0 46 3.4 32 3.3 14 -0.1 26 3.3 14 3.5 12 0.2 37 3.1 24 3.4 14 0.3 38 26 46 11 28 26 N Mean N N N 23 14 32 7 17 16 0.0 9 0.0 11 0.0 4 7.1 14 0.0 12 0.0 14 Proportion N Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale) 77 2.2 46 0.9 123 3.4 77 3.5 46 0.1 123 13 0.0 8 0.0 21 3.5 13 2.8 8 -0.7 21 80 2.1 47 -0.4 127 3.3 81 3.6 47 0.3 128 18 8.3 12 -2.8 30 3.4 18 3.2 12 -0.2 30 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Mumbai) 75 0.0 43 0.0 118 3.3 76 3.5 43 0.2 119
Purpose
Manual
Proportion
4.3
Executive/Clerical
0.0
Businessman
3.1
Dependant/Student
0.0
Other
0.0
6.3
1.3
0.0
2.5
11.1
0.0
BMC
Table 1: Cost to client (Death Registration)
Total payment made Computerized N Mean 11.4 29 23.2 33 21.2 9 -2.0 N Mean N 42 N N 20 90.4 9 Mean N Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Total elapsed time in availing service
Purpose
Manual
Mean
79.0
Age (in Years) 1 3 16 76.0 4 1.9 20 21.7 24 15.5 4 102.5 4 4.2 7 37.5 6 12.3 4 -25.2 -6.2 100.0 1 0.0 NC 2 6.3 3 80.0 1 73.7 ** 4 10 28
< 30 (N=#)
100.0
30-40 (N=#)
98.3
>40 (N=#)
74.1
Education 0.0 0.0 2 6 12 94.3 7 -16.1 19 26.2 70.0 1 38.2 ** 7 14.9 7 24 84.0 1 51.5 ** 3 16.0 2 6.0 8.0 25.3 1 1 7 0.0 0.0 -10.0 -6.9 -0.9 NC 3 8 31
Illiterate (N=#)
Literate without Educa-
tion/ Below Primary (N=#)
Primary (N=#)
32.5
Middle (N=#)
31.8
110.4
Income (in Rs.) 0.0 2 14 4 0.0 100.0 1 53.5 ** 87.8 5 -8.3 91.7 3 66.7 5 19 5 12.0 20.6 29.8 2 20 11 16.3 12.4 80.0 3 5 1 0.0 4.3 -8.2 50.2 0.0 ** 5 25 12
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
25.0
5001-10000 (N=#)
96.1
10,000-30000 (N=#)
46.5
>30000 (N=#)
353
354
Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale) N Manual N Mean N Mean N Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Computerized N Proportion N Change (C-M) Signicance 5 2 6 4 3 112.0 2 -9.7 5 41.5 6 11.0 2 0 -45.0 NC 4 16.8 4 0 100.0 1 4.0 7 21.7 11 80.0 1 58.3 -16.8 -30.5 125.0 2 12.5 4 9.5 6 8.5 2 -1.0 ** NC 60.0 4 13.0 9 25.3 6 18.0 4 -7.3 10 8 12 4 8 3 37.5 2 22.5 5 10.4 7 24.0 2 13.6 9 17 105.6 7 15.2 24 26.6 26 20.4 7 -6.2 33 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Mumbai)
Purpose
Manual
Proportion
Occupation
Worker
47.0
Executive/Clerical
112.5
Businessman
96.0
Dependant/Student
45.0
Other
121.7
Time and eort in availing
15.0
ment section (N=#)
90.4
ment section (N=#)
Table 2: Service quality improvement (Death Registration)

Dierence in Overall quality of service score Purpose Manual Mean Death Registration (N=#) Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#) 30-40 (N=#) >40 (N=#) Education Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#) Middle (N=#) Matric & Above (N=#) Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#) 2000-5000 (N=#) 5001-10000 (N=#) 10,000-30000 (N=#) >30000 (N=#) Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Respondents who picked Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 3.9 24 3.7 9 -0.2 33 3.6 9 0 -3.6 NC 9 3.8 31 3.6 7 -0.2 38 4.5 2 4.0 2 -0.5 4 4.2 3.7 3.6 4.0 3.8 6 6 11 4 6 3.5 4.3 4.0 1.0 4 2 1 0 2 0.1 0.3 -2.6 -4.0 -0.3 ** NC 10 8 12 4 8 4.0 3.8 3.8 2 20 11 4.0 4.0 1.0 3 5 1 0.0 0.0 0.2 -2.8 0.0 ** 5 25 12 4.5 3.7 3.8 2 7 24 3.0 4.0 3.7 1 1 7 0.0 0.0 -1.5 0.3 -0.1 ** 3 8 31 3.7 3.7 3.9 3 6 24 1.0 4.3 3.8 1 4 4 -2.7 0.6 -0.1 ** 4 10 28 3.8 N 33 Computerized Mean 3.7 N 9 -0.1 42 Change (C-M) Signicance N
355
Purpose Manual Mean Respondents who picked Durability and/or legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick either Durability nor legibility of certicates/ printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 3.9 3.5 4 3.8 3.7 3 3.8 4.0 2 N
Dierence in Overall quality of service score Computerized Mean N Change (C-M) Signicance N
4.0
0.0
NC
31
3.6
-0.2
39
4.0
0.3
30
3.5
-0.3
36
4.0
0.5
29
3.5
-0.4
35
356
Table 3: Governance and corruption (Death Registration)
Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) Computerized N Mean 11.1 42 3.5 33 3.3 9 -0.2 N Mean N 42 N 33 11.1 9 Proportion N Change (C-M) Significance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance N
Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale)
Purpose
Manual
Proportion
0.0
Age (in Years) 3 6 24 0.0 4 0.0 28 3.5 24 3.3 4 0.0 4 0.0 10 3.3 6 4.0 4 100.0 1 100.0 4 3.3 3 1.0 1 -2.3 0.7 -0.2 ** 4 10 28
< 30 (N=#)
0.0
30-40 (N=#)
0.0
>40 (N=#)
0.0
Education 0.0 0.0 2 7 24 14.3 7 14.3 31 3.3 0.0 1 0.0 8 4.0 0.0 1 0.0 3 4.0 2 7 24 2.0 3.0 3.6 1 1 7 0.0 0.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.3 NC NC 3 8 31
Illiterate (N=#)
Below Primary (N=#)
Primary (N=#)
0.0
Middle (N=#)
0.0
0.0
Income (in Rs.) 0.0 2 20 11 100.0 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 5 0.0 0.0 3 0.0 5 25 12 4.0 3.5 3.3 2 20 11 4.0 3.4 1.0 3 5 1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -2.3 0.0 ** 5 25 12
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
0.0
5001-10000 (N=#)
0.0
10,000-30000 (N=#)
0.0
>30000 (N=#)
357
358
Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) Computerized N Mean N Mean N N N Proportion N Change (C-M) Significance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale) 6 6 11 4 6 2 0.0 3 0.0 5 4.0 2 3.3 3 0.0 2 0.0 8 3.5 6 3.0 2 0 0.0 4 3.5 4 0 -3.5 -0.5 -0.7 100.0 1 100.0 12 3.2 11 1.0 1 -2.2 0.0 2 0.0 8 3.5 6 4.0 2 0.5 ** NC 0.0 4 0.0 10 4.0 6 3.8 4 -0.2 10 8 12 4 8 5 31 16.7 6 16.7 37 3.5 31 3.3 6 -0.2 37 10 25.0 4 25.0 14 3.7 10 3 4 -0.7 14 23 0.0 5 0.0 28 3.4 23 3.6 5 0.2 28 4 0.0 1 0.0 5 3.3 4 4 1 0.7 5 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Mumbai) 29 12.5 8 12.5 37 3.5 29 3.3 8 -0.2 37
Purpose
Manual
Proportion
Occupation
0.0
Executive/Clerical
0.0
Businessman
0.0
Dependant/Student
0.0
Other
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
BMC
Table 1: Cost to client (Traders License Renewal)
Purpose N 1484.7 -107.5 107 3.9 2.8 -1.1 Computerized N N N N Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M)
Total payment made
Total elapsed time in availing service Signicance
Manual
1592.2
Age (in Years) 12 17 38 1580.2 28 565.7 ** 66 3.5 38 4.6 1260.0 9 -1711.6 26 4.3 17 3.5 1266.7 3 -200.8 15 4.7 12 3.3 0 0 0 -1.4 -0.8 1.1
< 30 (N=#)
1467.5
30-40 (N=#)
2971.6
>40 (N=#) Education 0.0 4 5 10 48 1564.6 23 92.9 71 1181.8 11 -1555.0 21 1700.0 3 1126.0 8 1.4 5.5 4.1 1766.7 3 316.7 7 1.3 4 5 10 48
1014.5
Illiterate (N=#)
0.0 1.0 1.0 4.3 4.4 0 0 0 0 -0.3 -0.4 -1.2 0.3
Primary (N=#)
1450.0
Primary (N=#)
574.0
Middle (N=#)
2736.8
1471.7
Income (in Rs.) 0.0 2 38 27 0 4250.0 2 1930.0 13 1129.3 21 -35.4 -254.0 4250.0 NC 520.3 4 -1204.7 6 59 40 2 0.5 4.4 3.4 2 38 27 0 0.9 1.9 4.3 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.4 -2.5 0.9 0.0
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
1725.0
5001-10000 (N=#)
1164.7
10,000-30000 (N=#)
2184.0
>30000 (N=#)
359
360
Total payment made N Computerized N N N N Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Total elapsed time in availing service 1 7 55 1 3 2516.7 3 1533.4 6 0.7 3 3.8 0 0 -500.0 NC 1 2.0 1 4.5 0 2.5 3.1 1407.2 33 -334.8 88 4.3 55 3.8 0 -0.5 1200.0 1 204.3 8 3.0 7 3.9 0 0.9 1400.0 3 950.0 4 1.0 1 2.0 0 1.0 11 1831.7 9 578.1 20 2.3 11 2.6 0 0.3 56 1383.9 31 -274.8 87 4.3 56 5.4 0 1.1 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Mumbai)
Purpose
Manual
Occupation
450.0
Executive/Clerical
995.7
Businessman
1742.0
Dependant/Student
500.0
Other
983.3
availing service or Time and eort in
1253.6
section (N=#)
Respondents who did not pick Cost
of availing service or Time and eort in
1658.7
section (N=#)
Table 2: Service quality improvement (Traders License Renewal)

Dierence in Overall quality of service score Propose Manual Traders License Renewal Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#) 30-40 (N=#) >40 (N=#) Education Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#) Middle (N=#) Matric & Above (N=#) Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#) 2000-5000 (N=#) 5001-10000 (N=#) 10,000-30000 (N=#) >30000 (N=#) Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Respondents who picked Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 3.5 10 3.9 8 0.4 18 3.5 60 3.6 36 0.1 96 3.3 7 3.8 4 0.5 11 5.0 3.6 3.4 5.0 3.3 1 7 55 1 3 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.6 3 1 33 0 3 -1.3 0.4 0.2 -5.0 0.7 NC ** 4 8 88 1 6 4.0 3.6 3.2 2 38 27 0 4.0 3.6 3.6 3.0 4 21 13 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.0 NC 6 59 40 2 4.0 4.0 3.4 3.4 4 5 10 48 3.3 3.3 3.8 3.6 3 3 11 23 0.0 -0.7 -0.7 0.4 0.2 7 8 21 71 3.6 3.0 3.6 12 17 38 3 3.7 3.7 3 9 28 -0.6 0.7 0.1 15 26 66 3.5 N Computerized 3.6 N Change (C-M) 0.1 Signicance N 107
361
Propose Manual Respondents who did not pick Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Durability and/or legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick either Durability nor legibility of certicates/ printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.2 3.5
Dierence in Overall quality of service score N Computerized N Change (C-M) Signicance N
57
3.6
32
0.1
89
13
3.7
0.5
22
54
3.6
31
0.1
85
13
3.4
-0.1
20
54
3.7
33
0.2
87
4.0
0.5
11
61
3.6
35
0.1
96
362
Table 3: Governance and corruption (Traders License Renewal)

Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) N 7.5 -1.5 107 3.3 3.5 0.2 Computerized N N Manual N N Change (C-M) Significance Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale)
Purpose
Manual
9.0
Age (in Years) 12 17 38 3.6 28 -4.3 66 3.3 38 3.5 28 11.1 9 11.1 26 3.0 17 3.3 9 33.3 3 8.3 ** 15 3.5 12 3.0 3 -0.5 0.3 0.2 **
< 30 (N=#)
25.0
30-40 (N=#)
0.0
>40 (N=#)
7.9
Education 0.0 4 5 10 48 4.3 23 -6.1 71 3.2 18.2 11 18.2 21 3.3 0.0 3 0.0 8 3.8 5 10 48 0.0 3 -25.0 7 3.5 4 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.4 3 3 11 23 0.0 0.5 -0.8 0.2 0.2
Illiterate (N=#)
Primary (N=#)
25.0
Primary (N=#)
0.0
Middle (N=#)
0.0
10.4
Income (in Rs.) 0.0 2 38 27 0 0.0 2 0.0 7.7 13 4.0 NC 9.5 21 -3.7 0.0 4 0.0 6 59 40 2 3.0 3.4 3.1 2 38 27 0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 4 21 13 2 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.4 3.0 NC
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
0.0
5001-10000 (N=#)
13.2
10,000-30000 (N=#)
3.7
>30000 (N=#)
363
364
Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) N Computerized N N Manual N N Change (C-M) Significance Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale) 0.0 7 55 1 3 33.3 3 33.3 6 3.3 3 4.0 3 0 0.0 NC 1 4.0 1 0 -4.0 0.7 6.1 33 -3.0 88 3.2 55 3.5 33 0.3 NC 0.0 1 -14.3 ** 8 3.4 7 3.0 1 -0.4 ** 1 0.0 3 0.0 NC 4 3.0 1 3.0 3 0.0 NC 9.1 0.0 0.0 15 11.1 9 -15.6 24 3.0 15 3.2 9 0.2 3.8 52 6.5 31 2.7 83 3.3 52 3.5 31 0.2 8 0.0 6 -12.5 ** 14 3 8 3.7 6 0.7 ** 8.5 59 8.8 34 0.3 93 3.3 59 3.4 34 0.1 17 0.0 4 -17.6 21 3.1 17 3.3 4 0.2 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Mumbai) 6.0 50 8.3 36 2.3 86 3.3 50 3.5 36 0.2
Purpose
Manual
Occupation
Executive/Clerical
14.3
Businessman
Dependant/Student
Other
26.7
12.5
section (N=#)
section (N=#)
Respondents who picked Corruption
in the working of the system in Overall
17.6
system in Overall Assessment
section (N=#)
BMC
Table 1: Cost to client (Payments of Utility Bills)
Total payment made Total elapsed time in availing service
Purpose N Computerized N N N N 793.9 103.2 504 0.0 Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M)
Manual
Significance
Payments of Utility Bills
690.7
Age (in Years) 60 68 132 769.2 120 14.2 252 682.5 79 84.5 148 587.0 44 21.0 104 0.0 0.0 0.0
< 30 (N=#)
566.0
30-40 (N=#)
598.0
>40 (N=#)
755.0
Education 7 5 19 48 181 531.4 167 133.4 348 876.9 34 218.9 82 598.3 21 39.8 41 752.3 11 -124.1 16 698.2 10 22.9 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Illiterate (N=#)
675.3
Below Primary (N=#)
876.4
Primary (N=#)
558.5
Middle (N=#)
658.0
398.0
Income (in Rs.) 3 46 131 71 9 515.0 11 472.0 77 296.0 -253.0 1361.0 100 842.0 417.0 54 -2.4 600.0 1 -175.0 ** 4 101 231 148 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
<2000 (N=#)
775.0
2000-5000 (N=#)
419.4
5001-10000 (N=#)
519.0
10,000-30000 (N=#)
176.0
>30000 (N=#)
768.0
365
366
Total payment made N Computerized N N N N Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Significance Total elapsed time in availing service 37 48 89 39 47 264.0 40 76.0 87 237.0 33 -341.0 72 1350.0 70 548.0 159 868.0 50 -22.0 98 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 392.0 50 288.0 88 0.0 66 741.0 60 626.0 126 0.0 194 109.0 183 -510.0 378 0.0 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Mumbai)
Purpose
Manual
Occupation
Worker
104.0
Executive/Clerical
890.0
Businessman
802.0
Dependant/Student
578.0
Other
188.0
115.0
(N=#)
619.0
service in Overall Assessment
section (N=#)
Table 2: Service quality improvement (Payments of Utility Bills)

Purpose Manual Payments of Utility Bills Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#) 30-40 (N=#) >40 (N=#) Education Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#) Middle (N=#) Matric & Above (N=#) Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#) 2000-5000 (N=#) 5001-10000 (N=#) 10,000-30000 (N=#) >30000 (N=#) Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Respondents who picked Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 3.5 48 3.7 48 0.2 96 3.4 235 3.5 218 0.1 453 3.9 26 3.7 25 -0.2 51 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.8 3.4 38 48 89 39 47 3.2 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.9 50 50 70 33 40 -0.1 0.3 0.0 -0.3 0.5 ** 88 98 159 72 87 3.3 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.7 3 47 131 71 9 3.0 3.5 3.7 3.4 2.9 1 54 100 77 11 -0.3 -0.1 0.3 0.0 -0.8 ** 4 101 231 148 20 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.4 7 5 20 48 181 3.8 3.4 3.1 3.4 3.6 10 11 21 34 167 0.4 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 0.2 17 16 41 82 348 3.4 3.2 3.6 60 69 132 3.5 3.4 3.6 44 79 120 0.1 0.2 0.0 104 148 252 3.4 N Dierence in Overall quality of service score Computerized 3.5 N Change (C-M) 0.1 Signicance N 504
367
Purpose Manual Respondents who did not pick Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Durability and/or legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick either Durability nor legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 3.5 239 3.2 22 3.5 215 3.3 46 3.5 221 3.4 40 3.4 213 N
3.5
195
0.1
408
3.4
43
0.0
83
3.5
200
0.0
421
3.6
59
0.3
105
3.5
184
0.0
399
3.8
18
0.6
40
3.5
225
0.0
464
368
Table 3: Governance and corruption (Payments of Utility Bills)

Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) N 0.8 -1.1 504 3.3 3.4 0.1 Computerized N N N N Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale)P
Purpose
Manual
Payments of Utility Bills
1.9
Age (in Years) 60.0 68.0 132.0 0.0 120.0 -1.5 252 3.5 132.0 3.5 1.3 79.0 -0.2 148 3.1 69.0 3.4 2.3 44.0 -1.0 104 3.3 60.0 3.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 **
< 30 (N=#)
3.3
30-40 (N=#)
1.5
>40 (N=#)
1.5
Education 7.0 5.0 19.0 48.0 181.0 1.2 167.0 -1.6 348 0.0 34.0 0.0 82 3.3 3.3 0.0 21.0 0.0 41 3.5 20.0 48.0 181.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 16 3.4 5.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 17 2.7 7.0 3.4 3.4 2.9 3.6 3.5 10.0 11.0 21.0 34.0 167.0 0.7 0.0 -0.6 0.3 0.2 ** ** **
Illiterate (N=#)
0.0
Below Primary (N=#)
0.0
Primary (N=#)
0.0
Middle (N=#)
0.0
2.8
Income (in Rs.) 3.0 46.0 131.0 71.0 9.0 0.0 11.0 1.3 77.0 -0.1 0.0 1.0 100.0 -1.3 0.0 54.0 -2.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 4 101 231 148 20 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.6 3.0 47.0 131.0 71.0 9.0 4.0 3.3 3.6 3.4 3.5 1.0 54.0 100.0 77.0 11.0 0.3 -0.1 0.3 0.1 -0.1 **
<2000 (N=#)
0.0
2000-5000 (N=#)
2.2
5001-10000 (N=#)
2.3
10,000-30000 (N=#)
1.4
>30000 (N=#)
0.0
369
370
Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) N Computerized N N N N Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale)P 37.0 48 89 39 47 0.0 40 0.0 87 3.3 47 3.7 40 0.0 33 -2.6 72 3.7 39 3.5 33 2.9 70 -0.5 159 3.2 89 3.4 70 0.2 -0.2 0.4 0.0 50 -2.1 98 3.3 48 3.5 50 0.2 0.0 50.0 0.0 88 3.1 38.0 3.2 50.0 0.1 50 0.0 40 -6.0 91 3.1 51 3.4 40 0.3 210 1.0 203 0.0 413 3.4 210 3.5 203 0.1 26 0.0 28 -7.7 54 3.2 26 3.5 28 0.3 234 0.9 215 -0.4 450 3.3 235 3.4 215 0.1 58 3.8 52 -1.4 110 3.2 58 3.2 52 0.0 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Mumbai) 202 0.0 191 -1.0 394 3.4 203 3.5 191 0.1
Purpose
Manual
Occupation
0.0
Executive/Clerical
2.1
Businessman
3.4
Dependant/Student
2.6
Other
0.0
6.0
1.0
7.7
1.3
5.2
1.0
BMC
Table 1: Cost to client (New Traders License)
Total payment made N ized 2145.2 558.0 ** 121 7.4 13.9 6.5 (C-M) cance ized (C-M) ComputerN N Manual N N Change SigniComputerChange Total elapsed time in availing service Signicance **
Purpose
Manual
New Traders License
1587.2
Age (in Years) 9 21 35 1450.0 25 504.6 60 5.6 35 15.1 2937.7 22 381.6 ** 43 10.4 21 14.3 2138.9 9 316.7 * 18 7.4 9 9.8 9 22 25 2.4 3.9 9.5 **
< 30 (N=#)
1822.2
30-40 (N=#)
2556.1
>40 (N=#)
945.4
Education 0.0 2 2 11 50 2306.7 42 677.3 92 1950.0 7 668.2 18 1600.0 4 1300.0 ** 6 1.5 8.5 7.7 1066.7 3 -2433.3 ** 5 1.5 2 2 11 50 10.7 7.8 16.4 14.3 3 4 7 42 0.0 9.2 6.3 7.9 6.6 ** **
Illiterate (N=#)
Below Primary (N=#)
3500.0
Primary (N=#)
300.0
Middle (N=#)
1281.8
1629.4
Income (in Rs.) 0 3 32 30 0 1950.0 2 2592.9 21 1691.2 25 85.6 1017.6 1950.0 NC 1250.0 6 -259.3 6000.0 2 6000.0 NC 2 9 57 51 2 2.0 6.4 9.1 0 3 32 30 0 3.5 6.8 15.6 15.2 11.0 2 6 25 21 2 3.5 4.8 9.2 6.1 11.0 NC ** NC
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
1509.3
5001-10000 (N=#)
1605.6
10,000-30000 (N=#)
1575.3
>30000 (N=#)
371
372
Total payment made N ized (C-M) cance ized (C-M) cance ComputerN N Manual N N Change SigniComputerChange SigniTotal elapsed time in availing service 3 6 52 1 3 1425.0 4 -668.3 7 1.3 3 12.5 4 0 -100.0 NC 1 0.0 1 0 2291.3 48 600.3 100 7.8 52 14.2 48 6.4 0.0 11.2 650.0 3 -388.3 9 8.7 6 11.0 3 2.3 ** NC 2500.0 1 1624.0 ** 4 7.7 3 15.0 1 7.3 14 1744.5 22 793.1 ** 36 5.2 14 11.4 22 6.2 ** 51 2404.4 34 642.7 85 8.0 51 15.6 34 7.6 ** Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Mumbai)
Purpose
Manual
Occupation
Worker
876.0
Executive/Clerical
1038.3
Businessman
1691.0
Dependant/Student
100.0
Other
2093.3
951.4
section (N=#)
1761.7
ment section (N=#)
Table 2: Service quality improvement (New Traders License)

Dierence in Overall quality of service score Purpose Manual New Traders License Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#) 30-40 (N=#) >40 (N=#) Education Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#) Middle (N=#) Matric & Above (N=#) Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#) 2000-5000 (N=#) 5001-10000 (N=#) 10,000-30000 (N=#) >30000 (N=#) Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Respondents who picked Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 3.4 52 3.2 43 -0.2 95 3.7 13 2.8 13 -0.9 ** 26 3.4 60 3.2 46 -0.2 106 3.8 5 3.1 10 -0.7 15 4.3 3.2 3.4 4.0 3.7 3 6 52 1 3 3.8 4.0 3.3 3.1 1 3 48 0 4 -0.3 0.1 -0.3 -4.0 0.1 NC 4 9 100 1 7 3.3 3.6 3.3 0 3 32 30 0 4.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.5 2 6 25 21 2 4.0 -0.3 -0.5 -0.2 3.5 NC NC 2 9 57 51 2 3.5 4.0 3.2 3.5 2 2 11 50 4.0 2.5 3.3 3.1 3 4 7 42 0.0 0.5 -1.5 0.1 -0.4 5 6 18 92 3.4 3.2 3.5 9 21 35 3.1 3.1 3.2 9 22 25 -0.3 -0.1 -0.3 18 43 60 3.4 N Computerized 3.1 N Change (C-M) -0.3 Signicance N
373
Purpose Manual Respondents who picked Durability and/or legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick either Durability nor legibility of certicates/ printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 3.4 58 3.9 7 3.4 56 3.3 9 3.5 48 3.1 17 N
2.7
11
-0.4
28
3.2
45
-0.3
93
3.7
0.4
16
3.1
49
-0.3
105
3.0
-0.9
13
3.2
50
-0.2
108
374
Table 3: Governance and corruption (New Traders License)

Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) N 10.7 -0.1 121 3.3 3.1 -0.2 Computerized N N N N Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale)
Purpose
Manual
New Traders License
10.8
Age (in Years) 9 21 35 4.0 25 -10.3 60 3.5 35 3.1 25 13.6 22 8.8 43 3.0 21 3.2 22 0.2 -0.4 22.2 9 11.1 18 2.8 9 3.1 9 0.3
< 30 (N=#)
11.1
30-40 (N=#)
4.8
>40 (N=#)
14.3
Education 0.0 2 2 11 50 9.5 42 -2.5 92 3.3 28.6 7 19.5 18 3.1 11 50 0.0 4 0.0 6 4.0 2 0.0 3 0.0 5 3.5 2 3.3 2.5 2.7 3.3 3 4 7 42 0.0 -0.2 -1.5 -0.4 0.0
Illiterate (N=#)
Below Primary (N=#)
0.0
Primary (N=#)
0.0
Middle (N=#)
9.1
12.0
Income (in Rs.) 0 3 32 30 0 0.0 2 0.0 9.5 21 -3.8 16.0 25 6.6 0.0 6 0.0 9 57 51 2 0.0 2 0.0 2 3.0 3.3 3.2 0 3 32 30 0 4.0 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.5 2 6 25 21 2 4.0 0.3 -0.3 -0.1 3.5
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
0.0
5001-10000 (N=#)
9.4
10,000-30000 (N=#)
13.3
>30000 (N=#)
Occupation 3 6 52 12.5 48 0.0 3 0.0 1 -33.3 -16.7 2.9 4 9 100 4.3 3.2 3.2 3 6 52 4.0 3.0 3.1 1 3 48 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1
Worker
33.3
Executive/Clerical
16.7
Businessman
9.6
375
376
Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) N 1 3 0.0 4 0.0 7 3.3 3 3.8 4 0.5 0 0.0 1 4.0 1 0 -4.0 Computerized N N N N Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale) 12 0.0 13 -25.0 25 3.1 12 3.2 13 0.1 53 14.0 43 6.5 96 3.3 53 3.1 43 -0.2 7 20.0 5 5.7 12 3.1 7 3.2 5 0.1 58 9.8 51 -0.5 109 3.3 58 3.1 51 -0.2 18 12.5 8 -20.8 26 2.9 18 2.6 8 -0.3 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Mumbai) 47 10.4 48 8.3 95 3.4 47 3.2 48 -0.2
Purpose
Manual
Dependant/Student
0.0
Other
0.0
25.0
7.5
14.3
10.3
33.3
2.1
BMC
Table 1: Cost to client (Grievances)
Purpose N ized 0.0 -5720.3 ** 60 9.9 10.2 0.3 (C-M) cance ual ized (C-M) ComputerN N N N Change SigniManComputerChange
Total payment made
Total elapsed time in availing service Signicance
Man-
ual
Grievances
5720.3
Age (in Years) 3 15 18 0.0 14 -5638.9 32 11.3 18 12.5 0.0 7 -6942.0 ** 22 10.2 15 10.3 3 6 0.0 3 -100.0 6 0.7 3 3.0 2 2.3 0.1 1.2 **
< 30 (N=#)
100.0
30-40 (N=#)
6942.0
>40 (N=#)
5638.9
Education 0 1 5 3 27 0.0 19 -7569.6 46 0.0 2 -123.3 5 0.0 1 -236.0 ** 6 4.8 2.3 12.0 0.0 1 0.0 2 2.0 1 5 3 27 8.4 6.0 0.0 1 0.0 1 0 30.0 1 0 1 0 9 30.0 -2.0 1.2 -2.3 -3.6 NC NC NC
Illiterate (N=#)
Below Primary (N=#)
0.0
Primary (N=#)
236.0
Middle (N=#)
123.3
7569.6
Income (in Rs.) 0.0 4 20 8 4 0.0 2 0.0 12 -12700.0 0.0 0.0 6 -5201.5 0.0 4 -75.0 ** ** 8 26 20 6 1.1 11.9 12.8 3.5 4 20 8 4 18.0 2.0 7.0 30.0 2 2 6 1 0.0 16.9 -9.9 -5.8 26.5 **
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
75.0
5001-10000 (N=#)
5201.5
10,000-30000 (N=#)
12700.0
>30000 (N=#)
0.0
377
378
Total payment made N ized (C-M) cance ual ized (C-M) cance ComputerN N N N Change SigniManComputerChange SigniTotal elapsed time in availing service 6 14 9 5 2 0.0 4 0.0 6 16.0 2 0 0.0 5 -60.0 10 1.0 5 16.8 4 0.0 6 -344.4 15 12.1 9 5.5 2 -6.6 15.8 -16.0 ** NC 0.0 6 -14442.9 ** 20 13.0 14 2.7 3 -10.3 0.0 3 -55.0 * 9 4.8 6 13.0 2 8.2 9 0.0 11 -11277.8 20 4.8 9 5.1 7 0.3 27 0.0 13 -3867.8 40 11.6 27 19.0 4 7.4 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Mumbai)
Purpose
Man-
ual
Occupation
55.0
Executive/Clerical
14442.9
Businessman
344.4
Dependant/Student
60.0
Other
0.0
11277.8
(N=#)
3867.8
(N=#)
Table 2: Service quality improvement (Grievances)

Purpose Manual Birth Registration (N=#) Age (in Years) < 30 (N=#) 30-40 (N=#) >40 (N=#) Education Illiterate (N=#) Literate without Education/ Below Primary (N=#) Primary (N=#) Middle (N=#) Matric & Above (N=#) Income (in Rs.) <2000 (N=#) 2000-5000 (N=#) 5001-10000 (N=#) 10,000-30000 (N=#) >30000 (N=#) Occupation Cultivation/Labourer/Worker Executive/Clerical Businessman Dependant/Student Other Respondents who picked Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Accuracy of Transactions in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 2.5 8 2.1 7 -0.4 * 15 2.9 34 2.5 19 -0.4 53 3.5 2 3.6 5 0.1 ** 7 2.7 3.2 2.8 2.8 2.5 6 14 9 5 2 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.2 2.3 3 6 6 5 4 0.0 -0.5 -0.1 0.4 -0.2 ** * ** 9 20 15 10 6 3.3 2.8 3.1 2.8 4 20 8 4 3.0 3.0 2.6 2.0 4 6 12 2 0.0 -0.3 0.2 -0.5 -0.8 ** ** 8 26 20 6 3.0 2.8 2.7 3.0 0 1 5 3 27 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.8 1 1 1 2 19 3.0 0.0 -1.8 -0.7 -0.2 ** 1 2 6 5 46 3.0 3.1 2.7 3 15 18 2.0 3.1 2.6 3 7 14 -1.0 0.0 -0.1 ** 6 22 32 2.9 Dierence in Overall quality of service score N Computerized 2.7 N Change (C-M) -0.2 Signicance ** N 60
379
Purpose Manual Respondents who did not pick Responsiveness of functionaries to your queries and complaints in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Durability and/or legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick either Durability nor legibility of certicates/printouts in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Convenience of working hours of the centre/oce in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who picked Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) Respondents who did not pick Ability to complain and provide feedback to the concerned department in Overall Assessment section (N=#) 2.9 3.3 3.1 2.2 2.9 2.8 3.0
Dierence in Overall quality of service score N Computerized N Change (C-M) Signicance N
28
2.9
17
-0.1
**
45
2.7
-0.1
32
2.7
21
-0.2
53
2.5
0.3
**
11
27
2.7
22
-0.4
49
2.3
-1.0
**
32
2.8
21
-0.1
53
380
Table 3: Governance and corruption (Grievances)

Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) N 4.2 -4.1 ** 60 2.9 2.7 -0.2 Computerized N N N N Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale)
Purpose
Manual
8.3
Age (in Years) 3 15 18 7.1 14 -4.0 ** 32 2.6 18 2.7 14 0.0 7 -6.7 * 22 3.2 15 2.9 7 -0.3 0.1 0.0 3 0.0 ** 6 3.3 3 2.0 3 -1.3
< 30 (N=#)
0.0
30-40 (N=#)
6.7
>40 (N=#)
11.1
Education 0 1 5 3 27 5.3 19 -5.8 ** 46 2.7 0.0 2 0.0 5 3.3 0.0 1 0.0 6 3.4 5 3 27 0.0 1 0.0 2 3.0 1 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.8 0.0 1 0.0 1 0 3.0 1 1 1 2 19 3.0 0.0 -2.4 -1.3 0.1 NC NC **
Illiterate (N=#)
Below Primary (N=#)
0.0
Primary (N=#)
0.0
Middle (N=#)
0.0
11.1
Income (in Rs.) 0.0 4 20 8 4 0.0 2 0.0 8.3 12 -4.2 0.0 6 -10.0 * 0.0 4 0.0 8 26 20 6 4.0 2.7 2.8 3.0 4 20 8 4 3.0 3.0 2.4 2.5 4 6 12 2 0.0 -1.0 0.3 -0.4 -0.5
<2000 (N=#)
2000-5000 (N=#)
0.0
5001-10000 (N=#)
10.0
10,000-30000 (N=#)
12.5
>30000 (N=#)
0.0
381
382
Proportion paying bribes (Percentage) N Computerized N N N N Change (C-M) Signicance Manual Computerized Change (C-M) Signicance Dierence in overall governance score (5-point scale) 6 14 9 5 2 0.0 4 0.0 6 3.0 2 2.0 4 -1.0 0.0 5 0.0 10 3.2 5 3.2 5 0.0 ** 16.7 6 -5.5 ** 15 2.4 9 2.5 6 0.1 0.0 6 -7.1 ** 20 2.9 14 2.8 6 -0.1 0.0 3 0.0 9 3.3 6 2.7 3 -0.6 5 50.0 2 30.0 ** 7 2.6 5 2.0 2 -0.6 31 0.0 22 -6.5 * 53 2.9 31 2.7 22 -0.2 6 20.0 5 20.0 * 11 3.8 6 2 5 -1.8 ** 30 0.0 19 -10.0 ** 49 2.7 30 2.8 19 0.1 6 0.0 4 -33.3 * 10 3 6 3 4 0.0 Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010 (Mumbai) 30 5.0 20 1.7 ** 50 2.9 30 2.6 20 -0.3
Purpose
Manual
Occupation
0.0
Executive/Clerical
7.1
Businessman
22.2
Dependant/Student
0.0
Other
0.0
20.0
6.5
0.0
10.0
33.3
3.3

Imptact Assessment JnNURMs E-Governance Reforms 20412

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Imptact Assessment JnNURMs E-Governance Reforms 20412

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ABOUT THE BOOK

Impact Assessment of JnNURMs e-Governance Reforms 2010

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

Assessment of Delivery of Key Services: The Citizens Perspective

ABOUT THE BOOK

Impact Assessment of JnNURMs e-Governance Reforms 2010

Indian Institute of Management Vastrapur, Ahmedabad 380 015

Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Figure 10: Redressal of Grievances ............................................................................................. 35

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

1.Role of IIMA in the Assessment Study

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

2.Status of Computerization of ULBs Assessed in The Study

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

Trade License - New

Trade License New, Building Approval Grievance

Trade License New, Building Approval, Mutation

the manual and the computerized system.

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

6.Analysis of Survey Data

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

7.Cost Element Wise Impact

7.2Costs of Availing Service

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

Figure 1: Number of Trips7

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

Figure 2: Waiting Time (In Minutes)

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

Figure 3: Elapsed Time (In Days)

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

Figure 4: Proportion Paying Bribes (%)

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

8.Service Wise Impact

Figure 5: Purpose of Obtaining A Birth Certicate

8.2Payment of Property Tax and Utility Bills

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

Figure 6: Birth Certicate

8.3Issue of New Trade License

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

Figure 7: Payment of Property Tax and Utility Bills

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

Figure 8: Issue of New Trade License.

8.4Renewal of Trade License

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

Figure 9: Renewal of Trade License

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

Figure 10: Redressal of Grievances

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

9.Learnings for Future Implementation of e-Governance

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

large as for other services where long travel is involved.

Table 6: Important Aributes Across ULBs and Services (by % of Responses)

(%) based on number of responses

Cost of availing service

Impact Assessment of JnNURM's e-Governance Reforms 2010

10.Limitations of The Study

Annexure I: Service Delivery Process