OECD Peer Review of E-Government in Denmark - ePractice.eu

More documents

Recommendations

Info

embrace and deliver e-government, some KMD systems are undeniably innovative. The best example of this is the e-Boks system, which has been widely acclaimed and is heavily used. Box 6.4 e-Boks e-Boks is a free electronic “mail box” service developed by KMD that allows Danes to electronically receive and save communications with both government and businesses. Almost all municipalities and many businesses are registered to use e-Boks as “senders”. e-Boks users can choose from whom they want to receive electronic communications, which are then securely filed in the e-Boks system. People can also store important electronic documents or objects, such as birth or marriage certificates, in their mail boxes. e-Boks is tied to the Danish CPR number, meaning that documents can be saved indefinitely regardless of changes in users’ names, addresses (including e-mail address) and other contact information. The use of the CPR number by the e-Boks system is tightly regulated, and notification is always sent to the mailbox owner when the e-Boks has been used. It is possible to log on to e-Boks using either a digital signature or a pin code. Users can also log on via their online banking service. Source: www.kmd.dk. Following discussion of the relationship between e-government and the Structural Reform, one of the issues most frequently raised in interviews for this review was the role of KMD in the municipal ICT market and the impact this has on e-government. A wide range of often contradictory and polarized views was expressed, including: • KMD uses its position of market dominance to lock municipalities in to using outdated, expensive, and non-interoperable (in terms of their alignment with the Danish enterprise architecture) information systems. It is also seen as unresponsive to customer demands, due to the fact that it faces little or no competition in many areas. • Municipalities’ heavy reliance on KMD has led them to under-invest in developing the knowledge and skills necessary for effective and independent participation in e-government. • The existence of KMD is a vital element of successful implementation of the Structural Reform, as it will both provide for continuity of municipal operations while mergers take place, and support changed administrative functions through various “structural reform packages” that many municipalities will rely upon as the basis of their ICT environment during and beyond the Reform. • Widespread reliance on KMD allows for more cost-effective development of municipal ICT systems and applications, especially due to economies of scale. It also allows for more consistent levels of front- and back-office service provision across municipalities. • KMD distorts the structure of the municipal ICT market, which reduces competition, lowers quality, and inhibits innovation. This situation is said to be contrary to general Danish competition policy, and also to the Government’s plans to make the ICT industry as competitive as possible. The bias of comment was heavily towards the negative, with widespread emphasis on the view that KMD is a monopolist in most areas of municipal ICT and that it is thus, in a sense, currently the most significant common framework for municipal e-government. Commentators consistently noted that the effect KMD has on e-government is complex. They cited the usual downside effects of monopoly, while also acknowledging benefits, such as the fact that KMD has provided the necessary ICT capacity to allow for relatively uniform implementation of many different municipal e-government applications and services. This is seen to have been of particular benefit to the smallest 109
municipalities, which might otherwise have struggled to develop any e-government capacity. The creation of larger municipalities through the Structural Reform will, however, reduce this as an argument in favour of the status quo. At the time of this review, critics of the situation with KMD – particularly municipalities and Danish ICT specialists – focused on two particular issues. First, there was criticism of KMD’s ability to deliver solutions that were compatible with the common e-government frameworks being developed in Denmark. A particular example of this is the implementation of FESD. Government organisations now face a competitive market for EDM products from three accredited suppliers whose products meet the FESD EDM interoperability standards. However, administrative systems supplied to municipalities by KMD, including an EDM system called EDH, could not be made to interoperate with FESD-compliant systems. Municipalities were therefore locked into dealing with one supplier, and the seamless State-local service provision being sought through e-government was much more difficult to achieve in this area. It is important to acknowledge that this type of problem can arise not only from issues of market structure, but also from the simple fact of technological evolution and the challenge of ensuring that ICT systems and applications remain compatible with changing standards, many of which are not in existence when systems are developed and put into service (i.e. in time, everything becomes a legacy system). It is also important to note that KMD has publicly committed to both developing future systems that are complaint with government-wide open standards, and standards-compliant “gateways” for those legacy systems that cannot be redeveloped. Nonetheless, municipalities’ reliance on ICT that does not comply with many Danish e-government standards will continue to impact on the e-government programme for the foreseeable future. The second major criticism expressed about KMD at the time of this review relates to the push towards use of so-called “open-source” software in Denmark through the Danish Software Strategy. This strategy arose from research undertaken by the Danish Board of Technology (an independent body established by the Parliament), which in late 2002 produced a report entitled Open-source Software in e-Government. The report presented an analysis showing that that the Danish public sector could save several billion DKK per year by switching from proprietary (i.e. closed-source) to open-source software. The resulting software strategy was put in place by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MVTU) in 2003. The overarching goal of this strategy is to foster competition, quality and coherence of the public’s software solutions, on the basis of the following principles: • Maximum value for money irrespective of software type. • Competition, independence and freedom of choice. • Interoperability and flexibility. • Development and innovation. In adopting this strategy Denmark has taken a pragmatic approach to the use of open-source software in government. The strategy expresses no particular preference, instead pushing government organisations to voluntarily choose software on the basis of how it fits with wider e-government and economic objectives. 110
Page 1 and 2:
OECD PEER REVIEW OF E-GOVERNMENT IN
Page 3 and 4:
TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY ASSESSMEN
Page 5 and 6:
ANNEX A: OVERVIEW OF POLITICAL AND
Page 7 and 8:
OECD PEER REVIEW OF E-GOVERNMENT IN
Page 9 and 10:
While it is vital that the Governme
Page 11 and 12:
Finance and the MVTU following thes
Page 13 and 14:
this challenge was frequently menti
Page 15 and 16:
Alongside the problem of the reliab
Page 17 and 18:
In terms of its impact on organisat
Page 19 and 20:
and businesses. While it is not cer
Page 21 and 22:
considerable strategic importance t
Page 23 and 24:
government organisations are aware
Page 25 and 26:
8. Monitoring and evaluation Denmar
Page 27 and 28:
Abstract There is a favourable envi
Page 29 and 30:
E-government context Government pol
Page 31 and 32:
The Structural Reform Between 2005
Page 33 and 34:
administrative procedures. The find
Page 35 and 36:
Figure 1.2 E-government structure a
Page 37 and 38:
II. THE CASE FOR E-GOVERNMENT Denma
Page 39 and 40:
• Creation of a competitive marke
Page 41 and 42:
Abstract Government organisations c
Page 43 and 44:
Source: OECD E-Government Survey: D
Page 45 and 46:
Figure 3.2 Legislative and regulato
Page 47 and 48:
modernisation process, especially i
Page 49 and 50:
and the generally high level of tru
Page 51 and 52:
fund it has created providing a tot
Page 53 and 54:
outright barriers. The clearest evi
Page 55 and 56:
Figure 3.5 Use of public digital se
Page 57 and 58:
• Employment status: students and
Page 59 and 60: APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 3: INFORMATION
Page 61 and 62: Figure 3.A.4 ICT usage among Danish
Page 63 and 64: Figure 3.A.8 Internet access among
Page 65 and 66: IV. PLANNING AND LEADERSHIP The e-g
Page 67 and 68: The strategy notes that Denmark is
Page 69 and 70: exchanged electronically. This is e
Page 71 and 72: with even lower rankings for driver
Page 73 and 74: involvement in e-government therefo
Page 75 and 76: In addition to support for the Join
Page 77 and 78: Figure 4.5 Responsibility for desig
Page 79 and 80: V. ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE This chapt
Page 81 and 82: Structural Reform and e-government
Page 83 and 84: The Task Force has initiated a proj
Page 85 and 86: Figure 5.2 Share of documents recei
Page 87 and 88: Box 5.1 Improving middle management
Page 89 and 90: Abstract Collaboration is relativel
Page 91 and 92: Co-ordination of e-government polic
Page 93 and 94: Box 6.1 Key e-government co-ordinat
Page 95 and 96: The CRS encompasses a number of reg
Page 97 and 98: Digital signatures are now being wi
Page 99 and 100: Denmark - something that could be a
Page 101 and 102: Staffed by employees from the Digit
Page 103 and 104: The additional workload is connecte
Page 105 and 106: such a framework be designed; and 3
Page 107 and 108: schemas used in different areas of
Page 109: • Changing conditions in the publ
Page 113 and 114: The current situation has evolved o
Page 115 and 116: Figure 6.6 Impacts of partnerships
Page 117 and 118: Source: OECD E-government Survey: D
Page 119 and 120: Abstract The Danish vision for e-go
Page 121 and 122: Figure 7.1 Drivers of e-government
Page 123 and 124: • To ensure internal knowledge of
Page 125 and 126: • The lack of information and the
Page 127 and 128: Figure 7.2 Source and type of e-gov
Page 129 and 130: Figure 7.4 Constraints on demand fo
Page 131 and 132: When asked about the level of impor
Page 133 and 134: eing for one group or another (e.g.
Page 135 and 136: Figure 7.8 Use of electronic delive
Page 137 and 138: The national portal www.denmark.dk
Page 139 and 140: identification of the relationship
Page 141 and 142: Abstract At the all-of-government l
Page 143 and 144: • At least 60 percent of all publ
Page 145 and 146: External audit Another important el
Page 147 and 148: can have impacts: 1) “service cha
Page 149 and 150: Figure 8.4 Responsibilities for mon
Page 151 and 152: CASE STUDY 1: STANDARDS-BASED E-GOV
Page 153 and 154: pharmacies (e.g. referrals and disc
Page 155 and 156: Danish approach of flexible decentr
Page 157 and 158: CASE STUDY 2: ACHIEVING E-GOVERNMEN
Page 159 and 160: Estimation of benefits for both eDa
Page 161 and 162:
ANNEX A: OVERVIEW OF POLITICAL AND
Page 163 and 164:
ANNEX B: INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT AND
Page 165 and 166:
Administrative environment Organisa
Page 167 and 168:
Other State government responsibili
Page 169 and 170:
− Models to support inter-organis
Page 171 and 172:
ICT usage As discussed in Chapter 3
Page 173 and 174:
Promotion of IT Research and Educat
Page 175 and 176:
other reforms. The plan identified
Page 177 and 178:
Overall, these action plans were su
Page 179 and 180:
E-mail addresses for everyone Anoth
Page 181 and 182:
had developed extensive practical k
Page 183 and 184:
ANNEX E: METHODOLOGY Definition of
Page 185 and 186:
The survey asked State and local go
Page 187 and 188:
ANNEX F: GLOSSARY This glossary was
Page 189 and 190:
BIBLIOGRAPHY Agency for Governmenta
Page 191 and 192:
Ministry of Science, Technology and
Page 193:
Statistics Denmark (2004b), Nyt fra
show all

OECD Peer Review of E-Government in Denmark - ePractice.eu

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?