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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Perceptions and practice of collaboration It is widely understood that one of the keys to success with e-government is achievement of greater collaboration between government organisations. E-government implies a shift from a “silo” style of public sector towards one where government organisations work across their traditional boundaries to share information and ICT systems, and develop common approaches to meeting the needs of citizens and businesses. Denmark has identified the silo or “bunker” issue as a barrier to e-government, and set out to reduce the problem through its revised e-government strategy. Clearly, Denmark has many arrangements in place for achieving greater e-government co-ordination and collaboration. However, while the idea of collaboration is widely supported by officials, the results of the OECD survey indicate that, overall, e-government has so far only had a moderate impact on current levels of collaboration. Of all the areas of potential e-government impact reported on in the survey, a positive impact on partnering (collaboration) within government was only indicated by 29% of survey respondents, while the remaining 71% reported that e-government was having a neutral impact in this area (no negative impact was experienced). Survey respondents did report that their organisations were either sharing information or actively working with other organisations in a wide variety of areas, ranging from definition of technical standards and undertaking market research, to developing common portals, defining common service delivery policies, and actually delivering services. Information sharing was highest in the areas of market research (56% of respondents), and research and development (55%), while joint work was highest in the areas of e-procurement (55%), definition of technical standards (54%), and establishment of ICT infrastructure (53%). The area where the highest numbers of respondents were planning to collaborate was in developing “middleware” solutions (31%). Figure 6.7 Areas of e-government collaboration Definition of technical standards Establishing common portals Collecting and using statistical information Definition of common service delivery policies and non-technical standards E-procurement Procurement of IT Establishing IT infrastructure Actual delivery or services Actual delivery of information Monitoring and evaluation of e-government R&D Market research Definition of e-government strategy Middleware solutions 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Working together Sharing information Planning to collaborate 115
Source: OECD E-government Survey: Denmark. Government portals are an important manifestation of the benefits of more co-ordinated and collaborative e-government. The survey results paint an interesting picture of the way the Danish public sector is becoming accessible via provision of information and services through a range of portals. In terms of information delivery, the highest level of access to individual organisations’ Web sites was provided by Denmark’s official public sector portal www.danmark.dk; 86% of respondents said they are linked to this portal. The next highest level of information delivery occurred through “theme” portals in areas such as health and education, through which 51% of respondents reported their Web sites were accessible. Following this, 49% of respondents said their Web sites were accessible through local government portals (e.g. www.netborger.dk operated by KMD), and the same number reported Web site accessibility through www.denmark.dk – Denmark’s official Web site aimed at an international audience. Finally 42% of respondents said their Web sites were accessible through businesses portals such as www.virk.dk. Delivery of agencies’ services through portals presents a slightly different picture, with the highest level of service delivery occurring through business portals (34% of respondents), followed by the theme portals (33%) and then www.danmark.dk (30%). When asked about the importance of a number of obstacles to collaboration, survey respondents indicated that the biggest challenge they face is a lack of incentives (important for 54%), followed by a lack of a common e-government vision, and lack of common understanding of e-government within organisations (each 53%). Overall, respondents indicated a wide range of obstacles to collaboration including internal resistance to change, a habit of non-collaboration and lack of leadership, direction and guidance and appropriate performance measures and managerial accountabilities. These results indicate the complex set of issues that Danish government organisations must individually and collectively address as they move towards greater e-government collaboration. 116
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 and 110: • Changing conditions in the publ
Page 111 and 112: municipalities, which might otherwi
Page 113 and 114: The current situation has evolved o
Page 115: Figure 6.6 Impacts of partnerships
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?