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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 8.3 Focus of monitoring and evaluation Efficiency gains in working process Contribution to public management reform Improvement of organisation's policy effectiveness Increased number of users Cost/benefit for your organisation Complexity of services provided (e.g. transaction possibility) Number of services provided Technical quality of services Contribution to economic policy objectives (e.g. business productivity, e- commerce, economic growth) Cost/benefit for other government organisations Cost/benefit for users, citizens, and businesses Improved collaboration with other government organisations 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Own organisation Many organisations Source: OECD E-Government Survey: Denmark. Responsibilities for monitoring and evaluation Responsibilities for e-government monitoring are relatively widely distributed within Danish government organisations. In line with other evidence that shows that organisations place a lower priority on monitoring and evaluation than they do on other aspects of e-government, monitoring responsibility resides with the head of the organisation in only 9% of those organisations responding to the OECD survey. This impression was reinforced in interviews, where monitoring and evaluation was a topic of little concern and one that very few participants discussed in any real depth. The appearance of an internally focused bias in monitoring activity is reinforced by the fact that monitoring responsibilities reside with groups working across several ministries or central agencies, or across several levels of government in, respectively, only 5% and 6% of organisations that responded to the survey. E-government monitoring responsibilities are most likely to be given to either a group working across several units of an organisation or a special group set up to plan the organisation’s e-government strategy (18% each), followed by e-government project leaders (17%), the head of IT in the organisation (16%) and then either a finance or internal administration unit (14% each). Aside from pointing out a lack of consistency in allocation of monitoring responsibilities, these results do not really say anything conclusive about this aspect of e-government in Denmark. An important element in effective development of e-government is that it not be seen as simply an ICT issue and thus the automatic responsibility of the ICT people in an organisation (although this may well be the best choice for some organisations). Clearly, this is not the case in Denmark, where there is instead a relatively wide distribution of monitoring responsibilities. 147
Figure 8.4 Responsibilities for monitoring e-government Group working across several units in your organisation A special group set up to plan the e-government strategy of your organisation Project leaders The head of the information technology in your oragnisation (i.e. CIO, CTO) Financial unit Administration unit Unit dealing with media and communication Customers (citizens, businesses, focus groups, civil society organisations) The head of your organisation External consultants Group working across several levels of government (i.e. state, county, municipal) Group working across several ministries/central agencies 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Monitor Source: OECD E-Government Survey: Denmark. Use of results of e-government monitoring and evaluation In addition to being valuable to individual organisations, the results of monitoring and evaluation of e-government can be of wider value to government (both ministers and officials), the Parliament and the public (both citizens and businesses). Monitoring and evaluation information can be used to plan, manage and improve e-government performance of both individual and multiple organisations, and across the whole of government. Parliament can use such information to hold the Government accountable for its use of public resources in developing e-government. The public can become more aware of and (potentially) engaged with e-government, which can benefit individuals in terms of their use of government information and services, and society and the economy as a whole in terms of the efficiency, effectiveness, transparency and openness of government. OECD survey respondents indicated that the results of their internal e-government monitoring and evaluation are most often made available to management within their own organisation (83%), followed by all staff in the organisation (47%). After this, there is a significant drop to provision of results to external parties, with 21% of organisations providing results to the public, and 20% providing them to ministers... Interviews with officials did not reveal any particular reasons for the low level of provision of this type of information about e-government to external stakeholders. They did, however, reinforce the impression that e-government monitoring and evaluation is a relatively low priority activity for most organisations, and that external demand from ministers, the Parliament or the public is relatively limited. The fact that there are no mandatory processes in place for government-wide reporting on 148
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 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: can have impacts: 1) “service cha
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?