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

1. The fact that the initiative was developed under the leadership of the Joint Board of
e-Government with the backing of ministers in the Government Finance Committee gave it
credibility and ensured a sense of responsibility to participate.
2. Under the leadership and co-ordination of the Digital Task Force, marketing of the initiative
to citizens and businesses created public expectations that acted as a powerful external driver
for organisations to participate. Most organisations, even if they were not convinced by the
business case, did not want to be seen by either ministers or the public to be failing to
participate in delivering the benefits promised by eDay.
3. Giving the public and businesses a right, through eDay 2, to insist on electronic
communications with government effectively reinforced the incentive to participate in the
eDay initiative created by the eDay marketing programme undertaken by the Task Force and
individual organisations.
4. Building on ministers’ and the public’s expectations of change, in the small number of
instances where organisations did not want to participate, the threat that the Digital Task
Force would publicise non-participation provided the necessary incentive.
This last point should not be overemphasised. By all accounts, very few organisations seriously
resisted being involved in the eDays. As already noted, one of the most outstanding features of eDay is
the scope of change that was achieved on a “voluntary” basis. Also, despite the fact of a positive
business case, the provision of strong leadership and support by the centre of government, and creation
of powerful incentives for participation, it is important to understand that the success of both eDays
would not have been possible without consensus and co-operation among the organisations involved.
Next steps
Following eDay 2, work in this area has been concentrated on encouraging government
employees to use secure digital communication effectively, and on working closely with those
organisations still significantly using paper-based communications to assist them in closing those nonelectronic
channels (where possible) in due course. Further work will also be undertaken to assist
citizens and businesses in communicating electronically with government, and developing robust
practices for management of sensitive communications.
Conclusion
The eDay initiative has clearly had a positive impact on achieving Denmark’s e-government
goals, enabling the public sector to take a collective step forward in its capacity to operate digitally. It
has also had a positive impact on individual organisations’ information and ICT policies, strategies
and capabilities, has generated considerable cost savings, and has been a powerful demonstration of
the benefits of e-government, both within and outside of government. eDay offers OECD countries a
very interesting, and potentially replicable, example of how a country can rapidly advance its e-
government readiness and achievements.
159