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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

security, procedures, personnel, economic resources, system audit and others – necessary for issuing “qualified” digital certificates. The Committee on the Legal Consequences of Using Digital Signatures, which was established in 1998 to consider the legal effects of digitally signed communications, did much of the work leading up to enactment of the Act on Electronic Signatures. The Committee investigated obstacles to electronic communications and signatures, including forms of communication, definitions of “writing” and use of personal signatures, which were created by requirements in existing legislation. It assessed the merits of different types of legislative action and drew up overall principles for the revision of various legal provisions. The digital signature legislation succeeded in its desired enabling effect. Denmark is now equipped with a functioning public sector public key infrastructure (PKI), which is increasingly being used in the provision of e-government services for both citizens and businesses. The PKI was put in place following a tender process run by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation in 2003 that selected TDC (TeleDanmark, Denmark’s largest telecommunications supplier) as the PKI provider, under the regulatory oversight of the National IT and Telecom Agency (see Chapter 6 for more details). The introduction of digital signatures, and the amendment or repeal of existing laws impeding digital communication, have brought great benefits by providing the necessary framework for the widespread adoption of digital communication with and within government. The enabling legal environment and the use of digital signatures are now key success factors of the Danish e-government programme (see Case Study 2 on the eDay initiative). However, despite these achievements in building a favourable legislative and regulatory environment, the OECD survey indicates that officials still feel that they face legislative and regulatory barriers to e-government. The most significant challenge identified by survey respondents was that the complexity of regulations makes them difficult to understand (important for 60%). An equal number of respondents expressed concerns over the effect of legislation and regulations in creating barriers to collaboration across levels of government or with external private and/or civil society organisations. Concerns over a lack of legislative and regulatory flexibility (55%) and a lack of legal recognition of e-government processes such as digital signatures (54%) closely followed (see Figure 3.2). 43
Figure 3.2 Legislative and regulatory barriers to e-government implementation Complexity of regulations (e.g. hard to understand what is required) Barriers preventing collaboration across different levels of government, or with private sector, civil society organisations Lack of legislative/regulatory flexibility Lack of recognition of e-government processes (e.g. online signatures) Conflicting or inconsistent regulations Internal regulations overly burdensome 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Very important barrier Important barrier Somewhat important barrier Not an important barrier Not a barrier (has been overcome) Not a relevant barrier Source: OECD E-Government Survey: Denmark. Survey respondents’ concern over the complexity of the legal environment for e-government may indicate that, while much legislation and many regulations have been effectively “e-enabled”, there may still be considerable work required to make the revised legal framework more consistent and easy to interpret and apply. This result could also indicate inadequate awareness among government organisations of the changes that have been made, rendering them unable to make best use of the modernised legal environment. Further progress could be made by better communicating the content and functionality of legislation to officials. It may also be beneficial to improve lawmakers’ ability to draft “e-friendly” laws and regulations. Experiences in other OECD countries indicate that concerns about legislative complexity creating a barrier to e-government can often come from individual organisations’ lack of knowledge, competence and drive for innovation in interpreting laws and regulations. These deficiencies can lead them to incorrectly perceive legal barriers to e-government that actually result from their own misinterpretation or misapplication of the law. They can see problems as being the result of inadequate laws and regulations, which, in turn, can lead to an inappropriate belief that the burden of responsibility for change rests not with themselves but with lawmakers (i.e. drafters, ministers and parliaments). While both issues – the need for further legislative change and the need for better knowledge, interpretation and application of the law – are relevant, evidence from the OECD’s interviews with officials supports the latter as being the more significant cause of any legal barriers to e-government in Denmark. Perceived or actual legislative and regulatory complexity can also have a negative impact on e-government take-up, especially to the extent that it is responsible for any failure to use e-government 44
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: Source: OECD E-Government Survey: D
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 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?