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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

However, the frequency with which this problem was identified during interviews as being a challenge to e-government indicates a need to further examine the nature, extent and significance of the problem, and to determine whether these measures have adequately addressed it. It may also indicate a need to ensure that measures to assist organisations in preparing business cases for individual e-government projects address multi-agency initiatives (see Chapter 8). Representatives of the Digital Task Force informed the OECD review team that the sow/harvest problem is leading to an inadequate level of IT system development across government. The lack of a commonly applicable model for financing the development and/or modernisation of multi-organisation IT systems has been identified as the main cause of the problem. The Task Force believes that, in order to be effective, any such model should cover the financing of all aspects of IT system development including: 1) specification; 2) tendering; 3) contracting; 4) system development; 5) implementation; and 6) maintenance. The model should also include mechanisms for proportional assessment and allocation of costs and benefits between State and local government. This appears to be a sensible and necessary approach to addressing the sow/harvest problem. Survey respondents also perceived a lack of long-term budgeting horizons as a barrier to e-government. However, some mechanisms for long-term spending are in place in Denmark. Agencies can carry forward unused appropriations for operating expenditures without limit. They can also borrow up to 2% against future appropriations (up to a ceiling of DKK 10 million). In addition, agencies can carry forward appropriations for capital acquisitions to the next year. The Government is in the process of introducing accrual accounting (due to be completed by 2007), which will also allow agencies greater ability to take out loans for large ICT investments and repay them in the future. However, interviews with officials did not provide any indication of how effectively the long-term funding mechanisms available to agencies are being used. This could simply show a general lack of knowledge about existing budget rules. It may, however, indicate the presence of risk-averse attitudes towards using these mechanisms. This problem may be solved by linking investment decisions to robust business cases that properly evaluate the risk of e-government initiatives. Special funds for e-government Aside from a relatively small budget held by the Digital Task Force for investment in “collective interest” initiatives (e.g. so-called “service community” initiatives where groups of agencies collaborate to develop e-government projects in areas where they have overlapping roles and responsibilities), at the State government level there is no dedicated e-government funding. However, there has been some inconclusive discussion about creating central funds for e-government, with most concern focused on reducing the perceived risk associated with the repayment of loans. Central funds can be an effective tool for supporting e-government, provided they are linked to clear objectives and subject to the Government’s prerogative and capacity to assess and renew expenditure priorities. At other levels of government, until the recent establishment of the Structural Reform ICT loan fund there have been no dedicated funds for e-government initiatives. As discussed above, at the municipal level there has been a long-standing concern that the small size of municipalities has limited their ability to achieve greater efficiency or pursue performance improvement opportunities such as e-government. This concern has informed the design of the Structural Reform policy. Also, in the latest budgetary agreement between the State government and municipalities a DKK 30 million fund for municipal e-government initiatives was provided to Local Government Denmark. Overall, while both the survey results and interviews clearly show that Danish government organisations do face budgetary challenges in the implementation of e-government, they do not form 51
outright barriers. The clearest evidence of this fact is provided by the general progress Denmark is making with its e-government programme. Key point 3.2 While organisations report facing budgetary barriers to e-government, there is no data available to verify whether and/or to what extent this is a real problem in Denmark. At the level of individual organisations there appears to be sufficient budgetary flexibility, and availability of instruments for longer-term budgeting and targeted budgetary assistance, to enable organisations to proceed with properly prioritised e-government initiatives. Lack of awareness, weak or missing incentives, and/or an absence of some supporting frameworks that would enable organisations to properly exploit these arrangements appear to be the main impediments to overcome in this area. Two areas of particular challenge that are understood and being addressed as part of the e-government strategy are: 1) the need for better, more robust and consistent business cases for e-government initiatives; and 2) the so-called “sow/harvest” problem, which distorts incentives for organisations to participate in multi-agency e-government initiatives. Alongside work being led by the Ministry of Finance and the Digital Task Force to develop better business case and project financing models and tools, officials hope that the introduction of accrual accounting in 2007 will help alleviate these problems. Technological environment The technological environment outside government organisations (particularly the communications infrastructure) is strongly supportive of the development of e-government in Denmark. On the supply side, the telecommunications market is competitive, providing for a high level of access to relevant technologies such as broadband Internet connections and mobile services. On the demand side, Danish consumers (both individuals and businesses) show strong rates of adoption of PCs, broadband services and mobile phones. In 2004, Denmark placed first in the annual IDC Information Society Index, and in 2005 it topped The Economist magazine’s annual “e-Readiness Rankings”. Both rankings are partially determined on the basis of countries’ ICT environment (see Box 3.2). Box 3.2 Measuring ICT readiness: Denmark’s rankings in two international surveys In 2005, Denmark scored first in The Economist’s annual “e-Readiness Ranking”, which is based on assessment of countries’: 1) connectivity and technology infrastructure (25% weighting); 2) business environment (20%); 3) levels of consumer and business adoption of ICT (20%); 4) legal and policy environment (15%); 5) social and cultural environment (15%); and 6) support of e-services (5%). The connectivity and technology infrastructure measure is based on: 1) penetration of fixed-lines, broadband, mobile phones and the Internet; 2) quality of Internet connections; 3) levels of competition in the telecommunications industry; and 4) security of the infrastructure. Adoption measures look at the prevalence of e-business practices and the extent to which the Internet is used to overhaul and automate traditional business processes, and on State investment in ICT and other factors that inform these practices. Further confirmation of the strength of the technological environment for e-government in Denmark is provided by the International Data Corporation (IDC) Information Society Index (ISI) for 2004. The ISI combines 15 variables in four infrastructure “pillars” to calculate and rank nations’ ability to access and utilize information and information technology (53 nations were included in 2004). The four pillars are: - Computers: the number of PCs in households, IT spending as a percentage of GDP, software spending as a percentage of total IT spending, and IT services spending weighted against GDP. - Internet: the number of users, the number with Internet access at home, the number of mobile Internet users, and e-commerce spending. - Telecommunications: broadband adoption, wireless services, and mobile handset shipments. 52
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: fund it has created providing a tot
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?