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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

“somewhat important”. With regard to clarity of institutional responsibilities, 59% reported that this was not a challenge, while 4% said it was very important, 10% said it was important and 26% said it was a somewhat important challenge. The implication of these results is that, while Denmark has done well in this area, there will likely be benefits from further top-level efforts to organise, co-ordinate and communicate e-government roles and responsibilities. Key point 4.2 The Joint Board of e-Government’s approach of bringing leaders of organisations at each level of government together to take responsibility for a matter of cross-cutting interest has been an innovation in Danish public management that appears to have paid off. Particular strengths of this approach include the fact that it allows the perspectives of each level of government to be reflected in the design of the e-government programme, which assists in gaining the engagement of government organisations in its implementation. Organisational Leadership At the individual organisation level, the OECD survey results show that responsibility for e-government resides with the head of 53% of responding organisations. This is a positive result, given the incentive for placing this responsibility elsewhere that can arise from the real and/or perceived requirements for advanced ICT knowledge and expertise that it involves; an area of competence that top-level Danish officials have self-identified as a problem impacting their ability to perform this job. Aside from being able to emphasise the importance of e-government, heads of organisations are also well-placed to provide incentives and resources, and to monitor progress to ensure that: 1) e-government goals are effectively met; and 2) these goals are aligned with the wider goals of the organisation. When asked about the role of leaders, a large majority of survey respondents indicated that “ensuring that people are accountable for achieving the goals of the plan” was the most important aspect of e-government for top-level leadership. OECD countries’ experiences show that there is often a strong incentive for responsibility for e-government to be placed outside of top-level organisational leadership. In Denmark, following the head of the organisation, the second most common location for e-government responsibility was with the heads of organisations’ IT function (18%) and then with an internal “administration” function (10%). Responsibility for actual design of e-government plans was more widespread. In organisations that responded to the OECD survey the head of the organisation had virtually no involvement in this area, with an existing group working across several parts of the organisation being the most common holder of this responsibility (33%), followed by a specially created cross-functional e-government group (29%) and then external consultants (22%) and e-government project leaders (21%). Distribution of management responsibilities showed a similar pattern, with project managers taking on proportionately more responsibility than other groups or functions. Implementation of e-government plans again tended to follow the pattern for allocation of design responsibilities, although in this area external consultants had responsibility in 27% of cases (see Figure 4.5). 75
Figure 4.5 Responsibility for designing e-government plans Group working across several units in your organisation A special group set up speically for planning the e-government strategy of your organisation The head of the Information Technology in your organisation (e.g. CIO, CTO) External consultants Project leaders Unit dealing with media and communication Administration unit Group working across several levels of government (e.g. state, county, municipal) Group working across severeal ministries/central agencies Financial unit The head of your organisation Customers (citizens, businesses, focus groups, civil society organisations) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Design Source: OECD E-Government Survey: Denmark. One other notable result was that three groups had very limited responsibility for e-government within the organisations surveyed: 1) customers; 2) groups working across several ministries or agencies in State government; and 3) groups working across levels of government. This suggests, at the least, a risk that the e-government plans of Danish government organisations might be too insular and inward focused – a possible manifestation of the “bunker” culture identified as an e-government challenge in the Digital Task Force’s 2003 review of the e-government strategy. Key point 4.3 The Danish e-government programme is effectively organised and co-ordinated, with good leadership, appropriate involvement of all levels of government, and strong linkages to relevant policy areas – especially government ICT policy. There does, however, appear to be room for ongoing improvement, particularly through further communication about the roles and responsibilities of the various actors at the centre of the e-government programme, and broadening of the groups responsible for development of e-government in individual organisations to include a more external and cross-organisation focus. 76
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: In addition to support for the Join
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?