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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

VI. COMMON FRAMEWORKS AND COLLABORATION Collaboration between government organisations is both a key requirement and significant challenge for the development of efficient and effective e-government in all OECD countries. Without collaboration, some of the most important results that governments are seeking through e-government simply cannot be achieved. This chapter looks at the steps Denmark has taken to facilitate collaboration on e-government, especially through co-ordination efforts and development of common frameworks to support collaborative action. Collaboration is relatively well advanced in Denmark. Interviews with officials revealed a strong commitment to the concept and practice of collaboration, and general satisfaction with the way the policy and operational environments support this behaviour. This attitude was reflected in the OECD survey; when asked about potential challenges to their implementation of e-government, only 31% of respondents stated that difficulty in collaboration was a challenge of any importance, with less than 1% saying it was very important. This is a positive result that appears to reflect Denmark’s public sector culture of consensus and compromise acting in support of e-government. Figure 6.1 Importance of potential challenges to e-government implementation External barriers (e.g. legislative/regulatory, budgetary, digital divide) Competition for resources Lack of planning within your organisation Lack of skills in your organisation Management of technology Unclear costs and benefits of e-government Resistance to organisational change Difficulty of designing customer-focused services Lack of political leadership Privacy and security concerns Unclear definition of institutional responsibilities for e-government Unclear accountability Duplication of actors at e-government policy-setting level Difficulty of collaborating with other organisations 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very important challenge Important challenge Somewhat important challenge Not an important challenge Not a challenge (has % been mastered) Not a relevant challenge Source: OECD E-Government Survey: Denmark. 89
Co-ordination of e-government policies and projects At State government level each ministry plays a co-ordinating role for the various departments, agencies and bodies it is responsible for. This is most clearly seen in the process of budget allocation within the overall ministerial portfolio. However, internal co-ordination of e-government systems and applications development is increasingly evident. This is a result of the public sector modernisation programme, which requires all ministries to prepare strategies that include a focus on improving the efficiency and quality of their services through better (“more qualified”) use of ICT. At the all-of-government level, rather than consolidating co-ordination responsibilities under a single entity such as a chief information officer, Denmark has involved several ministries in co-ordinating e-government according to how it fits with their wider responsibilities, functions and expertise. As noted in Chapter 4, while this creates potential for duplication of roles and/or lack of clarity, this is generally not seen to be a significant problem in Denmark. However, there is still room for improvement. Overall, Denmark’s current arrangements for top-level planning, co-ordination and leadership of e-government have contributed significantly to its achievements, and there is strong support, both within and outside government, for continuation of these arrangements beyond 2006. Through the Digital Task Force, the Ministry of Finance plays the most prominent e-government co-ordinating role at the all-of-government level. This role, which is focused on cross-organisational issues that arise from, or impact on, the e-government strategy, has grown alongside a broader push from the Government for more public sector co-ordination aimed at achieving better results. This push is partly a response to the cross-cutting nature of most major policy issues in Denmark, and partly due to an e-government-generated awareness of the need to develop a culture of collaboration in the public sector. It has led to increased questioning of the traditionally high levels of independence and decentralised powers of decision making that government organisations have enjoyed. In 2003, a major review of the e-government strategy and Project e-Government identified the need to extend the project until the end of 2006. As already noted in Chapter 4, it also brought to light a number of challenges and obstacles in front of the project, including a widespread “bunker” (silo) culture in government that acted to inhibit collaboration. In considering how to address these obstacles, the Joint Board of e-Government looked at the tension between co-ordination and centralisation as approaches to implementation of the e-government strategy. The outcome was an acknowledgement of the importance of using both approaches to achieve the Danish e-government vision, and a shift from “soft” to “strong” co-ordination as the overall approach to implementation of the e-government strategy. Since 2004, the overall strategic approach to e-government has involved more active direction and support from the centre of government that features a notable increase in attention to development of all-of-government co-ordination frameworks and common ICT infrastructures. The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MVTU) has the other major e-government co-ordinating role, due both to its overall responsibility for Danish ICT policy and the close involvement of its IT-Policy Centre in Project e-Government. The principal task of the Ministry is to develop and implement key initiatives of the Government’s ICT policy, and to contribute to creating the best possible framework for citizens, businesses and the public sector to realise information society goals. The Ministry’s co-ordination responsibilities are carried out in a variety of ways, particularly through its role in developing the Danish enterprise architecture and ICT standard setting (discussed below); for example, the work of the XML Committee is managed by the National IT and Telecom Agency, located under the MVTU. 90
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: Abstract Collaboration is relativel
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?