e-GOVERNMENT IN FINLAND - ePractice.eu

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Finland could reinforce citizen support by better marketing e-government and demonstrating how it meets areas of immediate citizen concern. The demand for more central guidance to move forward may reveal insufficient internal governance structures that empower agencies to take action within broad regulatory frameworks. ICT use in the economy have provided a strong case for developing e-government and for integrating the e-government strategy in a comprehensive information society vision. As a result of its success in planning the information society, the government has obtained a degree of public confidence, which serves to reinforce its ability to incorporate e-government in its overall ICT strategy. However, this report shows that in Finland, as in other OECD countries, little is known about actual citizen demand. While limited e-government surveys indicate citizens’ general support for the development of electronic services, they have revealed little about their specific views. Information on demand for such services is incomplete, despite the government’s emphasis on the need to appraise user preferences as a basis for e-government strategies. This reflects the difficulty of collecting useful data and the diffuse nature of citizen demand, as well as the government’s approach to developing proactive services and anticipating citizen needs. More could be done to aggregate the information on customer needs currently available in ministries and agencies. Over the long term, e-government requires the continued support of citizens and business. Finland could reinforce citizen support by better marketing e-government and demonstrating how it meets areas of immediate citizen concern including service delivery, efficiency, security and privacy, and the accompanying reforms. This is particularly true in the case of back-office reforms that have an important impact, but which are not immediately visible in citizens’ day-to-day lives. BARRIERS TO E-<strong>GOVERNMENT</strong> The OECD report, “The E-government Imperative” identifies four main external obstacles to e-government: 1) legislative and regulatory barriers; 2) budgetary barriers; 3) technical barriers and 4) the digital divide. Finland has overcome many of these barriers, though challenges still remain. Legislative and regulatory issues The Finnish government has taken major steps to set the regulatory framework for ensuring the full equivalence of electronic and paper processes by enacting legislation on electronic identification, data exchange and authentication. Existing guidance provides technical “how to” support for ministries and agencies already engaged in new initiatives, but does not provide many incentives or a “push” to launch initiatives. Agencies are increasingly asking for guidance on implementing the vision for e-government. 10
The Finnish case shows that maintaining citizen trust is an on-going process, and not a final result that is achieved and then taken for granted . An Important challenge in Finland [is] the use of budgetary processes to enhance the availability of cross-agency funding in support of integrated online services. With regard to policy orientation, agency demand for more central guidance in order to move forward may reveal 1) a tendency to rely on external direction rather than developing internal capacities, 2) a .lack of ministerial leadership to promote e-government and 3) insufficient internal governance structures (i.e. regarding relationships among different government organisations). The solution is not necessarily more regulations, but rather a governance system that ensures accountability while empowering agencies to take action within broad regulatory frameworks. With regard to technical standards, the government is providing the necessary guidance, but there is also a need to clarify and better diffuse existing regulations in order to avoid duplication and unnecessary regulation. Fragmented regulations, in fact, have resulted in confusion and uncertainty over their content. The result, in some cases, has been inertia while agencies wait to be told what to do and/or receive clarification over what they are allowed to do. A closely related regulatory issue is the need to deal effectively with concerns about privacy of personal data. In Finland, privacy and security remain a high priority in order to maintain current levels of citizen trust. The use and delivery of data are protected by law and an independent authority ensures the respect of privacy rules, though confidence remains weak in the ability of ministries and agencies to develop technical solutions to deliver secure services. The Finnish case shows that maintaining citizen trust is an on-going process, and not a final result that is achieved and then taken for granted. Budgetary barriers The Finnish budgetary context for e-government is characterised by a tight fiscal environment and a decentralised system of IT spending with central monitoring of resources. Central one-time funds have been crucial for developing electronic service delivery frameworks (“e-enablers”) and may provide a model for setting up new incentive funds to foster innovation. Although insufficient funding for ICT purchases did not appear to be a major barrier for developing egovernment to date, costs related to the back office implementation of e-government, such as for training and change management, are likely to make up an increasing proportion of e-government costs, and have not been counted as part of total e-government expenditures. This report identifies as an important challenge in Finland, the use of budgetary processes to enhance the availability of cross-agency funding in support of integrated online services. 11
Page 1: OECD e-GOVERNMENT STUDIES e-GOVERNM
Page 4 and 5: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Secretariat wo
Page 6 and 7: 4.2.5 Managing multiple service cha
Page 8 and 9: This report provides a first compre
Page 12 and 13: Technical issues have been recognis
Page 14 and 15: The central government, however, la
Page 16 and 17: E-government has helped improve pla
Page 18 and 19: OVERALL ASSESSMENT The first phase
Page 20 and 21: 6. The constitutional independence
Page 22 and 23: 6. As the first OECD report of its
Page 24 and 25: Box 1.1. E-government co-ordination
Page 26 and 27: x The central administration does n
Page 28 and 29: 2 THE CASE FOR E-GOVERNMENT 25. The
Page 30 and 31: Key Points - 4 x Public administrat
Page 32 and 33: 40. As a result of these earlier go
Page 34 and 35: is illustrative. An online transact
Page 36 and 37: Health care 50 29 21 Unemployment 8
Page 38 and 39: 3 BARRIERS TO E-GOVERNMENT 61. E-go
Page 40 and 41: action unclear. In interviews, IT o
Page 42 and 43: 80. As noted in Chapter 2, the Stat
Page 44 and 45: equired to provide e-government str
Page 46 and 47: most important way to fund e-govern
Page 48 and 49: obtain (38%), followed by funds for
Page 50 and 51: Figure 3.4. E-government technologi
Page 52 and 53: 113. Not surprisingly, the OECD sur
Page 54 and 55: 3.3.2 Types of barriers 119. Respon
Page 56 and 57: x Technology neutrality in legislat
Page 58 and 59: “backbone” of the government ne
Page 60 and 61:
egional authorities is decisive, ev
Page 62 and 63:
Box 3.5. The development of mobile
Page 64 and 65:
x Improving the public administrati
Page 66 and 67:
political leaders to impress upon t
Page 68 and 69:
showed that top management commitme
Page 70 and 71:
levels of government. In particular
Page 72 and 73:
home and school, every business and
Page 74 and 75:
E-government Imperative (2003) list
Page 76 and 77:
Key Points - 31 x The proportion of
Page 78 and 79:
Key Points - 32 x Basic online info
Page 80 and 81:
Key Points - 33 x Interactive infor
Page 82 and 83:
of using more efficient electronic
Page 84 and 85:
Key Points - 35 x The proportion of
Page 86 and 87:
233. The Finnish Vehicle Administra
Page 88 and 89:
citizens’ access to information i
Page 90 and 91:
4.3.2 E-engagement at the ministry
Page 92 and 93:
Key Points - 38 x E-engagement init
Page 94 and 95:
255. At the end of 2002, the curren
Page 96 and 97:
Themes portal (e.g. environmental,
Page 98 and 99:
partnerships”). The most signific
Page 100 and 101:
job satisfaction enquiry and models
Page 102 and 103:
Key Points - 42 x Structural impact
Page 104 and 105:
Key Points - 43 x Change management
Page 106 and 107:
Figure 4.17. E-government leadershi
Page 108 and 109:
297. Interviews with ministries and
Page 110 and 111:
x Horizontal co-ordination: lack of
Page 112 and 113:
Figure 4.22. Government-wide leader
Page 114 and 115:
catalyst as well as formal or infor
Page 116 and 117:
operation of the Ministry of Social
Page 118 and 119:
development of Internet service del
Page 120 and 121:
Box 4.7. Adapting E-Procurement for
Page 122 and 123:
strategies but also the ability to
Page 124 and 125:
361. Moreover, the lack of opportun
Page 126 and 127:
372. The OECD report on the Finnish
Page 128 and 129:
x E-government plans are important
Page 130 and 131:
5 NEXT STEPS 385. In May 2003, the
Page 132 and 133:
completely new architecture for gat
Page 134 and 135:
399. Brokers receive revenue from t
Page 136 and 137:
409. In 1998, the government agreed
Page 138 and 139:
Figure 6.3. Finnish electronic citi
Page 140 and 141:
430. For both municipalities and KE
Page 142 and 143:
6.3 Case study 3: The citizen porta
Page 144 and 145:
tourism, immigration and emigration
Page 146 and 147:
Key Points - 60 x The citizen citiz
Page 148 and 149:
7.2 Appendix 2: Reports, strategies
Page 150 and 151:
x Public Management in Finland (200
Page 152 and 153:
ought together government, civil so
Page 154 and 155:
freedom of choice and availability,
Page 156 and 157:
499. The Ministry of the Interior c
Page 158 and 159:
decision requires it to provide net
Page 160 and 161:
522. Contrary to former reports by
Page 162 and 163:
x By comparison, the term Web site
Page 164 and 165:
7.4.2 List of acronyms AFLRA: The A
Page 166 and 167:
7.5 Appendix 5: Methodology 7.5.1 D
Page 168 and 169:
2. Responses are not included in ov
Page 170 and 171:
8 BIBLIOGRAPHY ACCENTURE (2001),
Page 172 and 173:
JUSSILAINEN, M. (2003), “Knowledg
Page 174 and 175:
OECD (1992), “ICCP Reviews of Inf
Page 176 and 177:
“GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION ON HIGH-QU
Page 178:
VISTI, S. (1998), “Electronic Ide
show all

e-GOVERNMENT IN FINLAND - ePractice.eu

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?