e-GOVERNMENT IN FINLAND - ePractice.eu

Figure 4.16. E-government leadership challenges within organisations selected as “important” or
“very important”
Linking e-government activities to the general development, planning
and implementation of other activities in their organisation
Unclear responsibilities with regard to development, planning and
implementation of e-government within their own organisation
Lack of procedure for identifying best practices
Lack of risk assessment activities
lack of leadership involvement/support for e-government activities
Source: OECD
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
105
very important or important not important
290. Overall, about 60% identified “linking e-government activities to the general development of
other activities in the organisation” and “unclear responsibilities with regard to development planning and
implementation of e-government” as major challenges. Part of the challenge is internal coherence within
organisations for the planning and implementation of e-government. The Consumer Agency and
Ombudsman’s Office noted that, in general, communications and substance staff have done most of the
planning while the IT staff ensure that things work: “For agencies like us, the challenge is to train the
leadership regarding the possibilities and the vision [of e-government]. These people have very many
things to think about. I don’t think they realise how important this is going to be. Even if people think that
in Finland, we’ve gone very far, it’s not very easy: it’s not easy to get a commitment.”
291. In general, ministries tended to view all leadership challenges with greater concern than agencies.
Both ministries and agencies tended to view leadership support for e-government activities as among the
least important of the top five variables provided (see figure 4.17).