e-GOVERNMENT IN FINLAND - ePractice.eu

Figure 4.19. Main responsibility for producing an e-government plan (organisation with a plan vs
organisation without a plan)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Source: OECD
plan no plan
Responsibility of Head Responsibility of ICT Unit Responsibility of several unit across organisations
293. One interpretation of these results is that top management responsibility alone does not suffice to
ensure successful e-government planning and implementation. The top management in an organisation
might produce an e-government vision or objectives as part of the overall business plan, but without the
establishment of project management with a clear accountability framework and the involvement of
relevant organisational units, the vision cannot be translated into an action plan.
294. Interviews with several of the Finnish ministries and agencies that are advanced in terms of egovernment
planning and implementation gave the impression that top management interest in and support
of e-government activities were not present at the outset. The main drivers of e-government initiatives
have, instead, been a need for organisational change and awareness by lower-level managers that egovernment
could be used to support the process of change. Given the proper initiative and resources, IT
offices can drive change. Said an IT official from the Ministry of Labour, “Saying that it is the fault of the
political authorities not getting involved is an easy way out.”
295. This is not to conclude that top management responsibility is not important when planning egovernment.
As noted in Part 5.1.1, an agency-level vision cannot replace a government-wide vision. What
is suggested, instead, is that extensive e-government planning and implementation can succeed without the
involvement of top management if an organisation has extremely innovative managers and when there is a
broader framework (i.e. a government-wide action plan) which provides guidance and into which they can
fit its own initiative.
296. Another possible explanation is simply that the organisations that are furthest behind in
developing information management plans have belatedly brought in top management in an effort to force
progress. If so, it may be too early to tell what the ultimate impact of this top commitment is. The Ministry
of Transportation and Communications, for example, reported that it does not yet have a strategic
document but has been trying to gather enough information to assess IT needs and challenges within the
ministry and its agencies. To do so, it began with a survey of agencies in 1998 and then commissioned a
larger study. It has not always seen its role as an activist one in terms of pushing its agencies’ egovernment
efforts, but since the 1998 survey, it feels that, as a practical matter, it increasingly needs to
take on this role. While the IT office is responsible for developing the ministry’s plan, it has not been the
sole driver: pressure has come from the permanent secretary as well as from the minister to develop a plan.
107