e-GOVERNMENT IN FINLAND - ePractice.eu

More documents

Recommendations

Info

297. Interviews with ministries and agencies that are late starters with regard to e-government planning and implementation suggested that top management responsibility for planning is imperative for developing e-government in these organisations. All indicated that e-government would have the potential to facilitate better customer services and engagement and make possible more efficient and smarter working processes. Without a window of opportunity in terms of general business changes, for example, lower levels of management would not initiate e-government unless higher levels in the agency or ministry give it priority and support. 298. International experience suggests that involving top management in ICT projects is important to get the necessary resources, to motivate staff, to support dealings with external partners and stakeholders and to ensure co-operation across ministries and agencies. Top management involvement, support and responsibility are also necessary to produce an e-strategy that is integrated with the organisation’s general business plan and incorporated into the planning and budget processes. Attention from top management, however, is a scarce resource, and ICT projects are often regarded as low-priority technical issues rather than crucial to the success of the overall business plan. 55 299. With regard to public administration reforms in general, experience shows that innovators in OECD member countries come from the top ranks of the public service, whether political or administrative, and not from operating levels. “The broad scope of reform requires perspective and power that is held either in central agencies or department headquarters.” 56 300. The Finnish Prime Minister’s Office is looking at different proposals for building leadership at both the administrative and political levels. For example, it is examining the possibility of developing “programme leaders” – senior officials in the Prime Minister’s Office, with an ad hoc team drawn from ministries to lead particular issues. At the political level, it is considering co-ordination arrangements through a committee of the Council of Ministers. What is needed is an enthusiastic minister who can win the approval of an e-government plan by the Council of Ministers. 301. In interviews with the OECD, officials responsible for e-government co-ordination emphasised the lack of involvement of top management at the ministerial level to ensure vertical e-government planning in their administrative fields as an extremely important constraint for the development of egovernment. In the OECD survey, ministries were more likely than agencies to respond that unclear responsibilities, lack of links to other activities and lack of use of best practices within the organisation with regard to e-government are an important or very important challenges and constraints to egovernment implementation. Key Points - 44 x Political leadership for e-government in Finland has not been consistently strong across ministries. In the initial start up phase this has been less important since committed managers have been able to initiate e-government projects. Cross-agency leadership is now needed, however, in order to push agencies lagging behind and to ensure co-operation for seamless services by fostering a common vision and approach. x While the precise modalities of its involvement will vary from agency to agency, top management remains a factor in the successful promotion of a shared vision. Establishing sound e-government strategies, however, requires that leadership be accompanied by a support structure that shares the vision and can set specific goals and targets, along with a plan for attaining them. 55 OECD (2001), Management of Large IT Projects in the Public Sector . 56 OECD (2000), Government of the Future, p. 132. 108
4.5.3 Ensuring central co-ordination 302. In most OECD countries, centrally developed e-government visions and goals co-exist with agency-level project initiatives. The interaction between these two drivers has led to a focus on coordination issues relating to development and implementation of e-government across the central government. 303. While efficiency and accountability require responsibility at the implementation level, the interests of the government-at-large – at least regarding horizontal questions of interoperability and data sharing – call for some common decisions and approaches. This requires better co-ordination. As the OECD’s The E-government Imperative (2003) points out, better co-ordination not only improves the promotion of government-wide e-government initiatives, but can also ease their implementation by encouraging the sharing of information, facilitating collaboration and avoiding duplication. Co-ordination can also generate efficiencies, reduce risks and ensure the sharing of a common vision of broader egovernment goals. 304. Successful co-ordination within the central administration depends on finding an equilibrium between the ministries’ steering role and the performance responsibilities of agencies. The 2000 Policy Decision of the Government on the Development of Information Management of the State Administration aptly describes the dilemma: “a basic problem is how the agencies’ responsibility for results and autonomous operation can be retained while at the same time ensuring the interest of the government administration at large in questions pertaining to interoperable systems and shared use of information resources”. 57 Improving co-ordination 305. As noted in Chapter 2, various actors in the central administration share government-wide coordinating responsibilities in Finland, with the Ministry of Finance playing a leading role in ensuring horizontal co-ordination and supporting the efforts of ministries and agencies as they develop egovernment strategies. 306. Across government, however, ministries have traditionally played a relatively passive role in terms of co-ordinating agencies (see Parts 2.1, “E-government administrative structure and key players”, and 5.1, “Vision and planning”). Therefore, as OECD interviews with Finnish government officials reveal, government officials are uncertain about what is expected from them and how to accomplish it. Ironically enough, ministries – more so than agencies – sense the co-ordination challenge but evidently do not see it as their mandate to improve the situation. Key Points – 45 x There is a strong perception within the Finnish administration that co-ordination is a problem. This is largely because of the decentralised system, agency autonomy and weak ministries. 307. The OECD survey asked ministries and central agencies to indicate which factors concerning leadership at the central government level had been a challenge or constraint when implementing egovernment. Out of five choices, three were selected by more than half of respondents as “very important” or “important” (Figure 29): 57 p. 14 of the Swedish version of the decision, translated by Sørgaard, 2000, p. 23. 109
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 10 and 11:
Finland could reinforce citizen sup
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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?