e-GOVERNMENT IN FINLAND - ePractice.eu

More documents

Recommendations

Info

catalyst as well as formal or informal mediators for the interests of the various participating agencies. For example, the JUNA project (Part 8.3.6), the TYVI project (Part 7.1), the citizen ID card (Part 7.2) and the citizen portal (Part 7.3) all originated in either the Ministry of the Interior or the Ministry of Finance. 319. While much co-ordination takes place at an informal level, it is difficult for agencies to take this to the next level of co-operation without frameworks that allow them to share costs, responsibility and benefits. A sense of equality among agencies and a desire not to upset the current balance may also make it difficult for some to take a lead over others. For example, material for Government decision-making meetings is handled through a single system, but in many other cases, the interest in and need for joint action is much less clear and/or insufficient to overcome agency inertia. Key Points - 48 x Informal co-ordination is insufficient to promote cross-agency collaboration to produce seamless services. Co-ordination does not imply collaboration. x For agencies to work together to deliver seamless services, frameworks and incentives for collaboration are needed for sharing costs (and benefits), for promoting risk taking and innovation and for giving up some agency authority in return for reduced duplication and sharing common technical standards. 320. The OECD survey indicates that intra-agency collaboration is more common than inter-agency collaboration for developing e-government plans. The OECD survey shows that there is very little crossadministration planning for e-government across the central government and across different levels of government (Figure 32). Only 5% of respondents reported having an interagency group involved in developing their e-government plan. In terms of co-ordination across different levels of government, 10% of respondents reported having organisations from regional or local administrations involved in their egovernment planning. 114
Figure4.23. Main responsibility for producing e-government plan: lack of inter-agency collaboration group working across several unit in the organisation group working across several levels of government group working across several ministries/central agencies Source: OECD unit dealing with IT and telecommunications unit dealing with media, communication, etc. head of organisation administration unit external consultants financial unit 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 321. Ministries and agencies that reported providing advanced services stressed that to move ahead with cross-administration projects, co-ordination and planning to facilitate co-operation are needed within each administrative field at the central level and across the central government. They also raised the lack of co-operation with autonomous bodies such as KELA, whose work is closely tied to that of the central administration, as a barrier to developing joint projects. The Ministry of Labour noted, for example, that 80% of the benefits administered by KELA are paid for by the central administration, which also determines eligibility. 322. Most shared services seem to be taking place when a local constituency provides a focal point for service provision. Identifying specific electronic service clusters and projects at a central level could facilitate co-operation by requiring top management in the organisations concerned to set responsibility and accountability frameworks. This would provide a clear mandate for lower-level managers to participate in interagency co-operation, while ensuring that the initiative at the top management level is consistent with the needs identified within the organisation. 323. The Programme of Action suggests specific measures to strengthen joint service capabilities, take advantage of base registers and promote data sharing. These measures will be useful enablers of electronic service clusters and cross-administration e-government projects but may not be sufficient, in themselves, to initiate the planning of such projects. It would probably be valuable if one of the central ministries or boards took responsibility for identifying specific areas in which there is a need for planning service clusters and cross-administration projects in light of organisation-specific strategies and the existing formal and informal cross-administration networks. 324. The 2001 Programme of Action to Promote Online Government also recommends that a national, seamless and client-oriented model of online social and health services should be created with the co- 115
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 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 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?