e-GOVERNMENT IN FINLAND - ePractice.eu

372. The OECD report on the Finnish budgeting system (OECD, 2002) suggests that there is not
always a clear link between targets set in performance contracts and budget targets and that there is no
general method for implementing performance contracts in agencies. This means that even if a clearer,
more robust monitoring and evaluation system for e-government is in place, the results may not necessarily
have an impact on decision makers.
373. Evaluation of reforms has been a major aspect of the Finnish renewal of the public
administration. The government has set general guidelines for evaluating governmental policies so as to
have the instruments it needs to evaluate social and economic policies and internal management
performance.
4.6.1 Monitoring and evaluation at central government level
374. The 1995 government Resolution on Developing a Finnish Information Society, introduced the
principle of decentralised responsibility to achieve the information society and related e-government goals:
each ministry is held accountable for the implementation and monitoring of their own e-government
initiatives.
375. In this context, the central government’s role is to set the major evaluation guidelines. According
to the 1998 Decision in principle, the Ministry of Finance has overall responsibility for monitoring, guiding
and reporting back on the execution of the programme concerning the development of information
management in the government, including e-government. It has done so for the period 2000-2001,
reporting back to the Ministerial Working Group on Administration and Regional Development. It does not
have central responsibility, however, for monitoring ongoing progress or for holding ministries and
agencies accountable for reaching certain targets.
376. In fact, relatively few agencies and ministries are measuring the progress of e-government
initiatives. An exception is the Ministry of the Interior, which developed extensive evaluation activities
related to the JUNA Project. Real accountability to the centre, however, seems to be lacking as there are no
guidelines for implementing a reporting system.
377. As discussed in Part 5.1.3, “E-government goals and targets”, the relative lack of governmentwide
targets and the lack of requirements for ministries or agencies to set their own goals as part of their
information plans makes it difficult to develop an accountability framework. Even without targets,
agencies need guidance on how to measure and evaluate progress towards more general goals.
378. Involvement of the State Audit Office (SAO) may lead to more evaluation. The SAO is under
parliamentary authority and is responsible for auditing offices of the state administration, although it has
no jurisdiction over parliamentary institutions such as KELA. In interviews, the SAO indicated that it was
interested in performance auditing of e-government and has begun making plans to do so. While it has long
experience in auditing specific aspects of IT systems (financial accounting of IT systems, IT security and
the new paperless accounting system), it has not done a more general e-government audit. It has looked at
IT systems as one aspect of overall programme effectiveness. One problem identified was the difficulty of
auditing according to recommendations rather than clear rules.
379. In particular, as Figure 35 illustrates, while respondents reported that monitoring results are
almost always made available to organisation staff, this was less true for evaluation results. Only a few
respondents reported making either their evaluation (25%) or monitoring results (11%) available to all
government organisations. The public was even less likely to see the results of monitoring (6%) and
evaluation (19%) of e-government projects.
126