e-GOVERNMENT IN FINLAND - ePractice.eu

x E-government plans are important for promoting monitoring and evaluation. The survey
found that respondents with an e-government plan were more likely to engage in monitoring
(68%) and evaluating (55%) e-government activities than those without a plan (10% monitor
and 19% evaluate). The availability of an e-government plan is important for putting a
monitoring and evaluation framework in place, as it serves to set goals and responsibilities
and to provide guidelines for the measurements of the results.
x The complexity of providing advanced electronic services requires monitoring and evaluation
to ensure effective service. Respondents that deliver less advanced electronic services at
Stages 1 or 2 were much less likely to report monitoring and evaluating activities (27%) than
those delivering advanced electronic services at Staged 3 or 4 (over 50%). This is consistent
with the survey findings that 77% of respondents with advanced electronic services had one
or more e-government plan(s) compared to 37% of respondents that do not yet deliver
advanced electronic services.
x An e-government plan that provides instructions on monitoring pushes agencies to engage in
monitoring and evaluation. The survey found that respondents whose e-government plan
stated how to monitor whether e-government goals are met were much more likely to monitor
e-government activities (91%) than those whose plan does not (33%). The survey also found
a similar, but weaker correlation for evaluation (55% of those with an e-government plan that
includes an evaluation framework evaluate e-government activities, compared to 44% of
those with a plan that does not).
x Finnish ministries are more likely than agencies to use monitoring and evaluation of their egovernment
activities. Monitoring and evaluation are more widely used in ministries (42%)
than in agencies (34%). This should be seen in connection with the fact that, among
respondents, ministries are more likely to have one or more e-government plans (69%) than
agencies (41%). It is not clear whether this means that ministries also have a more
performance-oriented culture than agencies.
x Responsibility for monitoring and evaluation generally lies with senior officers (e.g. head of
administration or of division), IT managers or consultants.
x The results of monitoring and evaluation activity are mainly for (and made available to) the
internal organisation rather than for outside accountability or control.
382. User satisfaction and service quality are valued as indicators of e-government quality. As noted
in Part 3.2, most respondents collected customer feedback on services, including through the use of
electronic feedback mechanisms and customer surveys. Table 4 shows that, in their evaluation criteria,
most respondents include user satisfaction and quality of services (82% and 76%), followed by efficiency
gains in working processes (68%). Less than half use cost-benefit analysis for their own organisation
(50%) and an even smaller minority (31%) do a cost-benefit analysis for citizens and businesses. In this
respect, based on the OECD sample, e-government seems to be driven more by service enhancement for
customers than by economic savings, even though benefits to users are not quantified.
128