e-GOVERNMENT IN FINLAND - ePractice.eu

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2. Responses are not included in overall results. Source: Information Technology within the Government 2001. 537. The survey was targeted at IT officials within ministries and agencies of the central administration (and was also sent to KELA). It looked at ministry/agency characteristics, asked their opinion on e-government challenges, barriers and priorities, and allowed them to self-classify the progress of their e-government initiatives according to the scale developed by the Australian Audit agency (see Part 4.2). The survey was provided in a multiple-choice format to maximise ease of response. 538. The Secretariat conducted a statistical analysis of survey findings. This information, while primarily descriptive, includes a cross-tabulation of survey results to look for correlations between agency characteristics (i.e. size, existence of an e-government implementation plan, indicated priorities) and the level of progress in implementing e-government initiatives. One of the primary values of the survey is to allow the OECD to look at how far e-government rhetoric – as indicated in strategic plans and documents – has penetrated the awareness and actual practice at the agency level. Interviews with IT officials 539. A series of in-depth interviews with government officials took place 13-17 May 2002. Two teams from the OECD (two staff, a consultant, and one of the peer reviewers, the Deputy Director General of the Swedish Student Loan Agency) conducted over 20 interviews. Interviews covered all of the ministries, plus a cross-sample of agencies chosen to represent advanced, average and lagging egovernment performance. A follow-up set of interviews took place in Helsinki on 12-14 November 2002. 540. In addition to government officials, the OECD also interviewed the Finnish employers’ federation and the consumer federation. The interviews were based on the survey structure, but also focused on more informal judgements of priorities and challenges that cannot always be captured by a written survey. 7.5.3 Independence and n<strong>eu</strong>trality and verification of inputs 541. Within a framework approved by the Finnish government, the OECD conducted the study with its own staff and independent consultants with no ties to the Finnish government. The study was conducted with guidance and financing from the Finnish Ministry of Finance, but the Ministry only explained the aspects of e-government in Finland that it wanted the study to cover. It did not try to influence the final conclusions or bias the study regarding its own role in e-government design and implementation. 542. The report was reviewed by three peer reviewers from other OECD countries, including one who participated in the in-depth interview process. It also benefited from review by the Ministry of Finance and other relevant ministries that participated in the official interviews. 7.5.4 Transparency of procedures 543. The OECD has regularly briefed the Finnish Ministry of Finance and the OECD E-government Working Group on the progress and procedures of the Finland study. The written survey was shared with the entire Working Group for comment. 168
7.5.5 Challenges 544. As the first pilot study on e-government, the Finland project has had the opportunity to set priorities for studying a relatively new and complicated phenomenon. A new methodology, however, also means that there are few baselines (both internal and external) against which to compare the observations made in the course of the project. The report therefore focuses on qualitative analysis and, where possible, cross-tabulation of survey results which permit comparisons while controlling for variables such as agency size or whether or not an agency has a strategic plan. While recognising the inherent limits of benchmarking, the project will also continue to look for individual points of comparison and proxy indicators that can assist countries that so desire to compare themselves with their peers. 169
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 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 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?