e-GOVERNMENT IN FINLAND - ePractice.eu

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6. The constitutional independence of service delivery agencies under parliamentary authority vis-à-vis the central administration represents a co-ordination challenge. While recognising this independence, it could be useful to look at how parliamentary and government agencies could better co-ordinate in certain areas of service delivery in order to improve joint responsibility for online service quality. 7. In order to promote co-ordination, ministries could play a stronger role by providing guidance, identifying areas of weakness within agencies, providing technical assistance and helping agencies to negotiate common contracts for ICT systems and services and for electronic service delivery. 8. In order to strengthen collaboration, agencies need to hold common or shared stakes in egovernment projects. The government may want to supplement its current structure of co-ordination bodies by: 8.a Identifying and promoting cross-agency projects and service strategies within specific sectors, service clusters or shared customer groups so that ministries, agencies and parliamentary agencies have an incentive to not simply improve information sharing, but also collaborate on e-government projects. 8.b Re-examining how budget structures and processes can better allow and promote crossagency financing of shared electronic services. 9. The government could beneficially continue to anticipate areas of e-government that can facilitate electronic service delivery (“e-enablers”), and make recommendations on how these issues can be addressed in a unified manner, including identifying common funding mechanisms. Development of e-enablers should take a user-based approach, based on market analysis and better taking into account the services and customers that are likely to benefit. 10. In order to advance e-government development, the government could develop a process for identifying specific areas of e-government service with potentially high benefit, in particular building on the use of data registers to develop new services based on data sharing. The government may also want to explore the creation and use of incentives fund to promote the development of online services in these selected areas. 11. In order to build on Finland’s strong progress in involving citizens in policy-making, the government could support and promote inclusion of e-engagement activities in e-government plans. 12. In order to reinforce accountability, the government could strengthen the reporting of monitoring and evaluation results through the e-government planning process. 20
<strong>IN</strong>TRODUCTION 1. Finland’s success in reinventing its economy in the 1990s has drawn a good deal of attention to the “Finnish model” of exploiting information and communication technology (ICT). A land with few natural resources other than its forests and its people, Finland has proven remarkably apt at anticipating its economic needs. In particular, the Finnish government has put in place the reforms and investments necessary for taking advantage of opportunities on the horizon. In the area of e-government, Finland’s reputation in providing proactive government services electronically has brought officials from around the world to learn from its experience. 2. This report looks closely at e-government in Finland. It focuses on the central administration’s role in planning, implementing, co-ordinating and promoting e-government and providing the “e-enablers” that create the framework for transactions among ministries, agencies and regional and local government and with businesses and citizens. It considers the impact of e-government on government administrations, public services and relations with business and citizens, that is, its governance implications. In doing so, it also looks at linkages among e-government and Information Society policies, information management within government, public management reform and individual sectoral objectives. Regional and local government, while a vital partner for delivering services and strengthening relations with citizens, is outside of the scope of this report. 3. The report looks at all aspects of the e-government policy cycle: 1) E-government structure and context. 2) Drivers for e-government, including public administration reform imperatives, the evolving information society and citizen and business demand. 3) External barriers to e-government, including legal, funding and technological frameworks. 4) Implementation of e-government, in terms of both front-office and back-office activities, including e-government planning and goal setting, service delivery and e-engagement, and monitoring and evaluation. 5) An assessment of current and future e-government objectives and activities 4. In addition, there is a discussion of three cross-cutting projects that have laid the groundwork for seamless electronic service delivery in Finland: i) the TYVI broker system for reporting business data to government; ii) the electronic citizen identification card (the F<strong>IN</strong>EID “smart card”); and iii) the citizen portal. 5. This report was prepared by the OECD, with financing from the Finnish Ministry of Finance. It draws upon the OECD flagship report, The E-government Imperative (2003), as well as work conducted under the OECD Project on E-government. It also draws on over 20 interviews with Finnish officials, a survey of 43 ministries and agencies and an extensive review of legislation, research and background documents. (For more on methodology, see Appendix 5). 21
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 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 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?