e-GOVERNMENT IN FINLAND - ePractice.eu

95. An agency with a staff of about 1 000 in 20 locations across Finland noted with frustration the
difficulty of getting users to pay for online services. In 2001, it began to require registration for access to
information, but only about 30 users registered (at a cost of about EUR 50). When asked how they could
build support for e-government, they replied, “better services”.
96. Very few respondents to the OECD Survey reported funding most or some of their e-activities
through private or business funding. When asked to rank the source of e-government funds, only the
Finnish Forest and Park Service reported that it funds most of its e-government activities through its
business unit. These results are surprising. Both the Finnish Population Registry Centre and the Finnish
Post run commercial information services, including selling personal addresses. They also run a joint
system which allows users to notify changes of address using telephone, Web or paper.
97. With regard to funding e-government projects within organisations, it is often easier (and
politically more rewarding) to make one-off start-up or innovation funding available for new projects.
However, survey responses seem to indicate a more sustainable ICT funding structure in Finland at the
ministry and central agency level. It may be, though, that organisations that still have to bring the bulk of
their services online have not yet experienced a crunch for finding resources to fund ICT projects. One
agency freely admitted that its IT initiatives are shaped by the availability of funding.
98. In the OECD survey, ministries and central agencies were asked to rank different types of
funding for e-government activities with regard to their priority in the organisation (Figure 5). Perhaps not
surprisingly, respondents ranked funding for investment in their own e-government projects highest (67%),
followed by funding for ongoing maintenance (21%), and lastly, funding for cross-administration projects
(5%).
99. This is not necessarily an indication that Finnish ministries and agencies do not acknowledge the
need for collaboration on e-government. Several respondents expressed a need to develop their own
information systems and databases before being able to engage in or take advantage of crossadministration
e-government projects.
Figure 3.3. Priorities for e-government funding and difficulty in obtaining funds
highest priority
most difficulty to obtain
Source: OECD
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Funding for investment in new e-government projects in your own organisation
Ongoing funding of maintenance etc. for e-government activities
Funding for e-government projects involving more than one organisation
Don’t know / no response
100. In comparison, when asked to rank funds for different purposes with regard to the difficulty of
obtaining them, respondents reported that funds for cross-administration projects were the most difficult to
47