e-GOVERNMENT IN FINLAND - ePractice.eu

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 3.4. E-government technological barriers: all respondents Percentage of respondents rating technology and information management issues “very important” or “important” I) lack of standards / quality G) legislation and regulatory framework Source: OECD J) rapid technological change H) outsourcing A) lack of ICT applications/infrastructure 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 F) privacy, security, authentication 108. Not all of the technological challenges presented are necessarily external barriers as defined by the OECD’s The E-government Imperative (2003) (e.g. internal IT integration and outsourcing). Still, most are beyond the scope of any single organisation and depend on government action to put in place a framework for improved integration and standards. Four factors concerning technology and information management are regarded by more than half of respondents as a very important or important challenge/constraint. Of these, all but the fourth, internal integration, include at least some important elements that are beyond the control of any individual organisation: x Privacy and security: the most important challenge, identified by 77% of respondents, concerns problems of security, privacy, authentication or public key infrastructure (challenge F in Figure 6). x Rapid technological change: the second most important challenge, identified by 60% of respondents, is insufficient means for adjusting to and taking account of rapid technological change (challenge J). x Standards and quality: the third most important challenge is the lack of standards for quality, design, branding of portals/web sites for service delivery (57% of respondents) (challenge I). x Internal integration: the fourth most important challenge, identified by 54% of respondents, is problems integrating electronic services with their own information systems and databases (challenge B). This was considered more important than horizontal integration, i.e. integrating electronic services with information systems, databases etc. of other central government organisations, as well as vertical integration (i.e. integrating electronic services with information systems, databases etc. of other international, regional and local organisations). 50 B) IT integration -- internal C) IT integration -- horizontal D) IT integration -- vertical E) shared single point of entry for common service
Advanced vs. non-advanced 109. The OECD survey divided organisations into “advanced” and “non-advanced” in terms of the level of electronic services they provided. “Advanced” agencies are those that reported in the OECD survey that they are currently providing transactional services and/or engaging in data sharing with other public authorities (Stage 3 and 4 services). For more information, see Part 4.2 and the glossary in Appendix 4. 110. In reviewing the survey results, it is important to keep in mind that results for all respondents and for “non-advanced” respondents track closely because the large majority of respondents can be classified as “non-advanced”. As shown in Part 5.2 (“Electronic services”), only 29% of respondents reported providing electronic services at Stages 3 or 4, which are considered here as “advanced services”. 111. The majority of respondents at all levels named the four challenges identified above. However, the relative importance of the challenges differs according to the level of online services (Figure 7). Figure 3.5. E-government technological barriers: advanced vs. non-advanced Percentage of respondents rating technology and information management issues “very important” or “important” I) lack of standards / quality G) legislation and regulatory framework Source: OECD J) rapid technological change H) outsourcing A) lack of ICT applications/infrastructure 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 F) privacy, security, authentication 112. In general, advanced respondents were less likely to cite technological challenges than nonadvanced respondents. In particular, they were not very concerned by issues of IT integration. Nonadvanced respondents, on the other hand, were much more likely to cite all aspects of IT integration, in particular the relative importance of horizontal IT integration. This could be a cause for concern. As argued in the OECD’s The E-government Imperative (2003) and as shown later in this report, advanced services will increasingly need to be integrated among the various ministries and agencies. It is unclear whether the low level of concern about IT integration among advanced respondents reflects a lack of awareness of this upcoming need or whether they consider themselves already well-prepared for this challenge. In either case, the current lack of integrated services implies that this issue has not yet been sufficiently addressed. 51 B) IT integration -- internal C) IT integration -- horizontal D) IT integration -- vertical E) shared single point of entry for common service advanced non-advanced
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 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?