e-GOVERNMENT IN FINLAND - ePractice.eu

More documents

Recommendations

Info

113. Not surprisingly, the OECD survey shows that less advanced organisations in the Finnish government are more likely to regard basic technology issues as important challenges (e.g. infrastructure, integration of electronic services with own or other systems, etc.) when compared to organisations already providing advanced services. About 46% of the less advanced agencies indicate that the lack of ICT applications and infrastructure in their organisation is an important or very important challenge, compared to only 15% of the more advanced respondents. Advanced respondents, however, are more likely to raise insufficient means for adjusting to and taking account of rapid technological development as a major problem. This seems to indicate that advanced organisations have mastered many of the basics, but are concerned about how to deal with new and upcoming technological challenges. 114. Since privacy and security issues are more likely to arise in the context of advanced interactive services – that is, in cases where citizens’ data are either submitted via the Internet (Stage 3) or used in internal data sharing (Stage 4) – one would expect privacy and security concerns to rise with the level of advances in service delivery. However, the OECD survey indicates the opposite to be the case, with less advanced respondents relatively more concerned over privacy and security, although it is the main IT challenge for all respondents. This may be, in part, simply because more advanced respondents have already addressed the issue in order to provide more advanced services. 115. The concern of non-advanced respondents about privacy and security issues may also stem from feelings of uncertainty about the Finnish public authentication system. Prior to the introduction of the F<strong>IN</strong>EID card (see the case study in Part 7.2), the lack of an authentication infrastructure was often raised as a reason for the lack of advanced e-government services. The fact that more agencies and ministries have not taken advantage of the current system, which has been in place for more than two years, may point to continuing difficulties in using the system. It may also be that the lack of an authentication infrastructure simply masked other barriers to implementing more advanced services (see also Part 4.3.2., “Privacy and security”). Key Points - 17 x Less advanced organisations in Finland are more likely to regard basic technology issues as challenges (e.g. setting up IT systems, integration of online services with own or other systems, etc.), whereas more advanced organisations are more concerned about how to respond to rapid technological developments. x More advanced ministries and agencies were less likely to be concerned about IT integration, in particular horizontal integration. This could be a cause of concern as advanced services will increasingly need to be integrated among the various ministries and agencies. x Less advanced ministries and agencies were more likely to be concerned about privacy and security. It is unclear to what extent this reflects concrete implementation concerns and to what extent it is simply a justification for not yet having achieved more advanced services. Ministries vs. agencies 116. The OECD survey tracked ministry and agency respondents separately and found that ministries and agencies perceive technological barriers differently (Figure 8). In particular, agencies emphasised infrastructure and technological change barriers more than ministries. In contrast, ministries emphasised the importance of horizontal and vertical integration and privacy and security more than agencies. 52
117. For agencies, the problem of adjusting to technological development is one of the most relevant challenges: 69% reported insufficient means for adjusting to and taking account of rapid technological development compared to 39% of ministries. While only 15% of ministries found lack of ICT applications and infrastructure in their organisation to be a very important or important challenge/constraint, almost half of the central agencies responded that this is the case. Figure 3.6. E-government technological barriers: ministries vs. agencies 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 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 F) privacy, security, authentication 118. Among respondents to the OECD survey, ministries were extremely concerned about privacy and security: 100% of ministries considered privacy to be a very important or important challenge, compared to two-thirds of agencies. These differences might be explained by the ministries’ involvement in the development of the F<strong>IN</strong>EID card, as well as by a broader concern about protecting citizens’ rights, as opposed to the more prosaic service delivery focus of the agencies. Key Points - 18 x Agencies more than ministries see infrastructure and adjusting to technological developments as challenges. Ministries are more concerned about IT integration. This appropriately reflects their respective roles in terms of implementing and co-ordinating egovernment initiatives. 53 B) IT integration -- internal C) IT integration -- horizontal D) IT integration -- vertical E) shared single point of entry for common service agencies ministries
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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?