e-GOVERNMENT IN FINLAND - ePractice.eu

More documents

Recommendations

Info

E-government Imperative (2003) lists some possible indicators: breadth (i.e. the number of services provided), span (i.e. the customer target group to which electronic services are delivered, e.g. citizens, businesses and/or others), depth (i.e. the complexity of the electronic services provided) and quality (i.e the extent to which electronic services achieve their stated objectives). 193. Most international e-government studies tend to focus on the breadth and span of electronic services. When discussing breadth in the Finnish central administration, it is important to keep in mind that the majority of services are provided at the local and regional level, so that the share of services to put online at the central level is reduced. 194. This part looks at both of these variables, as well as depth, which attempts to capture the complexity of what can be accomplished via an electronic service and therefore its value to customers. The discussion of quality addresses what individual ministries and agencies are doing to develop indicators to measure quality that are relevant to their specific needs (see Part 5.6, “Monitoring and evaluation of egovernment”). 195. In order to survey the depth of electronic services proposed by the Finnish central administration, the OECD survey adapted a model for electronic service delivery from the Australian National Audit Office. 31 The model defines four stages of electronic service delivery: x Stage 1: Information: A Web site publishes information about service(s). x Stage 2: Interactive information: Stage 1 + the ability for users to access agency database(s) and to browse, explore and interact with that data. x Stage 3: Transactions: Stages 1 + 2 + the ability for users to enter secure information and engage in transactions with the agency. x Stage 4: Data sharing: stages 1 + 2 + 3 + the ability for the agency, with the user’s prior approval, to share with other government agencies information provided by that user. 196. Several international surveys of electronic service development have been carried out using a similar model, but there does not seem to be general agreement on how to define the stages of electronic service delivery. In particular, the definition of the last two, supposedly the most advanced stages, seems to cause the most difficulty. This is not surprising given the limited experience with electronic services at these stages. 32 31 This model for Electronic Service Delivery was developed by the Australian National Audit Office and the Australian Office for Government Online. It is available in the Audit Report No. 18, 1999-2000: Electronic Service Delivery, including Internet Use, by Commonwealth Government Agencies. (www.anao.gov.au). 32 An example is the eEurope report, Web-based Survey on Electronic Public Services (2002), which distinguishes between interaction, two-way interaction and transaction. Stage 4 in this model is then equivalent to Stage 3 in the model used above. Data sharing not included in the eEurope model. The Office of the UK e-Envoy on the other hand redefines the model used above so that Stage 3 is two-way interaction while Stage 4 is still defined as data sharing (Office of e-Envoy, 2000, Benchmarking Electronic Service Delivery, p. 76). 74
Figure 4.2. Electronic service provision in the Finnish central government by stage of service (2002) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Source: OECD Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 E-service provision 197. In the OECD survey, to allow for adaptation to the Finnish context, ministries and central agencies were asked to redefine Stage 4 if the definition did not apply well to their service delivery. While this makes benchmarking against other countries more difficult, the OECD is also seeking to refine its service delivery model to reflect as accurately as possible the status of service delivery in member countries. 198. A useful classification should also avoid conveying the impression that the only – or even the most important – objective of all e-government projects should be the development and enhancement of stage 3 and 4 services. The different e-government objectives and ICT development paths chosen by OECD countries means that there will necessarily be different models of online service development and different means of deriving value from the exploitation of ICT. The difficulty of developing a model that can capture the diversity and constant evolution of electronic services in different countries, let alone their ideal distribution, tends to call into question the utility of benchmarking the most advanced stages of egovernment service. 199. In order to reveal the span, breadth and depth of electronic services, the OECD survey also asked ministries and agencies to distinguish between electronic services to citizens, businesses and others, such as NGOs and civil society organisations as well as other parts and levels of government,, and also to list up to three electronic services in each customer category. 200. The survey results show that the vast majority of respondents offer Stage 1 information and many offer interactive information and downloadable forms at Stage 2. At the more advanced stages, however, progress is much more modest: 30% propose Stage 3 transactions, while only 5% engage in data sharing with other agencies to produce services for citizens and businesses in addition to the services and information in the preceding stages (Figure 11). 75
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 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?