e-GOVERNMENT IN FINLAND - ePractice.eu

More documents

Recommendations

Info

This report provides a first comprehensive analysis of egovernment implementation within the Finnish central administration. Finland has clarified central co-ordination responsibilities for e-government... ASSESSMENT AND PROPOSALS FOR ACTION INTRODUCTION Since the 1990s, Finland has been a leader in exploiting information and communication technology (ICT) to renew its economy and to reform its public administration. Its reputation for successfully providing proactive electronic government services and information has brought officials from around the world to learn from its experience. The Finnish central government plays a leading role in developing, planning, implementing and co-ordinating e-government initiatives. With backing from the Ministry of Finance (MoF), the OECD E- Government Project has carried out a study of e-government in the central administration, taking an in-depth look at e-government structures and processes and examining their strengths and weaknesses. This report analyses the various aspects of egovernment policies, implementation and impact, and provides a first comprehensive analysis of e-government implementation within the Finnish central administration. E-GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND CONTEXT As in the case of other OECD countries that began e-government early, e-government in Finland was first launched in many different ministries and agencies and levels of government in response to broader societal and policy changes rather than resulting from topdown planning. The organisational model for e-government in Finland today is based on central guidance and decentralised responsibilities and implementation. The development of e-government is marked by the relation between the central administration’s role in promoting egovernment and the local and regional governments’ role as the primary service providers. A third set of actors, independent central agencies under parliamentary authority, also provide important services. Input from the private and non-profit sectors, in the form of the Information Society Advisory Board (ISAB) has further helped define Finland’s e-government strategy. Finland has clarified central co-ordination responsibilities for egovernment in response to the perception within the central administration that the current level of co-ordination is insufficient. 8
Across government, however, ministries have been passive in the development and encouragement of egovernment initiatives. As an instrument to increase efficiency, strengthen competitiveness and enhance modernisation, e-government has become an explicit component of public sector reform. The government’s desire to make the opportunities of the information society available to all has provided a strong case for developing e- The organisation structure of e-government reflects the involvement and responsibilities of key ministries. The Ministry of Finance has the principal role of policy setting and horizontal co-ordination, while the Ministry of Interior is responsible for vertical coordination and ensuring the diffusion and exchange of standards and good practices at the regional and local levels. The Ministry of Justice sets the main regulatory framework. A number of inter- ministerial and interagency bodies complete the e-government coordination structure and ensure collective decision-making. Across government, however, ministries without central coordination responsibilities have been passive in the development and encouragement of e-government initiatives in the agencies under them. This reflects limited resources but also a perceived absence of a strategic role. While not all agencies need an additional push, another result of weak ministerial guidance is a lack of egovernment collaboration among agencies. While both formal and informal networks ensure the flow of information about IT initiatives and guidance among e-government officials, inter-agency collaboration in the development of e-government plans is relatively rare across levels of government and even less common among agencies and ministries. Ministries could assume a stronger role in helping develop an overall strategy and in guiding their agencies, in particular those that are lagging in developing electronic services. THE CASE FOR E-GOVERNMENT The development of e-government in Finland has been shaped by overall reforms in the public administration and the development of the information society. Public management reforms in the early 1990s led to major changes in the Finnish administration in terms of greater responsibility, accountability and flexibility at the agency level and decreased oversight and co-ordination responsibilities at the ministry level. This redistribution of power has freed energies to develop new initiatives throughout government, but it has also drawn attention to the need for improved, central co-ordination in order to maintain coherence of vision and efficacy of results. As an instrument to increase efficiency, strengthen competitiveness and enhance modernisation, e-government has become an explicit component of public sector reform. Conversely, reform of the public administration in Finland has provided a general framework for defining e-government goals and responsibilities by setting an overall vision and objectives for improving the quality and efficiency of public services. The constant advancement of the information society in Finland has provided a second impetus for the development of e-government. The government’s desire to make the opportunities of the information society available to all and the demonstration effect of 9
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 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 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?