E-Government in OECD countries: Addressing the challenge of low take-up

Transcription

1 E-Government in OECD countries: Addressing the challenge of low take-up ITAPA 2008, International Congress Bratislava 19 November 2008 Gwendolyn Carpenter Senior Policy Advisor OECD E-Government Project

2 Roadmap About the OECD e-government project Evolution of e-government Facts & Figures of e-government services New evidence from Government 2.0 measurements Governments facing the take-up issue

3 Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation

4 OECD E-Government Project Activities E-Leaders Network Country reviews: Finland, Norway, Denmark, Mexico, Netherlands, Turkey, Belgium Portugal (administrative simplification & e- government) Ireland (Public Service) Indicators (Government at a Glance) Policy briefs and web reports

5 By 2020 we shouldn t be talking about e-government anymore. E-government will be simply government. Source: Summary of the e-leaders Meeting in Den Hague

6 Facing the challenge

7 From Automation to Government 2.0 User Participation NetWorking DeCentralisation Automation Platforms Registers e-id Infrastructure 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 7 Digitisation

8 Conditions for Government 2.0 Open Standards: (Norway, Denmark) Transparency: Freedom of Information (Mexico); Danish health records User focus: (New Zealand, Canada) Governance: balancing central guidance with local innovation (Denmark, Netherlands) 8

9 Essentials for Government 2.0 Performance focus: moving from an output to an outcome focus New ways of working: collaboration is uncomfortable Achieving consensus: personalization v. anonymity Tailoring solutions: there are no easy answers 9

10 Facts & Figures

11 Availability of e-government services is growing significantly 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% AUT BEL** CHE* CZE DEU DNK ESP FIN FRA GBR GRC HUN* IRE ISL ITA LUX NLD NOR POL* PRT SV K* SW E TUR OECD **:2002 ; *:2004 Source: EC DGISM (2007) The User Challenge: Benchmarking The Supply Of Online Public Services, 7th Measurement, September.

12 100% Uptake of e-government services remains low 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Years referenced as follows: ı:2002 ; ıı:2003 ; ııı:2004 ; ıv:2005 ; v:2006 Source: Eurostat (2008) Data navigation tree -Information Society Statistics -Information Society: Structural Indicators E-government usage by individuals (demand side) total and by gender. Data accessed on 5 th June 2008.

13 European Commission Pilot Indicator for usercentricity

14 What has e-government achieved? Pilot study on User Focus by the EC 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% BEL CHE CZE DEU DNK ESP FIN FRA GBR GRC HUN IRE ISL ITA LUX NLD NOR POL POR SVK SWE TUR OECD Source: EC DGISM (2007) The User Challenge: Benchmarking The Supply Of Online Public Services, 7th Measurement, September.

15 New evidence from Government 2.0 measurements

16 E-Participation drives E-Gov? Source: OECD compilation, United Nations (2008), UN E-Government Survey 2008 From E-Government to Connected Governance, United Nations, New York, Table 7, Service Delivery by Stages 2008 (% Utilization) and Table 8 E-Participation Index

17 Demand drives government 2.0? Source: OECD compilation, United Nations (2008), UN E-Government Survey 2008 From E-Government to Connected Governance, United Nations, New York, Table 7, Service Delivery by Stages 2008 (% Utilization). OECD Broadband statistics: Broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants, June 2007.

18 Governments facing the take-up issue

19 Redefining user focus Organisational and administrative burden reduction - Collaboration Models with all levels of government - Portals - Strong political drivers: administrative burden reduction, government downsizing Situation-bound services - Tailor-made services - Life Event approach Participatory and inclusive - Inclusive Service Delivery - Online citizen consultation and participation Marketing and channel management

20 User-focused governance Developing user-focus depends on understanding user needs & priorities, user behaviour, research Delivering user focus means concentrating on: High priority (and high demand) services Releasing benefits for reinvestment and service improvement Re-engineering of processes and services to make them more effective A whole-of-government perspective and shared responsibility for service delivery Delivering benefits to both users and government Coordinated development of common building blocks Building trust through privacy and security protection

21 6 points to remember when building Government Simple organisation of e-government services. 2. Recognisability and marketing. 3. Same look and feel. 4. The Killer application is everyday life. 5. Relevance. 6. Inclusive service design.

22 Partnerships for Government 2.0 Delivery: sharing cost, risk, and expertise (UK: Public private partnerships, codelivery of services) Citizen participation: (NZ, Finland) Integration: internal markets (ND: centres of competence, ND, Germany, Belgium: shared services) 22

23 Levels of integration in seven Level of co-operation OECD countries 1. Knowledge Centre Netherlands Countries preferred approach 2. Referential Model Germany, United States 3. Shared information technology system Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, United States, Korea 4. Shared Service Centre Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, United States 5. Separate and independent organisation The Netherlands

24 Integration of front office services Intermediaries Directories/ Integrating Centralising Eliminating Portals Interface Services Services Turkey USA - Canada GoL UK - Nordics, ND - tax filing USA.gov Ireland - PSB Directgov birth certs. Finland Germany - tax filing TYVI Einige für Alle USA e-file

25 The new deal? Three proposed propositions by central government We ll take care of the boring stuff to let you focus on how to do your job better. We ll help set outcome objectives and measures to let you aim high, to simplify reporting and regulation, and to allow you to compare how you re doing with others. We ll make government more navigable and interoperable with service-oriented architectures and common standards.

26 Thank you for your attention. Further information, please contact: Yih-Jeou Wang, Project Leader e-government: Gwendolyn Carpenter, Senior Policy Advisor Linked In:

27 OECD Work on E-Government Framework for E-Government Studies e-government for Better Government, OECD 2004 The e-government Imperative, OECD 2003 Policy Briefs The e-government Imperative: Main Findings E-Government in Finland: An Assessment The Hidden Threat to E-Government Checklist for E-Government Leaders Engaging Citizens Online for Better Policy-Making Country Studies Peer Reviews : Finland (2003), Mexico (2004), Norway (2005), Denmark (2006), Hungary(2007), Netherlands (2007), Turkey (2007) 2008: Belgium, Ireland (public service), Portugal (adm.simpl. and e-gov.) Thematic Studies Benefits Realisation Management, OECD (Forthcoming as Web publ.) E-Government as a Tool for Transformation, OECD (Forthcoming as Web publ.) User Take-up of E-Government Services (forthcoming 2008) E-Government Partnerships across Levels of Government (forthcoming 2008) 27