Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Transcription

1 Unclassified GOV/PGC(2007)6 GOV/PGC(2007)6 Unclassified Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 28-Mar-2007 English - Or. English PUBLIC GOVERNANCE AND TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORATE PUBLIC GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE E-GOVERNMENT AS A TOOL FOR TRANSFORMATION 35th Session of the Public Governance Committee April 2007 Salle des Nations, Tour Europe Place des Corolles, La Défense An outline of this report [GOV/PGC/EGOV(2006)10] was discussed at the meeting of the OECD Network of Senior E-Government Officials on October It has been drafted on member countries' oral and written comments, as well as a questionnaire [GOV/PGC/EGOV(2006)13]. The report is intended to be diffused as a Web report on the OECD Web site and may continue to be updated in light of comments and information received from a broader public. English - Or. English For further information, please contact Yih-Jeou Wang on yih-jeou.wang@oecd.org or direct tel JT Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format

2 E-GOVERNMENT AS A TOOL FOR TRANSFORMATION WEB PUBLICATION DRAFT 27 MARCH

3 FOREWORD Delivering better and smarter services to citizens and businesses has increasingly become a political priority among OECD countries. Demands, on the one hand from civil society of better quality services that are customised to individual needs and less burdensome on citizens and businesses, whilst on the other hand, governments have increased focus on getting value-for-money by achieving internal efficiencies and external effectiveness in service delivery. These challenges, combined with demographic challenges have put the public sector in most OECD countries under considerable pressure. Governments have turned to ICT as a lever for better public sector performance to meet increasing internal and external demands, and looking at e-government development as a tool for public sector transformation 1. Using e-government as a tool for transformation and optimisation of ICT in OCED countries for a better public sector and service delivery remains limited. The objectives of this Web publication 2 are to: Describe the concept of ICT-enabled public sector transformation using e-government as a tool for transformation. Give a deeper insight into the public sector transformation initiatives, processes, and experiences in the different OECD countries. Using information and data sharing as an example of a tool for public sector transformation, discuss how information and data sharing enables transformation processes, which exemplar information and data sharing models exists based on experiences in a number of OECD countries, and how these models have been used to create coherency. Set up a general framework to describe transformation measurement descriptions, and develop and discuss examples of possible transformation indicators to enable the monitoring of public sector transformation. The Web publication is intended to give OECD countries a deeper insight into transformation processes and their impacts, as well as tools to manage transformation, by highlighting: 1) common principles; 2) good practices (legal frameworks, organisational models and technical solutions); 3) impact measurement; and 4) implementation good practices. By focusing on information and data sharing as a tool for public sector transformation, the report will provide OECD countries with an overview of the different ways and means for information and data sharing used in countries and the different sectors. The analytical framework for the report is based on the OECD publications The e-government Imperative (2003) and e-government for Better Government (2005). The report was carried out under the auspices of the OECD Network of Senior E-Government Officials, as part of the work Programme of the Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate (GOV). The work was discussed at the OECD Network of Senior E-Government Officials October Transformation of the public sector should be understood as activities which also in some OECD countries are known as modernisation of the public sector or public sector reforms. 2 The choice of the format of a Web publication is to allow for continuous updating of the information in the publication and the case studies in it. 3

4 Under the leadership of Edwin Lau and Christian Vergez, the report was written by Yih-Jeou Wang with contributions and help from: Gwendolyn Carpenter, Cass Chideock, Barbara Lörincz, Jeremy Millard, and Melissa Peerless. 4

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WHAT IS ICT-ENABLED PUBLIC SECTOR TRANSFORMATION? Transformation goals E-Government and transformation of the public sector Impact of transformation Case study: Transformational government policy in the United Kingdom INFORMATION AND DATA SHARING AS A TOOL FOR TRANSFORMATION Drivers for information and data sharing Legislative and regulatory frameworks for information and data sharing Organisation of information and data sharing Standardisation of information and data Security and Privacy Enhancing Technologies and Trust Country case studies of information and data sharing MEASURING ICT-ENABLED PUBLIC SECTOR TRANSFORMATION Measuring ICT-enabled public sector transformation Framework for describing transformation indicators Institutional responsibilities and anchoring Classification of transformation indicators Transformation indicators in use ANNEX A: OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC SECTOR TRANSFORMATION GOALS ANNEX B: OVERVIEW OF E-GOVERNMENT GOALS ANNEX C: INFORMATION SHARING MODELS

6 Boxes Box 1 Definition of transformation Box 2 Drivers of ICT-enabled public sector transformation Box 3 Tools for ICT-enabled public sector transformation Box 4 Information and data sharing for saving lives in the United Kingdom Box 5 Compliance with the OECD Quality Framework for Statistical Activities Box C.1 Bilateral access to other agencies databases: electronic health records in the United States. 62 Box C.2 Database warehouse: Austrian residence registration Box C.3 Bilateral data exchange and coordination: Social insurance and pension service in Poland Box C.4 Data clearing house: Belgium Crossroads Bank for Social Security Box C.5 Centralised agency with sub-agencies: the Swedish Customs Office Box C.6 Distributed agencies: Deutschland-Online Box C.7 Networked agencies: University and Colleges Admission Service, United Kingdom Box C.8 Specific portal: Spanish business tax Box C.9 General portal: Japanese e-gov whole-of-government portal Box C.10 Networked portals: Australian employment services network

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Governments in all OECD countries are facing increasing demands from citizens and businesses to deliver better and smarter services in order to make their everyday life easier. They are at the same time under considerable financial constraints (both budgetary and staffing), and face rapidly mounting demographic challenges concerning an ageing population and shifts in population composition due to the effects of globalisation. All these trends are pushing governments toward rethinking the organisation of their public sectors, questioning existing structures and often historically-given divisions of labour, and looking into new ways of delivering services for less cost. Modernising public sector is not new but public sector transformation is Changing the public sector through modernisation programmes is not a new practice or trend. The OECD has identified these pressures in previous work 3 and described how modernisation efforts have used traditional change levers such as budgetary and human resource management tools in innovative ways to improve performance. 4 The next challenge to public sector modernisation, however, is to move beyond improving the functioning of individual silos of government to improving the performance of government as a whole. Users whether they are citizens or businesses do not care about the structure of and division of labour within the public sector. They want appropriate help when needed. Transformation of the public sector is also about creating a coherent system of public services tailored that best meets the needs of users. An increasing number of OECD countries are therefore looking at ways to deliver networked, joinedup, or seamless government by transforming traditional administrations into collective multi-facetted bodies which act as single entities towards citizens and businesses. In order to achieve this vision, e- government tools, along with more traditional change levers, are needed to enable governments to innovate, to better allocate internal resources, and change working methods and cultures in order to work more efficiently and effectively. Information and data sharing has become a tool for transformation The increasing numbers of OECD countries focusing on information and data sharing as a prerequisite for delivering better and tailored services to users is bound in the political wish to deliver a public sector at the service of its community. Information and data sharing has become one of the important key-enablers for a seamless government sharing resources where needed, and delivering services responding to user needs. Central to a seamless approach to serving citizens is the sharing of services, processes and information within government to avoid duplication and error, and to increase coherency, efficiency and innovation of services. Much has been written about the sharing of services and processes 5, but information sharing remains, for many, a sensitive topic given fears of Big Brother government. 3 Government of the Future, OECD, Modernising Government The Way Forward, OECD, e-government for Better Government, OECD,

8 In fact, information sharing is a tool with tremendous potential: For reducing burdens on citizens and businesses: pre-filled tax forms in the Nordic countries, New Zealand, and France simplify taxpayers lives, reduce errors and eliminate countless hours of paperwork. For national security: following the 11 September 2001 terror attack in the United States, information and data sharing at the national and international level have become essential in the fight against terrorism; For saving lives: a number of OECD countries including Belgium, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom are looking into how the sharing of information and data on at-risk youth can prevent children from falling between the cracks of child welfare systems and allow better cooperation with law enforcement and courts to avert cases of abuse. And it has major governance implications This is not to say that privacy concerns are unfounded. Many governments limit the internal sharing of information and data, not because they lack the technical capacity to do so, but in order to limit potential abuses. The effect on the public debate, however, may be to limit discussion to whether or not information and data should be shared in general instead of placing the question in the context of the benefits and risks, and differentiating between different sectors and types of data so that the most sensitive data for users receives necessary and adequate protection. The OECD has developed guidelines to help governments establishing a balance between the sharing of information and data, and the necessary protection of privacy at the trans-border level 6. However, the decision of how a country should specifically balance information and data sharing for seamless e-government services with privacy and data protection considerations is left to each country s decision-makers. In the context of shifting pressures, countries need now, more than ever, knowledge on and about information and data sharing solutions and risk management strategies. The choice of information and data sharing models that countries use is usually driven by the need to achieve a balance between achieving the broader goals of public sector service delivery through information and data sharing and respecting each country s political choice of privacy protection. Solutions can be tailored to a country s specific situation and needs, to the wishes of its population, and to the political direction set by governments. Finding the right solution for a country, however, requires fully understanding and managing the benefits and risks of information and data sharing. The models used, while in the past a purely technical or machinery issue, now take on major governance implications with strategic and political impact: Who owns the information and data, and therefore who dictates what information and data are collected, how long they are held, and who has access to them? Who benefits from information and data sharing? And who pays for it? How is access, consent and recourse (in cases of abuse) managed? Who defines information and data standards in order to practically enable the sharing of information and data? Only by answering these questions can governments and citizens make informed choices about if and when information and data should be shared, what data should be shared, and what are the limits of information and data sharing. 6 OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data, OECD,

9 Standardisation of information and data is a key prerequisite for delivering seamless electronic services. In order to deliver services across different applications and organisational boundaries it is necessary for public institutions to agree on how information and data should look and should be structured in order to be able to reuse the same information and data and to share it (interoperability and interconnectivity). If public authorities don t have the same definitions of e.g. the data object Name or Address and how the data objects are structured in records, then governments will be unable to deliver on seamless electronic services. The choice of how to organise standardisation raises broader governance issues about how governments manage different stakeholder interests, both internal (such as different parties within a public sector institution or among public sector institutions themselves) and external (like citizens, businesses, and user groups), how they reconcile competing interests, and how they involve different levels of government in order to achieve a truly seamless public sector. Only some OECD countries have ongoing activities on standardisation of public information and data. A few of those countries have made it mandatory for all public sector institutions to use standardised public sector information and data, but they are still struggling with how to implement such regulations. Where to find measures for transformation? Governments increasing focus on e-government as at tool for public sector transformation has resulted in a natural interest in developing the proper tools to monitor and evaluate transformation processes and their outcomes. After at least a decade of large investments aimed at digitising the public sector, governments are still mostly unable to objectively quantify and show the benefits and returns of such investments. Identifying and describing a common set of transformation indicators depends on having a model for describing public sector transformation and where in this model to look for relevant indicators which are of use as monitoring measures for governments (see the model depicted in the figure below). Process indicators Inputoutput indicators Existing public sector features Transformation Desired public sector features Outcome indicators and intermediate outcome indicators Measuring public sector transformation means measuring a set of continuous changing features such as a number of service delivery features (e.g. choices of services, responsiveness in services, user-tailored services, access to services, reliability of services, etc.) or organisational features (e.g. efficiency and effectiveness, productivity, regulations, costs, staff motivation, etc.). But still no transformation indicators in use The model above describes where in the transformation process to look for relevant and useful indicators. For example, by focusing on the sharing of information, business processes, and services, the observer can identify what is being shared, how much sharing is taking place, whether redundant resources are being freed and whether those resources are being freed, and whether those resources are being 9

10 redeployed to achieve desired outcomes. This is a first step in developing transformation indicators within the framework of OECD research on e-government and public sector transformation, and public management indicators. The goal is to arrive at a recommended set of transformation indicators which will be updated by each OECD country periodically. Feedback from countries on these indicators and the results of further research will be used to update these indicators in future publications. The use of transformation measures in the OECD countries is still limited, and there is no agreement among OECD countries on a common set of relevant and meaningful measures. A number of indicators are already in use by some OECD countries. They are, however, focusing on a number of different aspects of public sector transformation and are usually related to a specific and often political focus on what public sector transformation may mean for that country. Only few of those have a national concept for systematic monitoring and use of measures with a common focus on user takeup and user satisfaction to track user responses to provided electronic services. None of these countries are using process indicators as a monitoring tool. What are the next steps? The increasing interest of the OECD countries of how to design, manage, monitor, and evaluate public sector transformation using e-government tools has shown that there is a need for further work on helping countries to identify common tools and measures based on experiences of good practices among the OECD countries. Still, experiences from some OECD countries show that finding relevant measures of transformation processes and outcomes are still in its infancy and lack a commonly agreed concept for systematic discussion of which measures should be agreed upon and used among the countries for national monitoring and evaluation needs, and for international benchmarking purposes. This is the reason why the OECD will continue its work on ICT-enabled public sector transformation by continuously collecting good practices and developing in co-operation with the OECD countries measures on transformation. (The deliberate choice of the format of a Web publication is to allow for continuous updating of the information in this publication, the case studies in it, and agreed common indicators on ICT-enabled public sector transformation). The ongoing OECD work on transformation in will further address the issue of indicators for ICT-enabled public sector transformation by developing in close collaboration with the OECD countries an initial commonly agreed tentative set of process and outcome indicators. OECD work will also focus on a problem which has been identified by many OECD countries as becoming an increasingly important political dilemma in their e-government efforts: many countries have invested large amount of resources (money and staff time) in developing and providing citizens and businesses with electronic services, but takeup of these services has been limited. This issue has been identified as a high priority topic that most OECD countries hold in common and which needs to be analysed further by the OECD in order to provide governments with tools (such as indicators to track development) and best practice guidelines to improve user takeup and user satisfaction. 10

11 1. WHAT IS ICT-ENABLED PUBLIC SECTOR TRANSFORMATION? The process of transformation of the public sector in countries is not a goal in itself. It is a tool to achieve broader public sector objectives such as improving the quality and performance of public service delivery, or achieving a more efficient and effective public sector. Transformation goals are often closely linked to the purpose and direction of public sector development in general. The drivers are often defined in the context of a country s public sector policy and the strategy to implement it. ICT is, in this context, both a driving force and a key supporting tool for public sector transformation processes. The set of processes changing different features of the public sector to accommodate different political and strategic goals is often called public sector reform, modernisation or transformation. It includes a broad spectrum of development activities often known as public sector innovation of business processes, government services, and horisontal and vertical organisational structures. Figure 1 Transformation of the public sector Feedback Tools Existing public sector features Transformation Desired public sector features Drivers Feedback Source: OECD,

12 Public sector transformation is a continuous process of changing the features of the public sector towards a desired set of features typically defined politically (see Figure 1). These features are often service delivery features (e.g. choice of and access to services, speed of service delivery, responsiveness, etc.) or organisational features (e.g. institutional boundaries and responsibilities, cross-organisational collaboration and co-operation, collaboration and co-operation across levels of government, etc.). A definition of public sector transformation should embrace all above mentioned aspects (see Box 1). Box 1 Definition of transformation Transformation of the public sector is defined as the set of processes leading to a change in the features of the public sector from a static organisation-driven model to a dynamic user-driven model. It is about creating the environment and the basic conditions for continuous adaptation to changing demands and contexts. Transformation processes are driven by a number of political and/or organisational drivers (e.g. the wish of changing user behaviours; creating transparency; obtaining equality and fairness; the wish of reducing transactional, organisational, and staff costs; etc. see Box 2) and is generally supported by a set of ICT, budgetary, and/or human resources tools (see Box 3). The drivers and the tools are often used to support each other in driving transformation processes and they are also determining the speed of changes. Transformation processes often generates output measures such as results from performance management studies, user feedback surveys, and benefits realisations which are used to adjust the drivers and the tools for transformation. Box 2 Drivers of ICT-enabled public sector transformation Drivers of ICT-enabled public sector transformation are politically bound and often stated directly in or derived from government policies. The drivers of transformation processes can be either externally or internally directed. The externally directed drivers are outcome focused and usually have a direct impact on users of e-government services. They are often high on the political agenda, as the outcomes of transformation processes due to external drivers will visibly impact citizens and businesses in their everyday life. Examples of externally directed service delivery drivers are: Changing user behaviours through achieving higher user takeup. Delivering seamless service through establishing partnerships across levels of government and crosssector collaboration and integration. Preventing inequality and unfair treatment. Enhancing privacy protection and ICT security. Preventing corruption and political scandals by improving transparency and integrity. Improving citizen participation through open and inclusive governance. Internal directed drivers are focused on internal processes within the public sector itself. They are often characterised by the words like efficiency and effectiveness and they are often aimed at streamlining internal processes and improving outcomes. Examples of internally directed organisational drivers are: Reducing transaction, organisational, and staff costs. Increasing productivity. Increasing efficiency and effectiveness by e.g. simplifying business processes. Source: E-Government as a Tool for Transformation Report Outline and Methodology, 24 October 2006, GOV/PGC/EGOV(2006)10,

13 Box 3 Tools for ICT-enabled public sector transformation Using e-government as a key tool for transformation has proven for many governments to be an efficient way of obtaining desired outputs and outcomes whether these outputs are innovative services, or whether the outcomes are improving internal process efficiencies and external service delivery effectiveness. But e-government is only one of a number of levers for change. The tools for transformation (see also Figure 1) include three main sets of transformation tools addressing respectively ICT, budget, and human resources issues: ICT tools. This set of tools is used to increase efficiency and effectiveness of services, and to ensure transparency in the public sector. The tools cover: information and consultation; interactive services; resource sharing like shared information and data, shared services, and shared business processes. 7 Budget tools. This set of tools is used to increase the financial awareness and overview of e-government spending, ensuring that decision makers have a solid financial foundation for deciding on e-government projects. The tools cover: performance management and budgeting; accountability and control mechanisms; market-type mechanisms like outsourcing, public-private partnerships, and vouchers; cost and benefit analysis; benchmarking expenditures; Investment framework. Human resources tools. This set of tools is used to develop new staff competencies and skills and to attract and retain strategic skills in the public sector. The tools cover: leadership; performance management; reskilling/training; attracting and retaining strategic skills; integrity policy. Source: Modernising Government The Way Forward, OECD E-Government as a Tool for Transformation Report Outline and Methodology, 24 October 2006, GOV/PGC/EGOV(2006)10, Several OECD e-government studies 8 have shown that ICT is increasingly used to support broader public sector development objectives (e.g. the structural reform of the public sector in Denmark which aimed to create a more coherent, user-focused and efficient public sector 9 ). Experiences in some OECD countries show that public sector ICT usage does not itself initiate organisational change. As enabler and a supporting tool, ICT usage in the public sector creates the necessary prerequisites to change service delivery approaches, management practices, and relationships with internal and external stakeholders. Public sector transformation and e-government are therefore increasingly seen as closely linked policy areas. Examples of countries that have taken strategic and organisational steps towards integrating these two areas are: Denmark 10, France 11, Norway 12, Portugal 13, and United Kingdom Sharing of services and business processes has been described and analysed in e-government for Better Government, OECD, 2005, and The e-government Imperative, OECD, Sharing of information and data will explicitly be analysed in this report. 8 OECD e-government Studies Finland, OECD, OECD e-government Studies Norway, OECD, OECD e-government Studies Mexico, OECD, OECD e-government Studies Denmark, OECD, OECD e-government Studies Turkey, OECD, OECD e-government Studies Hungary, OECD, OECD e-government Studies The Netherlands, OECD, OECD e-government Studies Denmark, OECD, 2006, page 41 ff. 10 As of 1 January 2006, Denmark has integrated a formerly independent e-government task force into a joint policy centre dealing with public sector transformation within the Ministry of Finance; this action is a follow-up activity to the OECD Peer Review of E-Government in Denmark. Analysis, assessment and proposals for action can be found in OECD e-government Studies Denmark, OECD, As of 3 January 2006, France has merged four formerly independent directorates/units working on reforming the state: DUSA Department of Administrative Simplification; DMGPSE Department of Modernisation of Public Management and Organisation of the State; ADAE Agency of E-Government Development; and DRB Directorate of Budgetary Reforms into a new Directorate-General of Modernisation of the State within the Ministry of Economy, Finance, and Industry. Further information: 13

14 1.1 Transformation goals Different OECD countries have diverse purposes and intentions for transformation of the public sector. The main reasons for the OECD countries to transform their public sectors are to: Improve public sector efficiency and effectiveness. Simplify regulations. Governments want to transform the features of the public sector, moving towards a set of features reflecting their political goals and wishes for the development of the public sector and its ability to deliver services. However, few governments have adequate monitoring and evaluation concepts in place. Looking across the OECD countries, almost none have formulated measurable quantitative goals, although some have adopted broadly formulated transformation goals (see Table 1 for an overview of the key transformational policy goals in some OECD countries, and Annex A for a full overview of some public sector transformation goals in a number of OECD countries). 12 The Ministry of Government Administration and Reform: 13 Portugal has integrated e-government and administrative simplification policies/strategies in the SIMPLEX programme. See: 14 Transformational Government Enabled by Technology, Cabinet Office, United Kingdom, November See: 14

15 Table 1 Key transformational policy goals in some OECD countries Focus of goals Key transformational policy goals Countries Internal Efficiency and/or effectiveness of the public sector. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Japan, Luxemburg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Turkey, USA. Structural and/or organisational change. Finland, Hungary, Japan, Netherlands, Regulatory reform/administrative simplification. Switzerland, Turkey. Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Japan, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland. External User-focused (citizens and/or Austria, Finland, Hungary, New Zealand, businesses) public sector development. Portugal, USA. Improving quality of services. Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Luxemburg, Mexico, Portugal, USA. Increasing openness and transparency. Luxemburg, Mexico, Spain, USA. Source: Based on the answers to the OECD questionnaire: E-Government as a Tool for Transformation, Question 1. All surveyed OECD countries 15 included the key transformational policy goals of efficiency and effectiveness and regulatory reform/administrative simplification in their goal statements; structural and/or organisational change, and creating a more user-focused public sector are also mentioned in some of the policy statements. The surveyed OECD countries seem mainly to focus internally on goals such as improving efficiencies and effectiveness, as a pre-requisite for delivering on external goals, such as being more user-focused and improving the quality of and access to services. The mainly internal focus of transformation policies and strategies, and the lack of quantitative goals to enable proper monitoring of progress (see Annex A) is interesting and shows that the surveyed countries recognise the need to reform the structural framework and the organisation of business processes to meet the needs of users. 1.2 E-Government and transformation of the public sector Since the mid-1990s, e-government has generally been placed in one of two policy areas: an independent policy as part of a broader Information Society policy, or part of a narrower and more technically focused public sector ICT policy. More recent experience 16 has shown that ICT use within the public administration has changed public sector perception of how tasks are handled or could be handled. Political questions have been raised with regard to division of responsibility among different public authorities and levels of government and political solutions must be found. No longer seen as primarily a technical issue dealt with by ICT professionals, e-government has become a strategic public governance issue supporting and enhancing change in the public sector. Almost all surveyed OECD countries have adopted e-government policies and strategies. Many have integrated e-government policies/strategies with transformation policies/strategies, which confirm the overall move towards a whole-of-public-sector view of service delivery. Almost all of the surveyed OECD countries have some kind of measurable quantitative goals in their policy/strategy documents to enable systematic monitoring of progress (see Table 2). 15 A questionnaire was developed and put into the field 13 December 2006 to all 30 OECD countries. By 16 February countries have answered. 16 OECD e-government Studies Finland, OECD, OECD e-government Studies Norway, OECD, OECD e-government Studies Mexico, OECD, OECD e-government Studies Denmark, OECD, OECD e-government Studies Turkey, OECD, OECD e-government Studies Hungary, OECD, OECD e-government Studies Netherlands, OECD,

16 Table 2 Existence of e-government policies/strategies and their characteristics Countries E-Government policy/strategy exists Integration of e- government policy/strategy and transformation policy/strategy Quantitative measures exists Australia N/A Austria Belgium 17 ( ) Canada No answers received Czech Republic No answers received Denmark Finland France Germany No answers received Greece No answers received Hungary Iceland No answers received Ireland No answers received Italy No answers received Japan Korea No answers received Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands 18 New Zealand Norway 19 Poland No answers received Portugal 20 Slovak Republic No answers received Spain Sweden No answers received Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom No answers received United States Source: OECD questionnaire: E-Government as a Tool for Transformation, Question 2. The overall impression from the stated e-government goals of the surveyed OECD countries (see Annex B) is that e-government development is very much focused on creating back-office coherence and efficiencies to enable delivery of e-services as part of an expanded public sector service delivery portfolio. Governments are increasingly considering using a broader spectrum of delivery channels enabled by ICT to both deliver personalised, high-quality services to users and increase user satisfaction, and to harvest efficiency gains through more efficient and effective service delivery. While earlier political and managerial focus was on developing e-services within each public institution with limited consideration of cross-organisational coherency, the focus today has clearly shifted towards co-ordinated services offering one-stop shops to citizens and businesses. 17 Quantitative measures do not exist on federal level. They only exist on regional level. 18 OECD e-government Studies Netherlands, OECD, OECD e-government Studies Norway, OECD, Portugal has integrated e-government with administrative simplification policies/strategies in their SIMPLEX programme. See: 16

17 Table 3 shows that the surveyed countries seem to prioritise both becoming more user-focused ( Provide more user-focused e-government ) and achieving administrative burden reductions internally within the public sector ( Achieve administrative burden reductions between governments and agencies ). Table 3 Drivers for implementing e-government (Evaluated as important by countries) Drivers for implementing e-government Countries Provide more user-focused e-government. Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Japan, Luxemburg, Mexico, New Zealand, Spain, Turkey. Enable efficiency gains. Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Japan, New Zealand, Spain, Turkey. Improve transparency and accountability of the Luxemburg, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Turkey. administration. Strengthen citizen engagement and trust in government. Australia, Austria, France, Japan, Luxemburg, Mexico, New Zealand. Achieve administrative burden reductions for users. Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Japan, Luxemburg, New Zealand, Spain. Achieve administrative burden reductions between Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, governments and agencies. Japan, Switzerland, New Zealand, Spain, Turkey. Other. Denmark: Increased coordination across public sector institutions. Source: OECD questionnaire: E-Government as a Tool for Transformation, Question 4, indication of important. 1.3 Impact of transformation Public sector transformation policy is not a new item on governments policy agendas. Changing the shape and the scope of the public sector has been an ongoing activity for many years, but processes of change seem to have accelerated within recent years for several reasons: impact of demographic development on public sector service delivery capacity, and user demands for easy access and quick delivery of high-quality public services, and transparency and inclusion, etc. In response to some or all of these factors, countries have been forced to accommodate changing contexts. But how has the implementation of transformation strategies actually impacted the public sector? It is clear from the answers given by the surveyed OECD countries (see Table 4) that transformation strategies have had significant impact on the public sector itself: shifting responsibilities among authorities and new organisational arrangements for public sector functions seem to be the most significant impacts of transformation strategies. 17

18 Table 4 Impact of transformation strategies Impact of transformation strategies Countries Impacts on organisation Change of responsibilities between authorities. Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Hungary, Switzerland 21, Turkey. Change of responsibilities between levels of government. Denmark, Mexico (medium impact), Hungary, Turkey. Change of responsibilities between the public sector and Luxemburg. the private sector. Change of responsibilities between the public sector and Denmark, Mexico (high impact). citizens. Change of responsibilities between the public sector and Mexico (medium impact). the civil/community/voluntary sector. New organisational arrangements for public sector Austria, Denmark, Luxemburg, Mexico (medium impact). functions, i.e. merging or transferring functions from one body to another without the creation of new or abolition of old bodies. New organisational arrangements for public sector Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland 22, Hungary, functions, i.e. merging or transferring functions from one Luxemburg, Mexico (medium impact), Turkey. body to another with the creation of new or abolition of old bodies. Other types of organisational impacts? Mexico: Change of role and strategy of ICT governance. Denmark: Establishment of units where employees from a broad range of institutions are working together, e.g. The Digital Task Force and the secretariat for the business portal. Impacts on business processes Change in public sector business processes. Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark (significant), Finland, France, Hungary, Japan, Luxemburg, Mexico (high impact), Turkey. Sharing or merging business processes between Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Hungary, agencies, institutions, etc. Other types of business process impacts? 21 Impacts are mainly changes of responsibilities between authorities of the same level. Japan, Luxemburg, Mexico (high impact), Turkey. Australia: The Australian Government ICT Investment Framework, a component of the 2006 e-government Strategy, will be used to ensure that ICT investment across government is well planned and managed, and will deliver the responsiveness and value for money required by government. The framework will guide agencies on business case development and new bids for funding ICT projects to progress transformation strategies. The framework will include tools to improve project planning and management that will help achieve measurable benefits and outcomes, including a performance indicator library and resources for designing evaluation strategies. Central reviews of business cases by AGIMO will focus on planning to measure and manage performance and on delivering outcomes. Belgium: Administrations should consult national key registers for 22 Setting up new bodies in charge of the strategies and programmes due to the 2006 adopted strategies. Impact of the new strategies is still limited. 18

19 Impact of transformation strategies Countries information instead of asking citizens and businesses to provide the same information and data. Denmark: Make processes redundant, for example by closing down non-digital channels. Impacts on privacy handling practices Implemented technical solutions to protect privacy. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, New Zealand, Mexico (high impact), Turkey. Implemented legal/regulatory solutions to protect privacy. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Hungary, Luxemburg, Japan, Mexico (high impact), Turkey. Other types of privacy process impacts? New Zealand: The New Zealand Privacy Act 1993 is undergoing review from 2007 through to Denmark: Give citizens access to information about them held by public sector institutions. Source: Based on answers to the OECD questionnaire: E-Government as a Tool for Transformation, Question Case study: Transformational government policy in the United Kingdom Since November 2005 the United Kingdom has followed a strategy for using technology outlined in a series of publications branded Transformational Government. These publications are as follows: Transformational Government: Enabled by Technology, Transformational Government: Implementation Plan, Transformational Government: Enabled by Technology Annual Report 2006, These reports set out how the government aims to use technology to drive public sector reform in three directions: The transformation of public services for the benefit of citizens, businesses, taxpayers and frontline staff. The efficiency of the corporate services and infrastructure of government organisations, thus freeing resources for the front-line. The steps necessary to achieve the effective delivery of technology for government. This strategy reflects an evolution of some of the goals of earlier e-government strategies in the UK, as described in the following three documents: Modernising Government White Paper, e-commerce@its.best, Electronic Government: The View from the Queue, Transformational Government: Enabled by Technology, Cabinet Office, United Kingdom, November See: 24 Transformational Government: Implementation Plan, Cabinet office, United Kingdom, April See: 25 Transformational Government: Enabled by Technology Annual Report 2006, Cabinet office, United Kingdom, January See: 26 Modernising Government White Paper, Cabinet Office, United Kingdom, March See: 27 e-commerce@its.best, Cabinet Office, United Kingdom, September See: 19

20 Over time, the strategy has moved away from the idea that e-government is a good in itself. E- Government (understood in this context as also including other ICTs such as mobile telephones, texting, digital television, landline telephones etc.) is used as a tool to deliver services that have been designed to provide what users need, generally based on their feedback. This approach recognises that if electronic service delivery is to continue successfully and to be taken up by citizens and businesses in the United Kingdom, that the delivery of the services themselves must be supported by a workforce capable of successful delivery and that the services must be designed so that citizens want to use them. Other technologies are used to deliver back-office services more efficiently, such as shared human resources and financial management. Transformational Government is now at the heart of public service reform in the United Kingdom, alongside other activities including Sir David Varney s recent report on service transformation 29 and the Capability Reviews 30. Some achievements to date: A Web site rationalisation policy is underway to both rationalise web content and migrate it to either the Directgov Web site (for citizens) or the Business Link Web site (for businesses). So far, 951 Web sites have been considered: of these, 90 have already closed and a further 461 are scheduled for closure. An additional 374 of the remaining Web sites will be reviewed by June 2007, with a view to encouraging further rationalisation. By implementing shared corporate services, Transport for London (the integrated body responsible for the capital s transport scheme) has saved 30% on human resources; the National Health Service has saved 34% on processing financial transactions; and the Ministry of Defence has achieved cost reduction through the People, Pay and Pensions Agency. In 2006, the government created both a Ministerial Committee and the Public Private Forum on Identity Management. The Identity and Passport Service leads identity management policy issues, which aim to improve government services through the more effective shared use of data. The Chief Technical Officer Council has published the first release of a jointly agreed, crossgovernment Enterprise Architecture that addresses the issues of reusing services and removing the technical barriers affecting information and data sharing. Since July 2005, over people have registered with the Government IT Profession and, during 2005, a competency and skills framework was introduced that will raise the quality and consistency of assessment across the Civil Service. 31 Transformational Government outlined a programme that extends beyond 2011, divided into three phases, the first of which will come to an end in July This first phase is about laying the groundwork for change, and completing work already underway. The challenge for the next phase will be to continue the collaborative approach established by the Chief Information Officer Council; realising the benefits of investments already made; and transforming delivery into customer-centred public services and shared corporate services. 28 Electronic Government: The View from the Queue, Cabinet Office, United Kingdom, October See: 29 See: 30 See: 31 All references are from the Annual Report, which can be found at: Additional information on the Enterprise Architecture can be found at: Additional information on the Government IT Profession can be found at 20

21 2. INFORMATION AND DATA SHARING AS A TOOL FOR TRANSFORMATION Information and data sharing among public authorities is a prerequisite for realising the full benefits of e-government. Among OECD countries it has become a key tool for delivering seamless services and ensuring that governments increasingly are being perceived as one WHAT?, and not as fragmented entities with no internal coherency. The external pressure from civil society for simple and easy access to public sector e-services and internal budgetary pressures within the public sector itself for cost-effectiveness have pushed governments to consider how common resources like information and data can be used most effectively. These pressures have led a number of OECD countries to develop the concept of seamless government, also known as networked government or joined-up government. The transformation of the public sector using information and data sharing as a tool is thus a reaction to the mounting external demands on governments to be able to deliver better and higher quality services under tighter budgetary constraints. The e-government for Better Government (2005) 32 discussed the different development stages of a country s e-government maturity with regard to the increasing complexity of information flows. In the early stages of e-government development information and data sharing were scarcely practiced within own organisation reflecting the historic development of government administrations as being the result of political balance of power between political leaderships of different entities of government and traditional silo-thinking by public sector staff. The need for change of administration cultures combined with the creation of a collaborative and co-operative organisational environment and supporting incentives are necessary in order to break down barriers for information and data sharing. While public sector modernisation efforts have focused on using traditional tools like financial, budgetary, and human resource management, as levers for change, information and data sharing has provided governments with a powerful transformational tool which correctly applied can strengthen collaborative and co-operative way of working by breaking down silos between organisational units, sectors, and levels of government. 2.1 Drivers for information and data sharing A number of OECD countries are moving towards implementing the basic principle of deliver information once, use it many times. 33 The increasing focus on user needs and user-focused service delivery has forced governments to use e-government to make back-office operations more smooth and efficient linking up different government bodies with regard to delivering seamless services. In fact, information sharing is a tool with significant potential: For reducing burdens on citizens and businesses: pre-filled tax forms in the Nordic countries, New Zealand, and France simplify taxpayers lives, reduce errors and eliminate countless hours of paperwork. 32 e-government for Better Government, OECD, Page 135 ff. 33 Examples of countries actively pursuing this are: Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Netherlands, and Norway. These countries are pursuing the goal of delivering services without regard to formal areas of responsibilities between government authorities and levels of government. OECD e-government Studies of Denmark, OECD, 2005; OECD e-government Studies of Finland, OECD, 2003; OECD e-government Studies of Norway, OECD, 2004; and OECD e-government Studies Hungary, OECD, 2007, OECD e- Government Studies Netherlands, OECD,