Survey on eGovernment Strategic management on eGov Similarities and differences between the MS Purpose of the different systems Percentage of answers – 81% (22 countries) Goal: As simple as possible for as many as possible – Mats Odell (första punkten) The main focus of the survey is to get an overview regarding the management structure of eGovernemnt in the MS. This questionnaire is a way for us to map the Member States’ specific strategies when it comes to managing eGovernment. (tredje punkten) The Swedish Minister for Local Government and Financial Markets, Mats Odell, who is responsible for public administration, has declared the Swedish goal for eGovernment with this sentence: as simple as possible for as many as possible. This of course is common for the entire EU. What differ is that the countries go about it in different ways, due to different traditions for administrating the public sector. E.g. Sweden has had a decentralized strategy for eGovernment that in a bigger extent than a centralized model demands IT-standardisation, but on the other hand offers the possibility for the local agencies to communicate with each other via standardized ICT-systems without having to use fixed connections.

Preliminary overall conclusions (1) Seem to be a fairly centralized question within the MS Swedish experiences from a decentralized point of view (fösrta punkten) This survey has among other things indicated that the strategic management of eGovernment is an area that in a rather big extent is centralized within the MS. According to this survey only Sweden and Greece has a mandatory plan at agency level, and only a comprehensive guidance one for the central government administration. It seems to me more common the other way around; over all plans (in many cases mandatory) for the central administration rather than plans for the local agencies. (andra punkten) Up until now Sweden has experienced that this decentralized model by way of introduction has made possible a fast service development at the local agencies. The problem has considered being that the public administration as a whole hasn’t been able to benefit from the network orientated use of ICT in a sufficient extent. A positive experience has been that time has shown that the agencies have been willing to voluntarily adapted to the required ICT-system, since the benefits from doing so in many cases has outweighed the costs. It’s important that the agencies keep in mind that the ICT-systems should be compatible across state borders.

Preliminary overall conclusions (2) Difference in where the central management function is situated Ministry of Finance Ministry of Interior Staff resources differ widely Economic crisis 2009 – affects eGov work? (första punkten) This brings up new questions. Why does eGov belong at the one ministry or the other? Does this possibly indicate that different MS focus on different aspects of eGov? E.g. if it belongs at the Ministry of Finance, the MS perhaps attach great importance to the efficiency perspective of eGov, but if eGov is mainly looked at as a democracy/social matter it belongs at other Ministries. (andra punkten) Might be proof of that eGov is organized in different manners in the MS. Integrated part of the work or a separately managed eGov unit. (tredje punkten) This survey has also indicated that eGovernment work and planning has been affected by the financial crisis this year. The crisis has in some cases forced the action planes to be dynamic so they can adjust to the economic development. This is an understandable reaction, but nevertheless interesting to note. We think that these questions, which this survey has pointed out, give indications that would be interesting to follow up.

Follow up on the survey This survey has exposed some questions It would seem like eGov is fairly centralized within the MS – to what extent, and what are the experiences from this? Why are eGov questions sorted in one Ministry or the other? Advantages/disadvantages with different solutions On-The-Spot Account (första frågan) ”Ministerial with substantial elements of separately managed agencies” could have a quite wide meaning. Should be interesting to clarify this. (andra frågan) Does it depend on how eGov is looked at and what part of eGov that is given focus? eGov includes a lot of functions (such as economic savings, transparency or democracy aspects) of which some might be given bigger focus than other in the member states. (tredje frågan) Advantages/disadvantages with different solutions. Share experiences and thoughts on the matter. (Ögonblicksbild, On-the-spot account) eGov is characterized by a very fast development. This survey gives a On-The-Spot Account on how the strategic management of eGov lookes today. Sweden makes a good example of this; the e-delegation (a delegation consisting of a number of DG’s on different areas set together to lead and develop eGov work in Sweden) will shortly present a suggestion on how to move forward with the eGov work. These suggestions may lead to a more centralized way of organizing the strategic management on eGov.