Comments to “the concept of e-government formation in Russia until 2010” Åke Grönlund Örebro University, Sweden

General The 2010 plan is ambitious but more of a technology-centered wish list than a strategy Missing (more or less for each item): 1. Goals for change 2. Division of responsibilities among government agencies, including audit, support 3. Incentive structure/prioritization 4. Clear relation to cyberlaws; privacy, access and rule of law eGovernment strategies

Examples from the Russian plan 1. Agency web sites 2. Multifunctional centers, call centers 3. Uniform infrastructure 4. IS for planning and monitoring 5. Normative legal base eGovernment strategies

(1) Agency web sites/Swedish model 1. Government regulation on information and communication requirements, e.g. contact information, response time….(list increasing), 2. Implementation on business terms 3. Advice: VERVA (guidelines, e.g. usability, procurement) 4. Incentives: Budget items follow-up in annual reports 5. Monitoring & audit: VERVA (Swedish Administrative Development Agency; service supply) Swedish Agency for Public Management (public sector efficiency and effectiveness) National Audit Agency (use of resources) eGovernment strategies

Example Sweden, monitoring CSN (national agency for student loans): 39 % automatic decisions Process time down from 2,22 days to 1,5 days million visits to web (0,5 million students) Reply time (phone) down from 6,5 min to 2,5 min (1,3 m calls). CSN was almost inaccessible in 2000 eGovernment strategies

AMS (Government Labour Market Agency) AMS Service: job search facilities and unemployment benefits Same number of staff, doubling of users over few years in 1990s 2 million users (=200% of unemployed, meaning als people who already have a job search for new ones) eGovernment strategies

Most popular sites: AMS (job search and unemployment benefits) Tax Authority Consumer information Social Insurance SMHI (weather information) Popularity criteria: People need the service eGovernment strategies

(2) Multifunctional service centers, call centers Usually part of a media integration strategy with one agency, proven successful in Sweden (Student loans agency, Tax authority, Social insurance) Complicated in a multi-organisational setting as responsibilities must follow authority and competence MFCs are typically service outputs, not gravitation center. Process measurement and incentives hard to manage across gov agencies eGovernment strategies

Example 1: Swedish one-stop shops Were created as single windows serving multiple gov agencies Government agencies would not delegate authority for reasons of control and responsibility Results: Shallow services at the one-stop shops and hence little use. However, easy access and good information The one-stop shops were overruled as more people use the Internet and government agencies’ sites become better eGovernment strategies

Example 2: Measurement of agency efficiency difficult CSN (student loans): 39 % automatic decisions -- would these be att the call centre, the MFC or the Central Govenment Agency? Process time down from 2,22 days to 1,5 days – would have to be measured across agency borders-> standards required, cooperation and administrative overhead 10 m visits to web – who’s web? The MCC? The CGA? Must be a joint web for usability->restrictions on cooperation Reply time (phone) down from 6,5 min to 2,5 min – could be measured at the MFC, but then the central Govenrment agency would not reap any benefit from reorganisation (as the Swedish ones have done, greatly) eGovernment strategies

Conclusion MFCs MFC as simple information delivery organisations have proven to work well, provided services MFCs as focus organisation to boost citizen orientation of service must be given a strong mandate to overpower central gov agencies MFCs as parts in a service delivery chain together with central government agencies must be given a clear status to make sure 1. responsibilities and authority balance eachother 2. performance of each entity can be measured, and 3. resources follow performance eGovernment strategies

(3) Uniform infrastructure… Sweden is now moving towards procuring functions rather than technology, i.e. it is the function in the overall structure that is important. Open standards, for example It is more important to control the data (semantic) infrastructure than details on technology at each agency. The latter can be controlled by economic means and adherence to standards for information interoperability, access, and security The data infrastructure must be standardised by sector (e.g. for international interoperability) A central agency should monitor quality, provide national resources such as signatures, but not directly control flows A uniform infrastructure requires an Enterprise Architecture, not detailed central control of information flows

Example: Swedish health care While the Tax Authority has improved income declaration to the point that 70+ % of Swedish citizens now only have to sign (electronically if they want), the health care is still unable to transfer patient data across districts (25) eGovernment strategies

(4) Information systems for planning and monitoring Again, data interoperability comes before technical standards. Key indicators can not be applied if data is differently defined. Example: At one point there were 29 definitions of ”income” in Swedish government An Enterprise Architecture – a national plan for the information infrastructure – should govern a process towards increased standardisation Swedish example: Monitoring of hospitals´ performance is very hard as accounting and measurement is different in different districts eGovernment strategies

(5) Normative legal base Citizens’ trust in government is crucial to eGovernment success as they will otherwise not use the systems, or misuse them Privacy is the most important factor for citizen trust in government and must hence be clearly spelled out in the law There must also be a law on openness of information eGovernment strategies

Key messages: 1. Create strong institutions for interoperability, monitoring and audit, and create economic incentives for local compliance 2. Multifunctional centers must be given a clear role so as to make for process efficiency and measurability and for reorgansiation of back-office functions 3. A uniform infrastructure requires an Enterprise Architecture, not detailed central control of information flows 4. Laws on privacy and open access to government documents must be included for efficient eGovernment eGovernment strategies