E-government targetsE-government targetsOxford Executive Government Group Workshop Oxford Executive Government Group Workshop

Series, Hilary term 2005Series, Hilary term 2005

Helen MargettsHelen Margetts

Oxford Internet InstituteOxford Internet Institute

Targets for e-governmentTargets for e-government

E-government – using information E-government – using information technology and the Internet for technology and the Internet for government-citizen, government-business government-citizen, government-business and government-government interactionsand government-government interactions

Most governments have set some kind of Most governments have set some kind of target for the achievement of e-target for the achievement of e-government – but great variation in government – but great variation in definition, leveldefinition, level

In UK, target set at 100 per cent In UK, target set at 100 per cent availability for all electronic services by availability for all electronic services by 2005 (brought forward from 2008)2005 (brought forward from 2008)

Directing, detecting, Directing, detecting, effectingeffecting

Commitment from the top: Blair’s speech to party Commitment from the top: Blair’s speech to party conference 1997 onwardsconference 1997 onwards

Responsibility: given to Office of e-Envoy in Responsibility: given to Office of e-Envoy in Cabinet Office, now the eGovernment Unit Cabinet Office, now the eGovernment Unit

Control: built into department’s PSAs with Treasury Control: built into department’s PSAs with Treasury and OeE’s limited financial control (all local and OeE’s limited financial control (all local government built into DTLR’s PSA, with distribution government built into DTLR’s PSA, with distribution of £350 million to LAs) – but key instrument was of £350 million to LAs) – but key instrument was “policy, politics and rhetoric”“policy, politics and rhetoric”

Measurement systems: devised by Office of e-Measurement systems: devised by Office of e-Envoy to September 2004, now eGovernment Unit Envoy to September 2004, now eGovernment Unit eg. reviewing e-business strategies, asking eg. reviewing e-business strategies, asking departments to identify interactions with citizens departments to identify interactions with citizens which are ‘capable of being completed which are ‘capable of being completed electronically’electronically’

Part (what you measure) stands for the Part (what you measure) stands for the whole (what you want to measure)whole (what you want to measure)

E-government is mechanism – not desired social E-government is mechanism – not desired social outcome (eg. Citizen satisfaction – in Canada target for outcome (eg. Citizen satisfaction – in Canada target for e-government was 10% increase in citizen satisfaction)e-government was 10% increase in citizen satisfaction)

What is electronic? (In UK, up to 1999, included fax as What is electronic? (In UK, up to 1999, included fax as ‘electronic’)‘electronic’)

What is government? (Do you include local What is government? (Do you include local government, quasi-governmental organisations)government, quasi-governmental organisations)

Availability …. Do all services count the same (eg. OeE Availability …. Do all services count the same (eg. OeE gave same ‘weight’ to different transaction volumes)gave same ‘weight’ to different transaction volumes)

Take-up – why not base target on take-up (an e-Take-up – why not base target on take-up (an e-government that no-one uses is not e-government)?government that no-one uses is not e-government)?

Precision: In NZ, target is ‘to make the internet the Precision: In NZ, target is ‘to make the internet the “dominant means” of enabling ready access to “dominant means” of enabling ready access to Government by 2004’ Government by 2004’

Distribution of quality – where Distribution of quality – where do you put the targetdo you put the target

E-government targets range from 25% E-government targets range from 25% (Netherlands) to 100 % (most countries including (Netherlands) to 100 % (most countries including UK)UK)

If you use 100%, what happens after target date?If you use 100%, what happens after target date? Do you measure process? Targets range from Do you measure process? Targets range from

outcome measures eg Canada to process outcome measures eg Canada to process measures eg. US – for 2005, “To have 75% of measures eg. US – for 2005, “To have 75% of agencies with acceptable business cases for all of agencies with acceptable business cases for all of their IT systems”, or “to have at least 50% of their IT systems”, or “to have at least 50% of agencies managing their IT portfolio in accordance agencies managing their IT portfolio in accordance with standard” (OMB, 2004, with standard” (OMB, 2004, Expanding E-Expanding E-Government: Partnering for a Results-Oriented Government: Partnering for a Results-Oriented GovernmentGovernment))

Allowing targets to stagnate – in Canada, ‘targets Allowing targets to stagnate – in Canada, ‘targets for e-government are constantly changing’for e-government are constantly changing’

Knights into Knaves:Knights into Knaves:avoiding detectors and avoiding detectors and

effectorseffectors Implementing e-services as temporary Implementing e-services as temporary

measure for target date – quick-fix measure for target date – quick-fix solutionssolutions

Progress slows down as target date Progress slows down as target date approaches (3% improvement, 6/2003-approaches (3% improvement, 6/2003-1/2004)1/2004)

Agencies only ‘confess’ close to target Agencies only ‘confess’ close to target date - difficult tasks left until last…date - difficult tasks left until last…

And most difficult tasks cut across And most difficult tasks cut across organisational boundaries – so targets organisational boundaries – so targets can work against joining up eg. can work against joining up eg. Renewing tax discs for cars > 3 yrs oldRenewing tax discs for cars > 3 yrs old

Redistribution of Effort: some Redistribution of Effort: some pathological outcomespathological outcomes

Spending money to meet targets – rather Spending money to meet targets – rather than save money or improve quality than save money or improve quality

Expenditure ‘bursts’ as target date Expenditure ‘bursts’ as target date approaches, to be followed by funding approaches, to be followed by funding desert (after end of 2005, e-government desert (after end of 2005, e-government projects will have to ‘pay their own way’)projects will have to ‘pay their own way’)

Reliance on trust between agencies: Reliance on trust between agencies: periphery (eg. local authorities) either periphery (eg. local authorities) either wait for long-term central projects (eg. wait for long-term central projects (eg. Identity card) or baulk at using them (eg. Identity card) or baulk at using them (eg. Gateway) on key issues (eg. Gateway) on key issues (eg. Authentication)Authentication)

Results of e-government Results of e-government targetstargets

By end of 2004, targets not met by around one By end of 2004, targets not met by around one quarter central government, half of local quarter central government, half of local government services (depending on how you government services (depending on how you measure) measure)

No systematic data on usage of e-governmentNo systematic data on usage of e-government But private sector figures suggest take-up in But private sector figures suggest take-up in

UK low compared with other advanced UK low compared with other advanced democraciesdemocracies

And UK slipping down international e-And UK slipping down international e-government rankingsgovernment rankings

But scores well in e-readiness of the economyBut scores well in e-readiness of the economy

Government online useGovernment online use

% total population

2003 20022001

Netherlands 52 41 31

Canada 51 48 46

Australia 47 46 31

New Zealand 45 40 NA

USA 44 43 34

UK 18 13 11

Japan 15 13 17

Source: Taylor Nelson Sofres (2003)

Accenture rankings of e-Accenture rankings of e-governmentgovernment

2004 2003 2002 2001

Canada 1 1 1 1

USA 2 3 3 3

Australia 3 5 4 5

Great Britain  10 8 6 8

Netherlands  9 13 11 7

Japan 13 15 17 17

Source: Accenture (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004)