practice its not about eGovernment but about enabling eCitizens
The ePractice blog: discuss, praise, disagree.
ePractice.eu provides its members with a blog in which all registered users can post opinions, questions and links to news related to eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth. Your point of view is what makes ePractice.eu relevant to other public administrators all over Europe, so feel free to post and...
22 April 2009 | 1610 Visits | Rating: 4.3 (maximum:5)
its not about eGovernment but about enabling eCitizens
The idea of eGovernment is not exactly new, but definitely back in focus again as Governments everywhere seem to be all looking for savings, and see the idea of eGovernment as one of the ways to achieve some savings. The rationale sounds good to a Politician ‘we will deliver more for less cost’, move efficient government, joined up government etc. Occasionally you will hear the point about the cultural shift for the digital young being part of the issue, but generally the focus for all of the activity starts with the idea of consolidation.
Unfortunately consolidation seems to mean huge centralised databases and expensive IT projects with the potential to consume large amounts of money and take a long time to deliver anything. Even if the results are delivered then the ongoing management and maintenance is going to be an issue. All of this is before we even address the issue of whether the data can be cleaned and consolidated, if the various departments will cooperate for common good at what they will probably consider is at the expense of the services they deliver, etc, etc.
I guess Government officials are used to thinking ‘big’ and believing that it’s the role of government to handle these kind of ‘public good’ mega projects and resources, so eGovernment in the interests of the public and voters has got to be right!
Personally I think its time to turn the argument round and start allowing eCitizens to decide how they use ‘services’ both in terms of the value the Government delivers and in the use of ‘services’ meaning the technology. My simple illustration is that if a relative dies I want to follow a single integrated process to carry out necessary steps and have no interest in what, where and how all the government departments and their systems/databases deal with this.
Governments think databases; Citizens think process! (And private sector thinks Customers)
It might have been a issue around the limitations of technology some years back in the age of applications, but it most certainly isn’t potentially a limitation currently as we move to ‘services’ delivered via a common ‘infostructure’ of the Internet and Web. The issue is organisational, where in Government are the equivalents to the new roles we are starting to see in large enterprises which are based on being in charge of an end to end process and the resulting effectiveness that this delivers. Sure you need to keep the departmental focus for doing the specialised aspects of each task area, and its associated systems, but its how they deliver within the consolidated and integrated process that is the value statement.
Will this deliver more for less? I don’t know without a detailed case study, but as it should ensure each department is fed the same data at the same time for incorporation in their systems and data bases at this level alone of data entry and error handling it should be a saving. Certainly it should have the right effect on the voters in terms of the perceived value they are getting from their Government.
We are moving towards this in the private sector as the leaders in customer care and relationships learn how to create stronger links with their customers, and the customers learn how to get better value from their supplier. Really good online experiences, what Capgemini calls the ‘You Experience’ are now visible in a number of sectors as the game changers that have driven new market shares. In fact you can call it a kind of ‘democratisation’ of the relationship between the consumer and the seller as it moves towards shared information leading to better ‘wins’ for both parties than the old ‘push the product’ distribution model where one size fits all, and strong marketing will convince the consumer to buy.
I have written this about eCitizens and eGovernment but it all applies to any business model, and even to internal delivery of services from the IT department. We need to shift from the provisioning of applications that suit the way the computer works to the ‘users’ who are informed that they must do what is required of them, towards thinking of them as ‘consumers’ of services from within the business. And that means both adopting and using ‘service oriented architecture’, SOA, to connect the existing Applications to building and deploying through a full services model to achieve this goal.
The challenge is not technical, it’s around business organisation, and structure, so it applies to more than just the IT department. Most of all though the real challenge will be the rising expectations of the citizens as they increasingly experience a new relationship with many of the major corporations who supply them with life services in every field from entertainment to travel, financial services to their work place experiences. Increasely with privatisation taking over roles and services that were the preserve of Government provided public services. Currently Governments are still monopoly suppliers of many unique services and have created their own expectations and measurements of the quality of service, but for how much longer will politicians feel able to ignore the voting citizen’s views?
In order to vote, you need to be logged in!
© European Union, 2009-2012. Reproduction is authorised, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged.
Showing 9 comments
It's also about enabling eSociety
Andy's thoughst are a very welcome reminder about who should be in the driving seat, i.e. the citizen or business or community, rather than the government itself, which is only there as our servant. Sometimes it's important to remind government what the term 'civil servant' actually means.
However, it's also about eSociety, as sometimes just focusing on serving individual citizens may ignore the bigger picture of getting everything right, from the labour market to infrastructure to the legal framework. And just as we put government in its place, so we should put 'e' in its place. So, it's ultimately about the citizen and society -- but 'e' is a powerful and transformative tool in this.
Getting governments away from only thinking big and ignoring the micro of everyday lived lives is of course something which it has often forgotten. It's also called citizen-centric, or even citizen-driven, government, where the silos shouldn't exist for their own sake.
As Andy suggests, this should also 'democratise' the relationship between government and citizen, allowing the latter to take control and design, construct and deliver their own services. This is already starting to happen, and government should provide the resources and support for such 'mashable' services, and recognise that a whole host of non-government actors are likely to be involved. Thus, communities, NGOs, social entrepreneurs, as well as the private sector, are potential players in this game. Government does, however, need to hold the ring, and provide the legal framework, as only it is ultimately democratically legitimate.
eSociety the missing human element
You are right Jeremy, being an engineer i analysed the capability and approach and missed the real goal; ie eSociety. The ability to use new capabilities to shape the world in which we which to live in realtionships with each other. Given that the technology is not the problem, then i got half way there by suggesting we shift from the computer to the people but thought this was a big change for government to swallow, but how does the debate to reset the real question, that if eSociety get started?
Participation in service fulfillment and democratic governance
I agree: E-government should not be completely about saving a few cents when filing tax receipts. I think taxpayers are more concerned about having a say when paying the bills. The eSociety is enabling itself with or without governments.
When it comes to governments and public services I think the question is: are they part of it? Too many relics of industrial life still govern our way of thinking – which is perhaps unavoidable. But incremental adaptability still requires a clear view of where we are going – it requires a *strategy* of incremental change.
However, many governments and public services seem pre-occupied with the status quo and there is a real danger of missing an opportunity to play a role in the future. Take the evolution of Java governance as example. The Java governing body (JCP) first ignored new developments and calls to open-up the process. Software developers and firms turned away and a parallel open governance structure evolved. The JCP was only able to regain legitimacy by mirroring the open governance structure and focusing on constituents’ needs.
There are parallels. Today, the support for party politics and formal elections is deteriorating. At the same time, people cooperate and organize via social networking sites. Cooperation and collective organization is the essence of political life. These activities may not be ready to run the foreign ministry, but they already influence the political agenda.
Government institutions play a vital role for social and economic well-being. Let’s think of how they can become integral to the emerging eSociety. Two themes come to mind:
In both cases, governments and public services must reach out to citizens – rather than wait for occasional visitors. Citizens can nowadays be found at social network sites – so governments and public services are able to get knowledge and demands from the source. Citizens also run their own sites or blogs, so providing useful applications or modules would bring governments and public services to the frontline.
The EU eGovernment benchmark can support change
While I certainly support most of its content I wondering whats new about many things you have written.
"eGovernment (eGov) has never been out of focus."
Most commonly now eGov is understood as the use of ICT in government. From my point of view this also includes Web 2.0 type applications. Governments do not function w/o ICT anymore. The underlying philosophy of many beGov projects is of course to facilitate change or even a transformation of government towards the usual suspects: efficiency, effectiveness and citizen centricity.
""Governments think databases; Citizens think process!" (And private sector thinks customers)."
I disagree and you might do the same if you would review some of the good practice in CapGemini's 2007 EU eGov benchmark you would find many good practices across Europe. Since the 80s governments have tried to provide one-stop services for citizens. First in physical service centers and later through online portals. Moreover, taking a citizen's perspective. For cross-boundary services data has to be exchange among several government entities. Some citizens prefer that lack of connectivity for reason of privacy. Of course governments could do more and there is always room for improvement.
You mentioned the drive towards "democratisation" of relationships in the business sector as a model for government. This is what some people call Gov 2.0 and this is what makes Gov 2.0 a rather philosophical phenomenon. Web 2.0 applications could still be referred to as eGov as well as including participatory activities in the subcategory of "eDemocracy" within the typology of digital government.
From my point of view, the "democratisation" of relationships is more radical for the private sector than the public sector. The obligations of citizens and government have been discussed by philosophers for centuries. See my blog entry for details: http://www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/netgov/2008/06/why_government_is_ahead_in...
and http://www.philippmueller.de/the-vocabulary-of-open-government/
That being said, I strongly second your final conclusion:
"The challenge is not technical.."
Policy makers and public managers need to change their behaviour to live in the networked world. If they don't do so and legislation (a common constraint) is not changed, it will strangle the trend significantly. Looking at many studies on public particpiation, we also know that it will be hard to active people all of the time. Politics requires constant participation and most citizens don't have the time or feel the urge to support an issue that they don't feel connected to. Protecting the underlying democratic value of equality will become a major challenge for policy makers in the future if people have more chances for particpation. The latter does not mean, however, that the status quo should prevail.
CapGemini could also help. Make sure these aspects are benchmarked in the annual EU eGovernment and are considered in the upcoming changes to its methodology.
Measuring cultural change in government is difficult. Yet just asking for the "availability of online surveys/user satisfaction monitoring" or "voting mechanisms" does not tell us anything about the level of change in government to actually considers these comments!
Related insights can be found here:
http://www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/netgov/citizen_relationship_management/
eGov and bench marks for change
Are we in disagreement here? i didn't think so when i read your comments, the point seems to be a contention on how much has been achieved to date. In that i would certainly agree with you that in some countries and some areas much has been achieved, and yes we at Capgemini try in our various activities to support the good practices that you comment on.
But has the tipping point of change really been reached?
The difference between the leaders and the followers is still there, and the laggards in adoption are in some cases almost out of sight. Then there is the issue as to how well Federal and Local Government services integrate.So please consider the contribution part of the efforts that you ask for, and rightly so, from Capgemini to continue to highlight the issues and the need to learn a different game in how services are brought to citizens in the complexity of realities and politics.
RE:
You are right. We are not that far apart. May be there is even the chance to jointly push some of these things forward in the future. It will be interesting to see if the laggards are able to leapfrog fwd to be among the leading eGov nations.
e-participation
I believe this issue should be discussed in relation to e-participation.
Governance and e-citizens
I agree with you. I thought in eGovernance (an emerging concept) when I just read your article. eGoverment is like a narrower discipline dealing with online services to the cititzen having technical and economics concentration, while eGovernance is a wider concept that defines the impacts of ICT on the relationships between public administration and the wider society so a useful concept about how a society can take opportunities using ICT like other concepts spend time to mature, and the relationship beetwen ICT and society is not an exception. Â
Â
defining what we mean by..
The interesting thing that has come out of the comments to me is how poorly 'we' (meaning everyone) understand what is in or out of scope for the 'concept'.
It seems we are all agreed on the fundermental point but we seem to need to develop a bullet list of what would need to be included.
ie - for a start secure ID and authentication ! - see my latest post ! After that clearly a Governance model, a process model, etc.
anyone want to have a go at this?