Digital Government in Lebanon

Chapter 3. Institutional models

Defined roles and responsibilities and a clear consensus on governance and operational objectives are essential prerequisites for a successful and effective digital transformation of the government and public sector. The mandate, representation and attributes that stakeholders assign to public sector organisations responsible for digital government policies are key aspects that need to be addressed when evaluating the current structural structures. The role of these institutions is essential in ensuring adequate governance and co-ordination of initiatives across all policy areas and government levels, in order to succeed in the transition from agency-thinking and government-centered methods to system-thinking and citizen-driven imperatives in policy making and delivery of public services (OECD, forthcoming[1]).

Institutional models profoundly shape countries’ digital government agendas from design to implementation. Understanding and rolling out optimised institutional set-ups is crucial for effective and efficient implementation of digital government strategies. It demands co-ordination between a plurality of actors and processes and for this to be ensured institutions need to rely on standards, rules and procedures. The organisation of digital government institutions can be analysed through four major dimensions: 1) macro-structure of the government; 2) nature of the leading public sector organisation; 3) leadership model encompassing position and role; and 4) level of co-ordination and compliance (see Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1. Digital government institutional models

Note: CIO = Chief Information Officer; CDO = Chief Data Officer.

Source: (OECD, forthcoming[1]), OECD E-Leaders Governance Handbook.

Governments around the world are gradually adapting institutional settings to better lead the digitalisation of their public administrations. To accurately organise the digitalisation of the public sector, countries have established institutions to manage and co-ordinate digital government choices at the federal or national levels of state, often in the manner of units or branches within current organisations, directorates, agencies or even ministries.

The choice of the governance structure is not directly related to the level of digital government maturity of the country, or human and financial resources in the public sector. It is however important to underline that the position of the person in charge of the agency, department or unit in the central government responsible for digital government has a significant impact on the management ability and capacity to use digital technology to promote a more efficient, innovative, open, inclusive and sustainable public sector. The governance model assists the government in refining its perspective on the digital government and generating the financial capacity to drive enhancement through a coherent use of innovation.

The model should be implemented while considering the political framework of the country, its legal and administrative context, and the tradition of governance for digital government in a specific nation (OECD, forthcoming[1]). Given the recent political instability in Lebanon leading to an overhaul of the government and the political organisation of the country, it seems more judicious to study the institutional models under the prism of the elements put forward in the digital transformation draft strategy. Thus, this chapter will highlight the approach chosen by the Office of the Minister of State for Administrative Reform (OMSAR) by focusing on the following elements: the governance model, the structure, the designated roles and responsibilities and the subjects of co-ordination and compliance.

Lebanon's administrative organisation

Lebanon became independent from the Ottoman Empire and the French mandate in 1943. Consequently, the country retained the governmental systems and traditions of both Ottoman and French systems. The country benefits from wide cultural and religious diversity, demonstrated by its strategic location in the Middle East, as a link between East and West, as well as by the coexistence of 18 religious groups. The political and administrative systems of the country must take into account the balances and interests of those groups, which constitute a permanent challenge for political, social and economic stability. Lebanon is considered a developing country with a fragile economy, a survivor of a long civil war from 1975 to 1990 and ethnic confrontations. The country is a free market service economy marked by limited natural resources, a significant income divide between urban and rural areas, and a broad gap between rich and poor (AbouAssi, 2015[2]).

There are two models of governance in Lebanon: 1) a prefectural model where administrative services are co-ordinated and controlled by a single state agent working for a defined geographical area; 2) a model based on local self-government where the primary responsibility for the provision of public services is assigned to locally elected authorities while at the same time being dependent on them (see Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2. Current sub-national administrative structure in Lebanon

Source: (AbouAssi, 2015[2]), “Giving in Lebanon: Traditions and Reality in an Unstable Environment”, https://doi.org/10.1057/978113734153_20.

Influenced by the French mandate, the devolution system has been in place since 1959 and has changed little since its introduction. Lebanon is divided into eight governorates (Muhafazat) and 26 districts (Qada), where the ministries are represented by regional offices and this corresponds to an integrated prefectural administrative structure. The various ministerial offices in the regions are chaired by an agent of the state, who liaises with the higher authorities. The governor (Muhafiz) exercises his functions at the governorate level and the representative (Qai’mmaqam) at the district level (Lebanese Arabic Institute, 2020[3]) (see Figure 3.3).

Figure 3.3. Districts of Lebanon

Note: Except for Beirut, each district is divided into municipalities. There were 1029 municipalities at the time of the 2016 municipal elections.

Source: (Lebanese Arabic Institute, 2020[3]), “Administrative Divisions of Lebanon”, https://www.lebanesearabicinstitute.com/administrative-divisions-lebanon/.

The Lebanese civil war from 1975 to 1990 devastated the administrative infrastructure and froze government process for almost two decades. Government and civil procedures in Lebanon have been severely weakened. According to the stakeholders interviewed in the OECD fact-finding mission in June 2019, delay and maladjustment are numerous and touch almost the entire interface between the government and the daily life of citizens. This structural weakness constitutes an obstacle for the economic development, political and administrative system of the country today. In this sense, a digital transformation of the public sector supported by a clear and strong governance framework can support the Lebanese public sector to better respond to citizens and businesses expectations and needs.

OMSAR was created in 1994 for the purpose of administrative reform. The Council of Ministers at the time charged the Minister of State for Administrative Reform with the responsibility of co-ordinating efforts to set up this structure. The state ministry website declares the purpose of OMSAR is to develop the institutional and technical capacities of the Lebanese ministries, central bodies, public agencies and municipalities. OMSAR is in charge of: 1) assessing their reform and development needs; 2) devising and updating administrative reform and e-Government strategies; 3) identifying, implementing and evaluating development projects that translate the strategies into action; 4) conducting organisational and legal studies; 5) streamlining work procedures and training civil servants. OMSAR is keen to remain responsive to the demands of the Lebanese administrations and to modernise them by building effective partnerships with them as well as with international donors, non-government organisations and the civil society (OMSAR, 2019[4]). When it was established, OMSAR aimed to unify and computerise all administrative processes that individuals could perform or order the issuing of civil status documents or the payment of taxes. Such regulatory overhaul has the official benefit of saving people time and money for administrative processes by computerised operations.

Figure 3.4. Lebanon’s digital transformation journey

Source: (OMSAR, 2019[4]), Lebanon Digital Transformation: Strategies to Actions (2020 – 2030).

Lebanon's digital transformation governance

Lebanon is currently re-adjusting its political and institutional structures according to socio-economic conditions to meet citizen's and businesses’ expectations better. Public governance is a critical issue for Lebanon and is presently under reform. This requires the establishment of a transparent governance model that provides a high level of political commitment, leadership, management and co-ordination. In addition to this, the governance model should consider the digital transformation of the public sector in the context of continuously evolving technologies. A public sector institutional model that cuts across organisational silos and promotes partnerships must be established. This model should enable clear leadership of the digital transformation policy and ensure inter-governmental co-ordination. Moreover, it must enable strengthened steering and co-ordination of activities within the approved digital transformation projects and hold teams accountable for the delivery of set actions within the action plan.

Lebanon has high aspirations and has made considerable strides in digitalising the country since OMSAR was formed in 1994 (see Figure 3.4). Nevertheless, in their efforts to promote creativity and move the digital transformation of the public sector to the next stage of digitalisation, the country faces implementation obstacles such as an insufficient governance structure to reach the desired transition. Stimulating digitalisation at the national level includes a comprehensive national digital strategy – a strategy that targets high and sets the technology agenda for all stakeholders with a whole of government approach. Lebanon’s digital transformation draft strategy is based on five pillars: 1) people; 2) innovation; 3) processes; 4) civic engagement; and 5) legal framework. These five pillars encompass essential points that are part of the institutional models and policy levers identified by the Secretariat in line with the OECD Recommendation on Digital Government Strategies (see Figure 3.5). The critical components of each pillar will be analysed throughout this chapter.

Figure 3.5. Lebanon’s proposed digital transformation pillars

Source: (OMSAR, 2019[4]), Lebanon Digital Transformation: Strategies to Actions (2020 – 2030).

In reference to the structure of the E-Leaders Governance Handbook (OECD, forthcoming[1]), the following sections will be dedicated to analysing the dimensions and sub-dimensions of institutional models. The analysis will start by focusing on the institutional macrostructure, followed by the leading public sector organisation, the leadership position and role, and the co-ordination and compliance in place.

Dimension 1. Macro-structure

Article 66 of the Lebanese Constitution empowers each minister to lead and manage his or her ministry (see Box 3.1). Approaches cannot be enforced on the public administration until co-ordination and communication are assured, allowing the process of digital change to continue and proceed (Oueidat, 2018[5]). A sound governance model will facilitate appropriate and timely joint decision-making, thus helping to anticipate and avoid problems before they have a significant impact on the roadmap set by the stakeholders. Also, the governance model needs to ensure priorities are set so that actions are aligned to shared objectives and duplication of efforts is avoided. The model foreseen in the Lebanon digital transformation draft strategy addresses three levels of governance (see Figure 3.6), which are determined by the existing organisation of the Government of Lebanon and technological and organisational maturity of the institutions that will be included in the digital transformation implementation roadmap (OMSAR, 2019[4]). The following are the three levels of governance:

• The “strategy” level imparts authority on the digital transformation draft strategy within the government. The body with this degree of accountability will be responsible for the life cycle of all technology development and their continuous improvement.

• The “build” level involves the governance and possession of the technical and operational building blocks of the digital transformation draft strategy. The bodies with this degree of governance are responsible for the design of the building blocks of the digital transition structures as well as the maintenance of the activities.

• The “operate” level encompasses incorporation, administration and control of operations. This level of government is delegated to the public sector organisations responsible for the public services delivery.

Box 3.1. Article 66 of the Constitutional of Lebanon (amended by the Constitutional Law of 17 October 1927 and 21 September 1990)

Only Lebanese who satisfy the conditions for becoming deputies may assume ministerial posts. The Ministers shall administer the Government’s services and shall be entrusted with appying the laws and regulations, each one pertaining to matters relating to his department. Ministers shall be collectively responsible before the Chamber for the general policy of the Government and individually responsible for their personal actions.

Source: (WIPO, 1990[6]), Constitution of Lebanon, https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/lb/lb018en.pdf.

Figure 3.6. Digital transformation strategy governance model

Source: (OMSAR, 2019[4]), Lebanon Digital Transformation: Strategies to Actions (2020 – 2030).

The governance model and its principles created by OMSAR (see Table 3.1) rely similarly on what is commonly referred to as good governance principles in public governance: comprehensive, open, shared, flexible and collaborative, which are like the standards of the European Union on governance: openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence (European Commission, 2001[7]).

Table 3.1. OMSAR’s governance model principles

Comprehensive	All activities within and surrounding the performance of the delivered solution whether technological, administrative, or legal will fall within the scope of this governance model.
Open	The governance model shall facilitate an open dialogue amongst the stakeholders at all levels of the relationship.
Shared	The governance model requires ‘buy-in’ from all parties and shall align the goals set in the digital strategy and implementation plan.
Flexible	Over time, stakeholders can review and modify the governance model as appropriate in response to changing requirements, e.g. new scope.
Collaborative	The governance model will provide a framework for close collaboration that will build trust and respect amongst the stakeholders.

Source: (OMSAR, 2019[4]), Lebanon Digital Transformation: Strategies to Actions (2020 – 2030).

In terms of governance structure, Lebanon digital transformation draft strategy has proposed a top-down multi-level pyramidal structure allowing cross-governmental decision and implementation due to the organisation of the country (see Figure 3.7). The main idea of the strategy showcased in the implementation plan is to insert in each ministry specific units for the implementation of projects related to the digital transformation.

Figure 3.7. Proposed governance structure for digital government

Source: (OMSAR, 2019[4]), Lebanon Digital Transformation: Strategies to Actions (2020 – 2030).

Table 3.2. Bodies in the Government of Lebanon’s governance structure

Governance Body	Roles and Responsibilities
Ministerial Committee for Digital Economy and Digital Transformation (MC4DEDT)	This committee was formed by a decree from the Prime Minister of Lebanon. It consists of ministers responsible for driving the digital transformation in Lebanon and accountable for its success. The MC4DEDT responsibilities are: Political and high-level commitment to the digital transformation vision and goals High-level guidance and strategic decision making in alignment with the digital transformation draft strategy and action plan Support and oversight of the overall digital transformation plan including (a) Portfolio of Programmes and Projects, (b) Priorities, (c) Budget, (d) Time Frame, (e) Resources, and (f) Key Performance Indicators (KPI) Conduct periodic reviews of the overall status of programmes and projects delivered by the Steering Committee for Digital Economy and Digital Transformation (SC4DEDT) and monitor their progress and alignment with strategic objectives Co-ordinate actions and issues with the Council of Ministers and the Lebanese Parliament to ensure collaboration between various government ministries Manage potential political influences Resolve escalated and complex issues, as necessary Approve the project governance and appoint the Steering Committee for Digital Economy and Digital Transformation and all key positions related to the action plan Instruct the Audit Unit to conduct ad hoc or periodic audit functions Appoint the Public and Private Advisory Board (PPAB) Dispute resolution, if raised by the SC4DEDT Review periodically the overall project status delivered by the SC4DEDT Meet every two months The MC4DEDT is chaired by the Prime Minister.
Steering Committee for Digital Economy and Digital Transformation (SC4DEDT)	The Steering Committee for Digital Economy and Digital Transformation (SC4DEDT) is chaired by the Prime Minister and was formed by a decision of the Prime Minister Decision 122 dated July 5, 2019. The SC4DEDT consists of programme directors and directors-general from key ministries involved in the digital transformation, appointed by their respective ministers. The Lebanon Digital Transformation consists of a portfolio of programmes, with each programme consisting of one or more projects owned by various ministries and/or public sector entities, and with each project varying in complexity and scope. Consequently, the SC4DEDT is responsible for managing the portfolio of programmes to ensure their adequate alignment with the overall strategy and oversight over programme implementations to ensure their intended goals and successful outcomes. The SC4DEDT has two main functions: Executive Sponsorship Support: Provide executive support for all digital transformation programmes to increase chances of success and reduce resistance to change among the multitude of departments and stakeholders. Funding: Ensure adequate funding is allocated for the various programmes in the portfolio. Risk Mitigation: Identify risks, issues, and dependencies, and find solutions to achieve the overall objectives and keep the programmes on track. Co-ordination: Co-ordinate with the Programme Management Office (PgMO) to ensure the right support and standards are being implemented across all programmes and projects. Conflict Resolution: Resolve conflicts as they are escalated by the PgMO. Oversight: Conduct bi-weekly meetings with the PgMO to review project plans, statuses, and discuss escalations requiring intervention. Portfolio Management Strategy: Ensure all programmes across the public sector are executed in unison to achieve the strategy set by the MC4DEDT. Prioritization: Focus mainly on doing the right work for the entire portfolio of digital transformation programmes and projects compared to the PgMO that focuses on doing the work right. Approve and submit projects for approval to the MC4DEDT. Monitoring: Measure the impact of the projects as they produce deliverables for providing feedback and ensuring continuous improvements. Based on the request of the MC4DEDT and a regular basis, conduct audit functions related to programmes and projects: Project Audit: Timeline, deliverables, resources, risks, and issues. Financial Audit: Verify that projects are in line with budgets. Legal Audit: Ensure compliance with governmental rules and regulations.
Public & Private Advisory Board (PPAB)	The members of this board are advisors from the public and private sectors, academia, director generals, and subject matter experts in the various fields. This group brings specific knowledge and skills that augment the knowledge and skills of the MC4DEDT, to effectively guide the digital transformation journey. Entities to consider for membership in the PPAB include the National Council for Entrepreneurship and Innovation (NCEI) and the Lebanese Economic Organization (LEO). The PPAB: Does not have a formal authority to govern, that is, the advisory committee cannot issue directives or decrees; the PPAB can only offer advice, make recommendations, and provide key information and materials Plays an important civic engagement and public relations role Provides a fresh perspective on programmatic issues Serves as an important complement to the effectiveness of both the MC4DEDT and the SC4DEDT as they carry out a specific initiative The main responsibilities of the PPAB are: Supporting the SC4DEDT in an advisory capacity Advising the Programme Management Office (PgMO) and Digital Transformation Unit (DTU) on action plans
Programme Management Office (PgMO)	The PgMO members consist of various stakeholders, from within the public sector, whose function is to manage, plan, and monitor programmes. The PgMO resides at OMSAR and acts as the leading hub for all digital transformation programmes and projects. The core functions of the PgMO are: Define, develop, and update government strategy and action plan for digital transformation Conduct project feasibility and assessment Survey all stakeholders and collect requirements for digital transformation projects Co-ordinate and monitor programme and project progress while ensuring alignment of the project implementations with the digital transformation strategic objectives Produce guidance, standards, and best practice that helps DTUs with their digital transformation efforts across the project lifecycles Support and provide programme planning and prioritization of projects and activities Manage the portfolio of programmes to ensure their adequate alignment with the overall strategy and oversight of programme implementations to ensure their intended goals and successful outcomes Provide common project management tools to support DTUs Provide support mechanisms for cross-functional teams to integrate and use these tools Provide training and facilitate project management, mentoring, and coaching Provide support through local and international expertise for digital transformation projects Support the development of right digital skills and culture to transform public services Conduct post-mortems/capture, communicate, and incorporate lessons learned Provide change management, procedure simplifications, and process re-engineering Support, develop and provide KPIs aligned with strategic objectives Reporting to the SC4DEDT
Digital Transformation Units (DTU)	The members of these units will be a mixture of specialists within each of the public sector organizations. Each public administration entity will have a co-ordinator representing his or her organization to co-ordinate with the PgMO. The DTU responsibilities are: Lead the technical implementations of the digital transformation draft strategy and action plan Ensure standardization of shared digital-by-design e-services and common platforms to improve economies of scale and expedite delivery with the help of PgMO Co-ordinate and follow up on the progress of all the projects with DTUs established within other ministries and public sector entities Provide technical oversight over the various digital transformation tasks and activities Provide technical oversight over the implementation team Escalating any major issues or risks to the PgMO
Project Implementation Units (PIU)	The Project Implementation Units (PIU) shall consist of various thematic groups. These groups contain various teams working on various projects simultaneously. Each thematic group will have its role based on its expertise: The Legal & Organizational Thematic group has the role and responsibility for co-ordinating all legal and organizational aspects of the Digital Transformation including: Participation in drafting necessary legal instruments and adjustments of existing ones Operational instructions Organizational adjustments Organizational change management The Technical Thematic Group consists of project managers and comparable profiles performing implementation and related activities as part of the overall effort. Their responsibilities are: Implementing projects residing in their corresponding public entities Co-ordinating all related activities Synchronizing inter-related tasks to reach common goals and facilitate communication with external stakeholders and institutions, when needed Co-ordination of development of training programmes and training of affected stakeholder employees and citizens Reporting to the DTU, regularly and frequently Escalating any major issues or risks to the DTU Facilitating the approval and endorsement of key deliverables

Source: (OMSAR, 2019[4]), Lebanon Digital Transformation: Strategies to Actions (2020 – 2030).

The institutional model framed in the digital transformation draft strategy of Lebanon seems to accommodate the need of political support through the MC4DEDT, the required steering across different public sector stakeholders foreseen through the SC4DEDT, the involvement of the ecosystem of stakeholders to be secured by the PPAB and the concrete implementation needs through the PgMO, DTU and PIU (see Table 3.2). In this sense, considering the institutional challenges observed by the OECD fact-finding team in the mission to Beirut in June 2019, the existence of an institutional model that can strengthen the coherency and sustainability of the digital government policy is a decisive step that demonstrates the Lebanese government commitment to enhance the digital transformation underway.

To obtain the highest possible and required governance maturity, the Lebanese government should consider the following risks:

1. New institutional models versus building on the existing ones: Although several merits can be pointed to, the development of an institutional model from start instead of building on an existing one can generate further resistance from the stakeholders involved. It would in fact require the establishment of a culture of institutional collaboration with new rules and practices. The Government of Lebanon should strongly invest in the concrete adoption by the public sector of the new institutional model foreseen. Otherwise, there is a high risk of problems emerging regarding its effective functioning.

2. Complex models versus simple models: The complexity of public governance requires institutional models that can secure political support, leadership, co-ordination and implementation capacities. The sustainability of an institutional model to manage the existing complexity depends on the capacity to be acknowledged, apprehended and supported by the ecosystem. As such, simplicity is a key asset. The Government of Lebanon should explore ways to simplify the institutional models foreseen in the digital transformation draft strategy.

Dimension 2. Leading public sector organisation

In various OECD countries, the leadership of public sector organisations responsible for the digital government is an essential tool for change in the public sector. It is fundamental for such public sector organisations in-charge of digital government to take on a clear leadership role on digital government policies for coherence, standardisation and sustainability of government efforts, especially in a disruptive context of rapid and constant technological evolution. The type of public sector organisation in place or required to lead the digital government policy is a critical governance dimension to be analysed and the experience of OECD countries is quite diverse in this domain (see Box 3.2).

In Lebanon, the Ministerial Committee for Digital Economy and Digital Transformation (MC4DEDT) should play a co-ordination role to OMSAR that leads strongly in the implementation and supervision of the digital transformation draft strategy. The Government of Lebanon currently misses the existence of an entity responsible for leading and co-ordinating decisions on digital government at central or federal level, which affects policy implementation. To fill this gap, the Government of Lebanon foresees the creation of a Lebanese Digital Agency within OMSAR in its digital transformation draft strategy. The mentioned institutional option of creating a Lebanese Digital Agency follows the experience of OECD countries such as the United Kingdom’s Digital Government Service (DGS), Australia’s Digital Transformation Agency (DTA), Portugual’s Agency for Administrative Modernisation (AMA) and Italy’s Agency for Digital Italy (AGID). The foreseen creation of the Lebanese Digital Agency within OMSAR can represent a decisive step to improve the maturity of the digital government policy in the country, allowing the allocation of resources and improving implementation capacities across the admnistration. In the case of Lebanon, where progress is very heterogeneous according to the different levels of government, an organisation of this kind could allow better monitoring and evaluation of the implementation suited to the different policy areas and levels of government of the Lebanese public sector with adequate responsibilities.

Nonetheless, given the administrative and civil uncertainty in the country, the Government of Lebanon is facing a critical moment with limited time and resources. It is therefore highly recommended that the Government of Lebanon first consider reinforcing the mandate and strengthening capacity of OMSAR in digital government co-ordination and implementation. Considering the implications associated with the establishment of a new public sector organisation like administrative actions, compliance costs, recruitment of staff, definition of internal procedures, substantive allocation of resources and changes in the institutional model in place, the decision should be taken when all the other alternatives have been considered. The reinforcement of the mandate of OMSAR and its capacities for implementation through proper policy levers (see Chapter 5 on Policy Levers) could be a better alternative to be explored by the Government of Lebanon.

Box 3.2. Types of digital government bodies

Internal unit, office or directorate: Units, departments or directorates in the centre of government or powerful ministries of co-ordination generally have a proper planning ability and understanding of the political agenda of the state. Experience across OECD countries shows varying amounts of the budget allocated to the department accountable for organising digital government (as a percentage of public spending). Administrative assistance and appropriate economic assets must, have course, be assigned to the Unit/Directorate for this organisational structure to bring about a significant shift in administration, as was the situation in the United Kingdom. In 2015, more than GBP 58 million was obtained by the Government Digital Service of the United Kingdom, for a sum of 0.01 % of government spending. However, this sort of framework appears to be very susceptible to policy changes and the evolving objectives of its supervisory minister.

Agency: Digital government agencies are characterised by stabilisation of their staff and management, stronger financing and higher independence from policy processes and objectives. They can be either merely managerial or can include influential policy-making and supervisory capabilities. In instances where legislative support functions have not been allocated to the agency, a powerful ministry and a healthy operating relationship at the upper leadership stage can account for this absence of authority, as the Ministry may be susceptible to embrace the laws suggested by the agency. The agency's ability to implement these laws and its political backing and credibility are crucial to ensure the efficiency of its job. This organisational set-up increases the trade-off between political power and the executive agency's autonomy. Despite its greater independence from the political cycle, a radical failure to observe political considerations vis-à-vis the current ecosystem could lead to a failure of administrative assistance, which would significantly diminish its capacity to drive digital transformation.

Ministerial or similar ranking authority: Nations with Ministers, Secretaries of State, Deputy Ministers or Under-Secretaries performing the duties of Government CIOs shall be drawn into account in this categorisation. For the sake of simplification, this evaluation would apply to these instances as ministerial or comparable classification political authorities. These institutions provide a compelling vision and financing for the digital government initiative and strengthen the political and policy-making authority of the organisation responsible for this strategy. However, this organisational set-up poses the danger of uncertainty in its governance and absence of continuity in its strategy and objectives. Besides, political factors may bias evidence-based preferences in favour of more apparent objectives.

Source: (OECD, 2016[8]), Digital Government in Chile: Strengthening the Institutional and Governance Framework, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264258013-en.

Another important governance variable to be analysed is the institutional location of the public sector organisation leading the digital government in the government ministerial structure. Among OECD countries, the organisations in control of the digital government policy are situated either in the centre of government, in a co-ordinating ministry or in a line ministry (see Box 3.3). Countries that have their public sector organisations in charge of the digital transformation draft strategy at the centre of government generally represent and secure the commitment of the highest political level to the new governance agenda, the advantages of the political power that radiates from the centre of the policy decision, and a more exceptional ability to integrate the vision into the broader plan for public sector modernisation. Strong executive power and support for the digital transformation of the public sector is a good reason to put the digital government body/unit at the centre of government.

Box 3.3. Types of structures

Centre of Government: Corresponds to the administrative framework that is working under and constitutes the Executive power (President, Prime Minister, and the Executive Cabinet as a whole). It has a wide range of titles across nations, such as the General Secretariat, Cabinet Office, Chancellery, Office or Ministry of the Presidency, the Office of the Council of Ministers. In many nations, the centre of government consists of more than one device, performing distinct tasks. One of its primary tasks is to ensure that public policies are enforced.

Co-ordinating Ministry: Overarching ministry responsible for general public administration matters, managing policies or instruments that crosscut the public sector. The Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Public Administration or the Ministry of Planning are relevant examples to be considered.

Line Ministry: Government ministry in charge of a specific policy area, as compared to the co-ordinating ministries that are responsible for overall planning and matters of public administration. Ministry of ICT, Ministry of Science and Technology or Ministry of Innovation are typical examples of lie ministries that might lead the digital government policy.

Source: (OECD, 2016[8]), Digital Government in Chile: Strengthening the Institutional and Governance Framework, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264258013-en.

Nevertheless, the governance system described above may be more vulnerable to political influence than others and continues to face pressure for success and the political capitalisation of outcomes. Considering the current political situation in Lebanon, it is essential to ensure the operational stability of these governance arrangements, to align strategic assistance and commitment with the long-term viability of choices (OECD, 2016[8]); (OECD, forthcoming[1]).

The cross-cutting complexity of digital government has driven several OECD countries to set up the lead institutional body/unit under co-ordinating ministries such as the Ministry of Public Administration or the Ministry of Finance, thereby providing a mechanism for establishing ties between the digital government policy and the broader public sector reform agenda and policy goals. In other cases, this entity or organisation responds to a line ministry responsible for policy streams such as economic affairs or digital technologies in a broad sense. This option can lead to good policy outcomes if the mentioned ministry is properly recognised as leading this policy area by other ministries and manages important policy levers such as the management of ICT investments for instance (see Chapter 4 on Policy Levers).

The creation of Ministerial Committee for Digital Economy and Digital Transformation (MC4DEDT) by a Prime Minister decree in June 2019 reflects the support of the higher branch of the Lebanese executive power for the establishment of a decision-making institution in charge of the strategy’s organisation. The location of the MC4DEDT at the centre of government, securing the necessary straight co-ordination with OMSAR that is part of the Ministry of Administrative Reform, encourages and facilitates the cross-cutting value of digital government policy across the public sector. Given the far-reaching reforms undertaken by Lebanon in several sectors and industries that bring digital transformation into play, it seems appropriate to follow the approach in place. The primary issue is whether the co-ordination benefits from the political stability to act as a driver of transformation within the administration. If the support of newly established executive power follows, strong conditions will be in place for the proper implementation of the strategy.

Dimension 3. Leadership: Position/role

The need for leadership and co-ordination across the public sector on digital government policies has led to the creation of specific positions to officiate, recognise and designate a body or person-in-charge. Several countries have established a position of an officer in charge of leading the definition and implementation of the digital transformation draft strategy. In many countries this has resulted in the creation of the Government Chief Information Officer (CIO) position at the national level, with natural variants on the designation and position title adopted from country to country to help ensure the effective and sustainable execution of the digitalisation policy in collaboration with the various stakeholders, from the public sector, business and start-up players, and the civil society.

The role of the CIO usually requires a variety of responsibilities. The CIO can be responsible for overseeing the implementation plans of the national strategy, suggest the adjustment of the policy priorities as necessary, and advocate for new policies and regulations that encourage digitalisation. The CIO can also contribute to the establishment of useful metrics for the evaluation and application of digitalisation across the entire ecosystem. The CIO could play a leading role in promoting the best practice of connectivity and sustainability through the new engagement of people so as not to reinvent the wheel over and over. Finally, the CIO can also help to address the lack of technical expertise, both at the level of execution and the level of leadership, as some specialisation sectors can only be defined on a large scale.

Lebanon does not have a permanent CIO and OMSAR lacks advisory and decision-making powers in the digital transformation process. The digital transformation draft strategy of Lebanon mentions the role of CIOs, but their role is not described and no details are given about their functions, position and duties (OMSAR, 2019[4]). Having an official CIO located at OMSAR or considering this role to be played by the head of the foreseen agency in charge of the strategy’s application would be relevant to secure coherency and co-ordination across the whole government. The establishment of a CIO could also improve responsibility and accountability in the digital transformation strategy implementation in the whole ecosystem of digital government stakeholders.

A similar position progressively being adopted by different OECD countries is the Chief Data Officer (CDO), the person-in-charge of data governance in the government of the country (see Box 3.4). This status highlights the fact that data is perceived to be an essential and critical resource for the digital development of the country (OECD, 2019[9]). In turn, the development of an integrated global enterprise-wide plan for data governance and the design of data-driven facilities and institutions helps to avoid separation of organisational systems, creates a culture of communication between civil servants and provides competitive, scalable solutions and facilities intended for collaboration between individuals, businesses and civil society.

Box 3.4. The emerging role of the chief data officer

Many OECD countries are establishing a chief data officer position at the central government level. As this phenomenon becomes more widespread, the question that remains to be addressed concerns to what extent the chief data officer (CDO) position overlaps or complements that of the chief information officer (CIO). Normally, the role of the CIO is to manage the public sector’s or an agency’s use of technology to fulfil its mission. From this perspective, there is almost always an overlap between data and technology because technology is used to produce, store and transmit data. In other ways, it is different. The CIO should be data-informed, but modern CIOs responsible for designing and co-ordinating the implementation of Digital Government Strategies are tasked with a mandate that is broader within an organisation than gathering, managing, publishing or analysing data. At the level of national government and agencies, CIOs are juggling multiple responsibilities beyond data warehousing, from security to data centres.

The CDO plays the crucial role of a visionary and compelling leader. The rise of CDOs in the 21st century reflects the central role that data now plays in every facet of society. CDOs are entrusted not just with managing information but going one layer deeper in the knowledge generation and management process to raw data creation, collection, storage, sharing and analysis. In an increasing number of organisations, a CDO’s position is established with the expectation that he/she collaborates with the CIO tasked with managing the digital government strategies and IT infrastructure at a government agency to ensure that data are available for organisational needs and to support strategic decisions, instruments and techniques, to account for the usually insufficient ICT capabilities of most public facilities. The approach of this model is aimed at finding "fast gains" for improving service quality to ensure the necessary amount of administrative assistance. However, this disruptive strategy may encounter problems with longer-term organisational and economic shift across the government due to their external position and culture.

Source: (OECD, 2016[8]), Digital Government in Chile: Strengthening the Institutional and Governance Framework, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264258013-en.

A common approach is a critical success factor in promoting better data governance that offers the foundation for defined positions and duties and government-wide leadership on the data-driven platform. Only a minority of nations countries having a Chief Data Officer (CDO) at the central/federal public stage in 2014, while the amount of OECD countries that established this role improved significantly in 2016 (OECD, 2019[9]). Lebanon emphasises a reasonably large part for data management in the country's digital transformation draft strategy. For instance, OMSAR is developing the platform for open data which should be managed by the Central Administration of Statistics (CAS). Strong priority is also attributed in the digital transformation draft strategy to boost data exchange across the public sector through common interoperability standards. In this sense, the government of Lebanon should consider institutionalising the position of CDO to be placed within OMSAR or in the foreseen agency that would be responsible for the implementation of the digital government policy. This would allow better management of the government's data policy and could support the development of partnerships related to the use and external storage of Lebanese data.

Many countries around the globe are still trying to come up or consider the establishment of a CIO/CDO function. Nevertheless, while the concept of a critical presence of a CIO or a similar role for the central government is almost universal across OECD countries, the degree of the CIO in the organisational structure of the government to which it reports, its function and policy mechanisms are essential factors for its success in guiding change in public administration. In addition to defining and implementing a national digital policy plan, CIO/CDO need to work on creating an environment that allows it to be enforced, striving to engage key stakeholders, leveraging their influence and facilitating effective alliance-building mechanisms.

Dimension 4. Co-ordination and compliance

Sound governance requires excellent co-ordination and commitment from the leadership and its units. In addition to effective organisational and governance frameworks, there is a need to establish reliable knowledge sharing and technical co-operation at the governmental level and with international bodies. A favourable operating climate to advance the digital transformation provides a stronger link between digital policy initiatives and broader policy objectives that positively strengthen people's trust in the public sector and the capacity to leverage digital government towards improved social well-being and sustainable economic development.

The Lebanese digital transformation draft strategy strongly relies on standards that allow technological interoperability, re-use of digital resources, data sharing and quality assurance through the government's reform plan. Setting government coherent standards for citizen-driven content and public services will help smoothen the digital transformation across the public sector. Standardisation increases efficiency, efficient connectivity and communication, maintain continuity in the digital interface of consumers and, where appropriate, ensure compliance with international standards.

The OECD Recommendation on Digital Government Strategies encourages the establishment of high-level governance and co-ordination to guarantee comprehensive collaboration and oversight of the digital government agenda (OECD, 2014[10]). An operational co-ordination structure is also needed to address implementation challenges and overcome bottlenecks. These two levels of co-ordination can be particularly helpful in maintaining the coherence, sustainability and continuity of the decisions, strategies and programmes to be adopted. The establishment of strategic co-operation processes also allows stronger surveillance, towards coherence, and gives the ability to provide decision-makers with an extensive range of projects and initiatives across sectors and levels of government. It can also allow a more straightforward evaluation of investment impacts. A co-operative environment between public stakeholders enables for better management of government operations through the return of information and data. It also allows the creation of transparency processes, which are essential for strengthening peoples' overall trust in public services and the government in general.

The institutional model foreseen by the digital transformation draft strategy of Lebanon demonstrates the country commitment to deeply strengthen cross-sector co-ordination and implementation of digital government policies. The foreseen Ministerial Committee for Digital Economy and Digital Transformation (MC4DEDT) will guarantee high-level political support and the Steering Committee for Digital Economy and Digital Transformation (SC4DEDT) will secure co-ordination across different public sector stakeholders. Additionally, the involvement of the ecosystem of stakeholders is institutionalised through the Public and Private Advisory Board (PPAB) and the co-ordinated implementation needs through the Programme Management Office (PgMO), the different Digital Transformation Units (DTU) and Project Implementation Units (PIU) across the administration.

Besides cross-sector co-ordination, sound cross-level processes and dynamics are also a critical governance variable of analysis. Encouraging powerful central government support for the governance of digital government means moving from agency-centric policies to framework solutions, concentrating on the advantages of improved policy action. A culture of co-operation can be further encouraged or fostered by organisational mechanisms that promote inter-governmental collaboration and consensus, facilitate an exchange of opinions, knowledge and information sharing among public actors on a broad-based framework of goals and priorities, and collective implementation practices.

In the case of Lebanon, there seems to exist a consensus about the excessive administrative centralisation at public administrations, knowing that such centralisation narrows the prerogatives and role of regional units and municipalities and puts on the central administration a heavy burden of duties. Municipalities depend on the orientations and resources made available by the central government. The central government and its local operatives have the prerogative of approving or rejecting any decision taken by a municipal council and consequently stop the work of municipalities. Besides, the heavy reliance on the central government for financial support places local autonomy at risk, especially in the absence of or manipulation of criteria that govern the distribution of funding from international financial institutions.

From the Taif agreements of 22 October 1989, administrative decentralisation is regularly mentioned by analysts and political leaders as a significant solution to issues such as the economic development of territories, the efficiency of public action or the fight against corruption. However, almost 30 years later, its legislative implementation has not been achieved: Parliament indeed adopted none of the numerous legislative proposals presented in the 1990s and 2000s. As part of the implementation of the structural reforms requested during CEDRE conference organised in Paris in April 2018 to support Lebanon development and reforms, the Government of Lebanon has a unique opportunity to rethink the administrative organisation scheme of its territory to best develop its economic potential and find the conditions for the maintenance of “social peace". One of the first principles of decentralisation is the presence of common interests specific to the region. As a result, shared economic interests take precedence over other interests such as the confessional political identity which seems to be one of the structuring elements of the planned division.

Considering the assessment expressed above on cross-sector and level co-ordination, three areas of improvement could help to achieve successful and efficient policy action in the case of digital government:

1. Shared policy execution: Although the policy oversight role of the Ministerial Committee for Digital Economy and Digital Transformation (MC4DEDT) and of the Steering Committee for Digital Economy and Digital Transformation (SC4DEDT) are critical foundations of stable and sustainable digital government development, strong policy efforts should be committed to ensuring a shared implementation of the new digital transformation draft strategy. A shared implementation approach framework promotes increasing digital government capacities across the administration and also encourages a sense of joint ownership and shared responsibility.

2. Strengthened compliance with current rules and norms: Most OECD member countries have significant capacity to develop and enforce rules and standards through their jurisdictions. In Lebanon, there is still big room for improvement to comply successfully with relevant digital government rules and standards. For instance, the value of data exchange across the administration should be embraced as a critical priority. This can be articulated with strengthened co-operation, assistance and capacity building across different policy areas and levels of government.

3. Improved mobilisation of different levels of government: Increased involvement and autonomy of local governments would favour more decentralised and sustainable digital transformation of the public sector. Mobilisation and aid across levels of government to support multilevel digital transformation agendas are essential to enabling a nation to sustain its digital development and secure that the digital transformation draft strategy is recognised as a policy for the state. The Government of Lebanon should consider enhancing strategy execution at the local stage, allowing initiatives and projects to be developed more in line with local needs, and promote the growth of local ecosystems of digital government stakeholders. Improved communication for local mobilisation, and the development of organisational areas for efficient co-operation such as regular meetings of CIOs across the entire administration could also be considered for cross-level co-ordination and co-operation.

References

[2] AbouAssi, K. (2015), “Giving in Lebanon: Traditions and Reality in an Unstable Environment”, in Wiepking P., Handy F. (eds.). The Palgrave Handbook of Global Philanthropy, https://doi.org/10.1057/978113734153_20 (accessed on 25 May 2020).

[7] European Commission (2001), European Governance: A White Paper, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/DOC_01_10 (accessed on 25 May 2020).

[3] Lebanese Arabic Institute (2020), Administrative Divisions of Lebanon, https://www.lebanesearabicinstitute.com/administrative-divisions-lebanon/ (accessed on 11 April 2020).

[9] OECD (2019), The Path to Becoming a Data-Driven Public Sector, https://doi.org/10.1787/059814a7-en.

[8] OECD (2016), Digital Government in Chile: Strengthening the Institutional and Governance Framework, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264258013-en.

[10] OECD (2014), Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0406.

[1] OECD (forthcoming), “OECD Digital Government Project: E-Leaders Governance Handbook”, E-Leaders Task Force on Governance.

[4] OMSAR (2019), Lebanon Digital Transformation: Strategies to Actions (2020 – 2030), Office of the Minister of State for Administrative Reform, Republic of Lebanon, Beirut..

[5] Oueidat, L. (2018), Report on National Digital Transformation Strategy of 2018.

[6] WIPO (1990), Constitution of Lebanon – Promulgated May 23, 1926 with its amendments,, https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/lb/lb018en.pdf.