The E-Leaders Handbook on the Governance of Digital Government

4. Governance Facet 2: Institutional Models

Abstract

Chapter 4 introduces the institutional elements under Facet 2 of the OECD Framework on the Governance of Digital Government. They bring to light the institutional arrangements and mechanisms necessary to bolster a whole-of-government, coherent and co-ordinated approach to digital government – from the macrostructure and the leadership to co-operation and collaboration within the public sector and with external actors in the digital government ecosystem including citizens and businesses.

The importance of institutional analysis

Facet 2: Institutional Models is based largely on Pillar 1 and 2 of the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies (2014) “Openness and Engagement” and “Governance and Co-ordination". The first pillar calls for greater transparency, openness and inclusiveness of government processes and operations; engagement and participation of public, private and civil society stakeholders in policy making and public service design and delivery amongst others. The second pillar calls for secure leadership, political commitment, effective organisational and governance frameworks for inter-ministerial and inter-agency co-ordination, collaboration and coherence. Defining these roles, functions, mandates, processes and working relations of and among institutions and their actors are critical for a sustainable digitalisation of the public sector (OECD, 2014[2]).

Institutional models describe the formal and informal arrangements for the governance and co-ordination of the implementation of digital government strategies, and the design and delivery of public services in the digital context. In a way, the governance and organisation of public institutions and their processes should reflect the policy needs, desires and preferences of citizens and businesses so as to guarantee a people-centred provision of services. The working arrangements and mechanisms underlying the institutional models also affect the governments’ agility, innovativeness and responsiveness to changes externally and internally. Conducting an institutional analysis is, therefore, fundamental to creating sound governance frameworks in the public sector.

The following four dimensions aim to cover these fundamental elements (see Figure 4.1):

1. Macro-Structure;

2. Leadership: Position/Role;

3. Co-ordination and Co-operation;

4. Civic Participation and Collaboration.

The legal and regulatory basis covered in Facet 2: Institutional Models is exclusively considered in the context of the institutional structures, set-ups, approaches and mechanisms, while that of Facet 3: Policy Levers is analysed as a policy instrument for creating a suitable legal and regulatory environment that supports and promotes the implementation of digital government strategies.

Figure 4.1. Governance Facet 2: Institutional Models

The dimensions and sub-dimensions of Facet 2: Institutional Models

Source: Author.

The presentation of Facet 2: Institutional Models differs from Facet 1: Contextual Factors since the dimensions and sub-dimensions that fall under Facet 2: Institutional Models are about operationalising the governance of digital government. The characteristics, policy questions and recommendations of each sub-dimension are elaborated according to three stages of governance: basic, intermediate and advanced. These stages are not intended to be absolute, but a general guide for policy makers to consider and self-assess.

Dimension 2.1 Macro-Structure

Dimension 2.1 Macro-Structure covers the big picture of how a government organises its public sector organisations to advance the digital government agenda.

Sub-Dimension 2.1.1 Institutional Set-Up of the Organisation-in-Charge identifies what and where the public sector organisation that is responsible for the digital government agenda is positioned. Sub-Dimension 2.1.2 Institutional Approach to Digital Government reveals the institutional approach to digital government. Sub-Dimensions 2.1.3 Roles and Responsibilities of the Organisation-in-Charge looks at the roles and responsibilities of the organisational leadership to facilitate the design and implementation of the digital government strategy across the public sector.

Sub-Dimension 2.1.1 Institutional Set-Up of the Organisation-in-Charge

 

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government	Sub-Dimension 2.1.1 Institutional Set-Up of the Organisation-in-Charge illustrates the positioning of the leading public sector organisation on the digital government agenda in the government. This organisation-in-charge can effectively be under the presidency or the prime minister’s office at the centre of government, under a co-ordinating ministry (e.g. finance, public administration), or through a line ministry (e.g. digitalisation, science, technology). The organisation-in-charge itself can also either be a public sector agency, a unit, an office, a directorate or a ministry. An organisation-in-charge at the centre represents the dedication of the highest political point to the digital government strategy and greater leverage to incorporate the strategy into a more comprehensive public sector modernisation strategy. An organisation-in-charge under or as a co-ordinating ministry can foster the uptake of digital innovations across the public sector, promote cross-cutting co-ordination of policies and link them to the public sector reform agenda. An organisation-in-charge under or as a line ministry expresses a chain of accountability for which the digital government strategy falls under a broader policy strategy. A one-size-fits-all approach does not apply because benefits and challenges can be found in all three cases. It is most essential to have in place an organisation-in-charge of digital government with clearly defined roles, responsibilities, accountability mechanisms and strong relations with other public sector organisations. The digital transformation of the public sector should be comprehensive and holistic by enabling the adaptation of the digital government strategy to the specific needs of policy areas and other regional/local levels of government.
Stages of Governance	Advanced	Intermediate	Basic
Characteristics	There is an organisation-in-charge that is at the centre of government, under or as a co-ordinating ministry or under or as a line ministry, which has substantial leadership, political influence and organisational stability.	There is an organisation-in-charge that is at the centre of government, under or as a co-ordinating ministry or under or as a line ministry, with some level of leadership, political influence and organisational stability.	There is an organisation-in-charge that is at the centre of government, under or as a co-ordinating ministry or under or as a line ministry, but there lacks leadership, political influence and organisational stability.
Policy Questions	Does the leadership, political influence and organisational stability reach all sectors and levels of government such that the digital government strategy is cross-cutting and encompasses the whole public sector?	How should the structure, supervision or co-ordination of the organisation-in-charge be changed in order to strengthen the leadership, political influence and organisational stability?	Should the organisation-in-charge of the digital government strategy be at the centre of government, in a co-ordinating or line ministry? What are the contextual, institutional and policy factors that hampers this ministry?
Recommendations	Evaluate if the organisation-in-charge has a digital government strategy that has a sufficient level of political support and comprehensively covers (or has the potential to impact) all sectors and levels of government and the whole public sector. Review how the digital government policies are linked and can leverage the public sector reform agenda.	Consider placing the organisation-in-charge closer to the centre of political and administrative power such as the head of the government or head of state, while at the same time ensuring the organisational independence of this body from political pressures and changes.	Strategise the establishment of an organisation-in-charge at the centre of government, under co-ordinating or a line ministry depending on the contextual, institutional and policy environment. Ensure that the organisation-in-charge has considerable leadership, political influence and organisational stability.
Practices	The United Kingdom's Government Digital Service (GDS) that leads the digital government policy is at the centre of government and part of the cabinet office. It was created in 2011 and works across the whole government to assist departments transform its public services. The GDS has built and maintained several cross-Government as a Platform tools such as GOV.UK, GOV.UK Verify, GOV.UK Pay, GOV.UK Notify and the Digital Marketplace. It also administers standards such as the Government Service Standard, the Technology Code of Practice and the Cabinet Office Spend Controls for Digital and Technology. Sweden's Agency for Digital Government that leads the digital government policy was established in 2018. The Agency is under a co-ordinating ministry, the Ministry for Infrastructure, led by the Minister for Housing and Digital Development, the Minister for Enterprise and Innovation, and the Minister for Public Administration. Such institutional arrangement enables shared responsibility, inter-institutional co-ordination and collective decision-making of digital policies across government offices. This speeds up decision-making processes and reform an institutional context characterised by powerful and independent agencies that favours silo-based approach. Colombia's Ministry of Information and Communication Technologies (MinTIC), founded in 2009, is wholly in charge of the digital government agenda. As a line ministry, it has the sole mandate to identify, formulate, adopt, implement and promote the policies in ICTs. It supports the state in the access and use of ICTs to facilitate and optimise the management of government agencies to provide better public services. This gives MinTIC the full autonomy and authority to produce and manage changes.

Sub-Dimension 2.1.2 Institutional Approach to Digital Government

 

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government	Sub-Dimension 2.1.2 Institutional Approach to Digital Government offers three distinct approaches based on the country’s contextual factors (i.e. political and administrative culture and structure, digital government maturity, policy context): 1) the digital transformation agency approach; 2) the centralised co-ordination approach; and 3) the decentralised co-ordination approach. These approaches have been identified based on the OECD research on governance methods of digital technologies in the public sector. They are not mutually exclusive and are more often mixed to some point to make up an institutional model that is appropriate for the country. The digital transformation agency approach encompasses the creation of a public sector organisation that has the duty to supervise the digital transformation of the public administration and its services. It is aimed at fast gains for improving service quality but could face long-term organisational, economic and cultural resistance due to its external nature. The central co-ordination approach encompasses the creation of powerful government-wide management with a central co-ordinating leading public sector organisation to implement measures. It is aimed at extensive changes but may be less agile in starting pilot initiatives or testing new methods. The decentralised co-ordination approach encompasses a co-ordinating public sector organisation with fewer mandatory demands and unifying top officials. It is aimed at offering more freedom to smaller public sector organisations to innovate and experiment, but risks misalignment and lack of cohesion across the public sector. No matter the institutional approach taken, governments should ensure that the organisation-in-charge is backed by robust governance arrangements and mechanisms to advance the digital government agenda across the public sector. This includes a degree of supervision and co-ordination that best suits the specific needs across policy areas and levels of government (e.g. providing autonomy, enabling agility and innovation, ensuring coherence).
Stages of Governance	Advanced	Intermediate	Basic
Characteristics	The institutional approach endues the organisation-in-charge with the power to lead, initiate, design, allocate, implement and co-ordinate digital government policies and projects throughout the public sector efficiently and effectively. Objectives of the digital government strategy are achieved.	The institutional approach largely allows the organisation-in-charge to initiate, design, allocate, implement and co-ordinate digital policies and projects throughout the government and public sector, but with limited leadership, influence and accountability. Certain parts of the public sector are not aligned.	The institutional approach marginally enables the organisation-in-charge to lead, initiate, design, allocate, implement and co-ordinate digital government policies and projects throughout the public sector. Objectives of the digital government strategy are usually not optimally achieved. The public sector is not aligned in the implementation of the strategy.
Policy Questions	Can the organisation-in-charge strengthen its power and legitimacy through greater openness and engagement with relevant stakeholders? Can it involve more organisations in the ecosystem to be more sustainable and agile in the whole policy and implementation process?	Does the organisation-in-charge have formal and informal mechanisms, such as policy levers, to ensure that the whole policy and implementation process is accounted by respective stakeholders? What can be done to increase the responsibility and effectiveness of this body-in-charge?	What are the weaknesses of the organisation-in-charge in the whole policy and implementation process? Which approach can be taken to strengthen the formal and informal power of the organisation-in-charge across the public sector?
Recommendations	Examine if the institutional approach attests for both efficiency and effectiveness on one end, and innovativeness and agility on the other. Assess the engagement and collaboration with other organisations of the public sector and in the ecosystem. Explore the creation and use of common resources to advance Government as a Platform.	Appraise if the organisation-in-charge has clear responsibilities and structures in place to guide, co-ordinate and ensure the coherence of the organisation and governance of the digital transformation in the public sector. Involve the organisation-in-charge in the design and delivery of public services across policy areas and at all levels of the government.	Consider the digital transformation agency approach or the central co-ordination approach as this ensures a concentration of policy power and extension of authority for the digital transformation in the public sector that is most lacking at this stage.
Practices	Portugal's digital transformation agency, the Administrative Modernisation Agency (AMA), was created in 2007 and sits within the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. It exercises the powers of the Ministry of State Modernisation and Public Administration in modernisation, administrative simplification and digital government, and is under the supervision of the Secretary of State for Innovation and Administrative Modernisation. The agency has a top role in the development, promotion and support of the public administration in several technological fields and is in continuous contact with focal points at institutions relevant for the implementation of digital government projects. It is responsible for the approval of ICT and digital projects over EUR 10,000 and chairs the Council for ICT in the public administration. Denmark takes on the central co-ordination approach through its Steering Committee for Cross-Government Co-operation that was set up from an agreement between the central, regional and local governments. It provides a sustainable mechanism for co-ordinating and committing to the national digital strategy across the public sector, and for laying a common groundwork for digital government. It consists of high-level representatives such as permanent secretaries and managing directors from the five most important and relevant ministries and the associations representing the municipalities and the regions. The Committee determines the principles and frameworks for digital government at a strategic level. An inter-ministerial project office at the Danish Agency for Digitalisation of the Ministry of Finance was established in 2011 to oversee digitalisation policies at an operational level and supporting the Committee. The Netherlands adopts a decentralised co-ordination approach by charging its public sector organisations with specific digital government projects and monitoring their progress. It involves a standardised practice of identifying specific indicators for each objective that the institutions need to carry out for their allocated project such that the progress can be properly monitored.

Sub-Dimension 2.1.3 Roles and Responsibilities of the Organisation-in-Charge

 

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government	Sub-Dimension 2.1.3 Roles and Responsibilities of the Organisation-in-Charge demonstrates the link between the organisational leadership’s powers and duties with the government’s capacity and capability to direct the advancement of the digital government agenda. This needs to be undertaken as an integrated part of the broader public sector modernisation strategies, towards positive economic and social outcomes for citizens and businesses. The 7th principle of the Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies (2014) specifies “[establishing] effective organisational and governance frameworks to co-ordinate the implementation of the digital strategy within and across levels of government” (OECD, 2014[2]). Building on this and drawing on the results of the 2019 OECD Digital Government Index (DGI), the roles and responsibilities of the organisation-in-charge should encompass co-ordination, advisory and decision-making responsibilities (OECD, 2020[14]). Co-ordination responsibilities include the horizontal and vertical co-ordination of the development of the national digital government strategy, with other public sector organisations on its implementation and with local governments to align the development of digital government projects with the objectives of the national digital government strategy. Advisory responsibilities include the provision of counsel and guidance on the development of the national digital government strategy; the monitoring of its implementation; the support of the development and implementation of digital government strategies at an organisational-level; the development of technical guidelines for ICT/digital architecture; and horizontal co-ordination among public sector organisations. Decision-making responsibilities include the powers and duties to make important decisions with considerable accountability across the government, including the prioritisation and approval of ICT/digital government project investments; ex-ante revisions, evaluation and external reviews of ICT/digital government projects; provision of financial support for the development and implementation of ICT/digital government projects.
Stages of Governance	Advanced	Intermediate	Basic
Characteristics	The organisation-in-charge has well-developed co-ordination, advisory and decision-making responsibilities that impart and specify the powers and duties in bringing together and managing the working relations of various stakeholders for digital government policies, and in providing advice that is taken into consideration and making important decisions in the advancement of digital government maturity.	The organisation-in-charge has fairly developed co-ordination, advisory and decision-making responsibilities that impart and specify the powers and duties in bringing together and managing the working relations of various stakeholders for digital government policies, and in providing advice that is taken into consideration and making key decisions in the development of digital government maturity.	The organisation-in-charge has underdeveloped co-ordination, advisory and decision-making responsibilities that barely impart and specify the powers and duties in bringing together and managing the working relations of various stakeholders for digital government policies, and in providing advice that is taken into consideration and making decisions in the management of digital government.
Policy Questions	Does the organisation-in-charge understand the importance of adapting the digital government strategy to various policy areas and regional/local levels? Does the organisation-in-charge also have the long-term vision, strategy and goals for the development and engagement of stakeholders such that co-ordination, advisory and decision-making capacities at the national, regional and local levels can be strengthened?	Can the organisation-in-charge increase its co-ordination, advisory and decision-making capacity and capability through formal arrangements such as institutional arrangements, mechanisms and policy levers, and informal means like better understanding the needs and priorities of stakeholders in the digital government ecosystem?	Is the organisation-in-charge able to receive more political and institutional support to back its powers and duties to co-ordinate, advise and make decisions for digital government advancement? Does the public sector organisation have the necessary financial and non-financial resources to back these powers and duties?
Recommendations	Consider if the political and administrative leadership can be stabilised and institutional support can be strengthened through more robust institutional arrangements and mechanisms and the involvement of other leading public sector organisations on the digital government agenda.	Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the organisation-in-charge in terms of its co-ordinating, advisory and decision-making capacity and capability at every stage and point of the digital government policy process. Strengthen feedback mechanisms.	Assess the possibility of the organisation-in-charge to have a ministerial or similar-ranking authority (e.g. committee) to enhance its co-ordination, advisory and decision-making capacity and capability with the necessary financial and non-financial resources in place.
Practices	Brazil’s organisation-in-charge for advising and co-ordinating the digital government federal policy is of a ministerial-level, namely the Brazilian Secretariat of Digital Government (DGS). The DGS reports to the Ministry of Economy as a line ministry. It was transformed from only having an advisory scope for other government agencies to co-ordinating centralised digital services and enablers. It works closely with the Special Secretariat of State Modernisation task force, which is linked to the General Secretariat of the Presidency (apolitical, 2019[59]). The United Kingdom Government Digital Service (GDS) co-ordinates with local governments on the development of digital projects with the support of the Local Digital Declaration. It has a national team that leads the work with local authorities and councils to assist in the public sector digital transformation process. With the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the GDS launched the Local Digital Declaration to support and united local authorities around a shared understanding of good digital practices. This ensures that the development of digital projects at a local level is aligned with the national digital government strategy. Chile’s Ministry General Secretariat of the Presidency (MINSEGPRES) is the organisation-in-charge that oversees the provision of support for the implementation of digital government policies and is responsible for advising initiatives to spur ICT/digital use within the public sector. The Digital Government Division in MINSEGPRES presents to the Minister the digital government strategy and co-ordinates the implementation in various government agencies for the use of technologies, data and information (OECD, 2019[60]). Panama’s National Authority for Government Innovation (AIG) is mandated to hold co-ordinating, advisory and decision-making powers and duties across the executive, judicial and legislative branches to plan, co-ordinate, issue guidelines, supervise, collaborate, support and promote the optimal use of ICTs in the government for the modernisation of public management (OECD, 2019[13]). AIG benefits from an important policy lever that supports the decision-making process for the development and implementation of digital government policies across the government. The Administrator General of AIG participates regularly in the meetings of the Council of Ministers, which allows the AIG to align closely with top political and policy priorities and acquire an oversight over the critical capacity on public sector policies underway. It also gives the AIG to access key decision actors and processes, which enhances its decision-making capability for integrating digital technologies early on the design stage of the policy process (OECD, 2019[13]).

Dimension 2.2 Leadership: Position/Role

Dimension 2.2. Leadership: Position/Role looks more precisely at the personal leadership across the organisation-in-charge, other leading public sector organisations and more broadly, in the rest of the public sector. The position and role of the highest-ranking administrative officers in the public sector organisations reveal the potential of attaining digital government maturity from a management and cultural perspective, and the level of coherence that can be created.

Sub-Dimension 2.2.1 Chief Information Officer (CIO) and Chief Data Office (CDO) looks at the administrative officer that is in-charge-of the ICT/digital, data governance and management strategies. Sub-Dimension 2.2.2 Hierarchical Importance and Legal Basis covers the hierarchical placement, attributes and legal basis of the CIO and CDO in the institutional structure of the government.

Sub-Dimension 2.2.1 Chief Information Officer (CIO) and Chief Data Officer (CDO)

 

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government	Sub-Dimension 2.2.1 Chief Information Officer (CIO) and Chief Data Officer (CDO) (or similar roles) points to one of the highest-ranking administrative officers that oversees the ICT/digital, data governance and data-driven projects and investments for the digital advancement of the public sector or public sector organisation. The CIO’s title can be termed in various ways in different countries and public sector organisations, such as Chief Digital Information Officers (CDIO), Government Chief Information Office (GCIO) to name a few. The CDO’s responsibilities can also be flexibly assigned to associated positions in different countries and public sector organisations, such as Chief Data Scientists or Chief Data Steward. The CIO and CDO have key co-ordination, advisory and decision-making roles and responsibilities in the conceptualisation and implementation of digital government and data-driven strategies and policies by exchanging and communicating with other stakeholders in the ecosystem. These two positions can either be combined into one, separate with shared roles and responsibilities under a joint agenda, or separate and are fully co-ordinated with a joint agenda.
Stages of Governance	Advanced	Intermediate	Basic
Characteristics	The public sector organisation has CIO and CDO-like positions and roles that are well-defined, endued with clear responsibilities and possesses the necessary capacities and capabilities to carry them out. The CIO and CDO also have considerable political support and institutional influence in the government.	The public sector organisation has CIO- and CDO-like positions and roles that are fairly defined, endued with discernible responsibilities and possesses some capacities and capabilities to carry them out. The CIO and CDO also have some political support and institutional influence in the government.	The public sector organisation lacks CIO- and CDO-like positions and roles that are defined, endued with responsibilities and possesses capacities and capabilities to carry them out. The CIO and CDO also have marginal political support and institutional influence in the government.
Policy Questions	Are the CIO and CDO positions and roles empowered to make considerations beyond the immediate digital government and data plans, and look towards a long-term sustainable and inclusive digital transformation for the public sector? Do the CIO and CDO positions and roles have strong networks of relations and communications in the government?	Do the CIO and CDO positions and roles have sufficient acknowledgment, purview and influence over a range of policy areas and processes that concerns the digitalisation of the public sector such as budget, education, skills, well-being, and sustainability? How can the CIO and CDO receive more political support and increase their institutional influence in the government?	How can the CIO and CDO positions and roles be better designated and defined to be in charge of developing and implementing the digital government strategy throughout the whole public sector? What are the key factors that are lacking in order to prioritise digital government and a data-driven public sector on the political and policy agenda?
Recommendations	Consider enabling the CIO and CDO with a mandate that provides more leadership and responsibilities that are forward-looking with a long-term perspective on digital maturity of the government and the country. Deepen the relationship with the networks and ecosystem of stakeholders in digital government further. Strengthen the political support of the CIO and CDO in the organisation-in-charge.	Place the digital government and data development agenda at the forefront of policy priorities and as an overarching policy area such that the CIO and CDO have significant leadership and responsibilities in advancing the action plan across the public sector.	Evaluate the digital government and data development of the government and its most pertinent challenges and needs. Assess the appointment of a CIO and CDO with a considerable position and role to lead the digitalisation of the public sector and the resources needed to be effective and efficient.
Practices	The United States’ CIO as the Federal Chief Information Officer is also the administrator or the Office of Electronic Government that is part of the Office of Management and Budget. The CIO began its tenure appointed by the United States President under the Obama administration with the “25-point implementation plan” to reform federal ICT management and subsequently, a formal digital strategy and specific sub-strategies such as the “Federal Cloud Computing Strategy”. The CIO Council meets with the CIOs, Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs) or designated representatives monthly according to digital and IT policy and priorities (CIO.gov, n.d.[61]). Colombia’s CIO is the Deputy Minister of Digital Economy, who has the function of planning, organising, co-ordinating, managing and controlling the use of IT and digital technologies through the Ministry of Information Technologies and Communications (MinTIC). Colombia’s CIO, according to the IT strategy, is a leader that is charged with generating strategic value through the management of digital and IT; is part of a network with the National Digital Commission, national, sectoral, entity and territory CIOs; and acts on various structures in the branches, sectors, territories, Directive Committee and IT officers. France’s CDO is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the quality of public sector data and facilitating data sharing among administrations, researchers, businesses and citizens. It sits within the French Task Force for Open Data, Etalab, at the Prime Minister’s Secretariat-General for Modernisation of Public Action. France’s CDO oversees the dissemination of new data-based decision methods and big data approaches within the public administration for the optimisation of public resources allocation. The CDO also co-ordinates administrative actions related to the data value chain and ensures the protection of privacy and secrets defined by law. The CDO can request from public administration on the data they produce with an annual report to the Office of the Prime Minister on the inventory, governance, production, dissemination and the use of data by public administrations.

Sub-Dimension 2.2.2 Hierarchical Importance and Legal Basis

 

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government	Sub-Dimension 2.2.2 Hierarchical Importance and Legal Basis points to the hierarchical placement, attributes and legal basis of the CIO- and CDO-like position in the organisation-in-charge or other public sector organisations as an indication of the importance that the government imparts to the digital government and data agenda. It influences the empowerment of the CIO and CDO roles and responsibilities to advance the digital maturity of the public sector for the short- and long-term. The legal basis of the institutional model in which the CIO and the CDO function also has considerable influence on the CIO’s and CDO’s power and capability to fulfil their role. This legal foundation can either be legislation or decree. Legislation has the potential to provide more institutional stability and continuity for digital government advancement but is less flexible by limiting the CIO’s and CDO’s ability to set the organisation’s priorities and directions. Decrees have a more flexible legal framework that can allow the CIO and CDO to determine the optimal strategy, arrangement and programme based on the contextual factors, but are susceptible and sensitive to political changes and considerations of the executive.
Stages of Governance	Advanced	Intermediate	Basic
Characteristics	The positioning of the CIO and CDO is well-placed and highly prioritised to advance the digital maturity of the government and the country to unlock further development. Their position and role are at the centre of government and they have influence over the rest of the organisation and public sector. There is a solid legal basis for the leading public sector organisation on digital government and data through either legislation or decree. There is a good balance between institutional stability and flexibility for the strategies and plans, which enables the CIO and CDO to work and lead effectively.	The positioning of the CIO and CDO is fairly placed and prioritised to advance the digital maturity of the government and the country to unlock further development. Their position and role are near the centre of government and they have some influence over the rest of the public sector. There is a legal basis for regulating the leading public sector organisation on digital government and data through either legislation or decree. There is a fair balance between institutional stability and flexibility for the strategies and plans, which enables the CIO and CDO to work and lead quite effectively.	The positioning of the CIO and CDO can be better placed and prioritised to advance the digital maturity of the government and the country to unlock further development. Their position and role are not near the centre of government and they have marginal influence over the rest of the public sector. There is a weak legal basis for regulating the leading organisation and office for digital government and data. There is an imbalance of institutional stability and flexibility for the strategies and plans, which hinders the CIO and CDO to work and lead effectively.
Policy Questions	Are the CIO’s and CDO’s positions catalysts for public sector innovation and digital solutions to global and domestic challenges and changes? Is there a proper balance between the political support and continuity of the CIO’s and CDO’s work? On top of a balance between institutional stability and flexibility, are the CIO and CDO able to adopt resilient, agile and responsive digital government and data approaches such that decisions and processes can be done effectively?	Can the CIO and CDO occupy a more central position in the public administration and sector or a higher position on the organisational structure, supported by networks and stakeholders in the digital government ecosystem? Can there be greater stability and/or flexibility in the digital government and data strategies and plans to increase the capability and capacity of the work of the leading public sector organisation, the CIO and the CDO?	What are the political, institutional and/or cultural impediments to justifying and establishing the position and role of a CIO and CDO? What can be done to overcome these challenges and raise the hierarchical importance of a CIO and CDO? What are the most critical areas of digital government and data that need to have a legal basis in order to strengthen the capacity and capability for the CIO and CDO to strategise, plan and co-ordinate the implementation processes?
Recommendations	Reflect on internal and external narratives and perspectives on digital government and data, and where they can be improved to support the mandate and work of the CIO and CDO to increase the stability and flexibility of the public sector and country to challenges and changes. Test the resilience, agility and responsiveness of the digital government and data approaches with respect to simulated risk scenarios and correspondingly fine-tune the set of powers and duties of the leading public sector organisations, CIO and CDO such that they can take the right measures in all circumstances.	Evaluate how changing the level of a CIO and CDO in the organisational structure of the government and their mandate can improve the effectiveness of engagement, communication and action across the whole ecosystem of stakeholders. Determine whether a stronger legal basis for digital government and data can be achieved through legislation or decree based on the need for greater stability vis-à-vis flexibility in the strategies and plans. Further specify the areas in digital government and data that should have a stronger legal basis.	Conduct focus groups and feedback sessions on the perspectives and understanding of digital and data leadership and innovation in the government in order to raise awareness, educate stakeholders and instil the need for governance and accountability through a CIO and CDO. Build up the necessary political support and legitimacy that can be codified into legislation and/or decrees where appropriate in the most critical areas of digital government and data. Look into the development of other policy areas that can further boost the capacity and capability of the CIO and CDO and the ecosystem they are working with.
Practices	Estonia’s Government CIO is also titled Deputy Secretary-General for IT and Telecom in the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications. Estonia’s Government CIO has a role in setting the national digital strategy and policies – thereby launching and steering strategic initiatives for the development of digital government, economy and society. New Zealand’s Government CDO is the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs, who reports to the Minister for Government Digital Services. The attributes of Government CDO in New Zealand relies on the Government Chief Data Steward (GCDS). The GCDS is the Chief Executive of the Statistics New Zealand Office (Statistics New Zealand), an agency with a critical role in enabling the unlocking of New Zealand’s strategic data and information assets. The GCDS is responsible for setting digital policy and standards; improving investments; establishing and managing services; developing capability; and system assurance towards digital government outcomes. The New Zealand’s GCDS is a good example of country that relies on NSOs as national data steward, instead of placing the co-ordination, advisory and decision-making on data governance to a CDO as a specific leadership. Korea’s CDO’s appointment has the legal basis drawing on Article 12 of the Act on Promotion of the Provision and Use of Public Data, the Open Data Act and Open Data Management Guidelines.

Dimension 2.3 Co-ordination and Co-operation

Dimension 2.3 Co-ordination and Co-operation zooms in on the specific processes that support the organisational and personal leadership covered in Dimension 2.1 Macro-Structure and Dimension 2.2 Leadership: Position/Role respectively to carry out policy decisions, policies and initiatives effectively and efficiently. A co-ordinated and co-operative digital government ecosystem requires clarity of roles and responsibilities among public sector stakeholders, based on accountability and transparency, which is key for implementing action plans that stretch across levels of government and policy areas and strengthening public trust.

Sub-Dimension 2.3.1 High-Level Co-ordination focuses on institutional co-ordination at a high political and administrative level. Sub-Dimension 2.3.2 Organisational and Technical Co-operation focuses on institutional co-operation on the organisational and technical level. These two sub-dimensions tighten the coherence and sustainability of the direction taken on digitalisation of the whole public sector.

Sub-Dimension 2.3.1 High-Level Co-ordination

 

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government	Sub-Dimension 2.3.1 High-Level Co-ordination points to institutional co-ordination at the very top that brings together ministers and highest-ranking administrative officials to extensively collaborate and align on the design and implementation of digital government data strategies and plans. This can take the form of steering committees, working groups and task forces.
Stages of Governance	Advanced	Intermediate	Basic
Characteristics	The high-level institutional stakeholders in the digital government ecosystem exhibit strong and positive alignment, collaboration and co-ordinate among themselves such that the policy cycle and process is smooth.	The high-level institutional stakeholders in the digital government ecosystem exhibit good and positive alignment, collaboration and co-ordinate among themselves such that the policy cycle and process is fairly smooth.	The high-level institutional stakeholders in the digital government ecosystem exhibit marginal alignment, collaboration and co-ordinate among themselves such that the policy cycle and process is not very smooth.
Policy Questions	Is the high-level institutional co-ordination oriented towards achieving a higher level of digital maturity in the government with spill over effects for the economy and society? Is the high-level institutional co-ordination sustainable and stable regardless of political changes?	How can the leadership and/or responsibilities that are shared among the stakeholders be changed, consolidated or shifted such that the stakeholders are incentivised to have more ownership, co-operate and contribute more to the policy cycle and process?	Is the impediment or challenge to the co-ordination of high-level institutional stakeholders from co-operating political, institutional, technical or cultural? What can be done to reverse this and increase the potential for stronger alignment, collaboration and co-ordination among stakeholders?
Recommendations	Consider extending the scope of the high-level co-ordination to include wider and relevant non-government stakeholders such that the digitalisation and data-driven agenda and efforts for the public sector are inclusive, sustainable and equitable.	Examine an appropriate model of high-level co-ordination that is systemic in its thinking, culture and approach and is able to mobilise and hold accountable a wide variety of stakeholders in the digital government ecosystem.	Ensure that priorities for digitalisation of the public sector are overarching, politically supported and intrinsic in other policy areas. Check on the institutional model and mechanisms in place that can improve alignment, collaboration and co-ordination among stakeholders.
Practices	Norway’s strategic collaborative council and advisory body is the Strategic Co-operation Council for Management and Co-ordination of eGovernment Services (SKATE), which brings together heads and directors from key public institutions from various policy areas. SKATE was established in 2012 as the principal policy advisor concerning the implementation and financing of digital and ICT measures. It is a strategic co-operation council for directors in selected public agencies and is chaired by the Agency for Public Management and eGovernment (Difi). In Slovenia, the Government Council of Informatics Development in Public Administration, comprising secretaries of states of the leading public sector organisations, is responsible for the strategic leadership and co-ordination of the digital government policy. The Government Council has a threefold structure: the Strategic Council led by the Minister of Public Administration; the Co-ordination Working Group led by the State Secretary of the Ministry of Public Administration and is responsible for the preparation of proposals and action plans, co-ordination as well as compliance of digital government measures in line ministries and other public sector organisations; and the Operational Working Group led by the director of the Information Society and Informatics Directorate (OECD, 2021[62]). In 2021, new and additional co-ordinating structures were put in place with the appointment of a Minister for Digital Transformation, heading a new Digital Transformation Office and the Strategic Council for Digitalisation under the Office of the Prime Minister that prepares and discusses proposals for digital transformation across the public sector and policy areas (GOV.SI, 2021[63]).

Sub-Dimension 2.3.2 Organisational and Technical Co-operation

 

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government	Sub-Dimension 2.3.2 Organisational and Technical Co-operation points to institutional co-operation on an organisational and technical level that addresses the systemic processes underlying the tactical and operational layers during the execution stages.
Stages of Governance	Advanced	Intermediate	Basic
Characteristics	The organisational and technical stakeholders in the digital government ecosystem exhibit strong and positive alignment, collaboration and co-ordinate among themselves such that the policy cycle and process is smooth.	The organisational and technical stakeholders in the digital government ecosystem exhibit good and positive alignment, collaboration and co-ordinate among themselves such that the policy cycle and process is fairly smooth.	The organisational and technical stakeholders in the digital government ecosystem exhibit marginal alignment, collaboration and co-ordinate among themselves such that the policy cycle and process is not very smooth.
Policy Questions	Is the organisational and technical co-operation oriented towards achieving a higher level of digital maturity in the government with spill over effects for the economy and society? Is the organisational and technical co-operation sustainable and stable regardless of political changes?	How can the leadership and/or responsibilities that are shared among the stakeholders be changed, consolidated or shifted such that the stakeholders are incentivised to have more ownership, co-operate and contribute more to the policy cycle and process?	Is the impediment or challenge to the organisational and technical co-operation political, institutional, technical or cultural? What can be done to reverse this and increase the potential for stronger alignment, collaboration and co-ordination among stakeholders?
Recommendations	Consider enabling the greater agility, innovativeness and adaptability in the organisational and technical co-operation on the digitalisation and data-driven agenda and efforts to make the public sector more inclusive, sustainable and equitable.	Examine an appropriate model of organisational and technical co-operation that is systemic in its thinking, culture and approach and is able to mobilise and hold accountable a wide variety of stakeholders in the digital government ecosystem.	Ensure that priorities for digitalisation are jointly designed and agreed, overarching, politically supported, and intrinsic in other policy areas. Check on the institutional model and mechanisms in place that can improve alignment, collaboration and co-ordination among stakeholders.
Practices	Brazil has a primary institutional digital government co-ordination mechanism under the System for the Administration of Information Technologies Resources (SISP) that promotes alignment among the federal-level organisations on digital government policies and practices. Brazil’s System for the Administration of Information Technologies Resources (SISP) is co-ordinated by the Brazilian Secretariat of Digital Government (DGS), the federal lead public sector organisation in digital government and brings together over 200 representatives of public bodies from the federal government. The SISP’s objectives are to promote the integration and co-ordination among government programmes, objectives and activities; encourage the development, standardisation, integration, interoperability, normalisation of services of production and dissemination of information; and define the strategic policy for the management of ICT of the federal government. Slovenia’s Governmental Council of Informatics Development in Public Administration contains within its threefold structure an operational working group led by the Director of the Information Society and Informatics Directorate. The operational working group is responsible for the implementation of activities, preparation and implementation of operational documents and work reports based on action plans. It provides consent to line ministries and government services to all projects or activities that result in the acquisition, maintenance, or development of IT equipment and solutions.

Dimension 2.4 Civic Participation and Collaboration

Dimension 2.4 Civic Participation and Collaboration looks at the institutional arrangements and mechanisms for governments to involve people outside the public sector in the governance and development process towards a digitally mature and a data-driven public sector. It encompasses two main groups of external stakeholders: (i) citizens and (ii) the industry.

The OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (2017) recognises that such stakeholder participation can build government accountability, expand citizens’ empowerment and influence on decisions, increase civic capacity, improve the evidence base for policy making, reduce implementation costs, and tap on wider networks and ecosystems for innovation in policy making and service delivery (OECD, 2017[64]). Civic participation, therefore, encompasses the process of informing, consulting and engaging with stakeholders in the policy cycle and service design and delivery. Collaboration takes this a step further in enabling shared ownership, roles and responsibility between the public sector and citizens or businesses in creating and implementing policies, programmes and services. In these participative and collaborative processes, the government is better placed to research, understand and provide public services that meet the needs of its users (Welby and Tan, forthcoming[11]).

Sub-Dimension 2.4.1 Citizen Participation and Collaboration focuses on civic participation and collaboration with citizens and the broader civil society. Sub-Dimension 2.4.2 Industry Participation and Collaboration focuses on civic participation and collaboration with industry players, including businesses. These two sub-dimensions are mutually reinforcing in terms of inclusively bringing together the needs and resources of the economy and society for a holistic and sustainable digitalisation transition.

Sub-Dimension 2.4.1 Citizen Participation and Collaboration

 

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government	Sub-Dimension 2.4.1 Citizen Participation and Collaboration points to institutional frameworks and mechanisms that governments can adopt to inform, consult and engage with citizens and civil society stakeholders in the wider external digital government ecosystem on the public policy design and implementation, and service design and delivery to advance on the digital government agenda.
Stages of Governance	Advanced	Intermediate	Basic
Characteristics	Citizens and civil society stakeholders in the external digital government ecosystem are always informed and consulted by the government. They engage in partnerships and collaborations with the public sector extensively, inclusively and in various parts of the policy cycle. Significant public value has been created from these initiatives.	Citizens and civil society stakeholders in the external digital government ecosystem are frequently informed and consulted by the government. They engage in partnerships and collaborations with the public sector less extensively, inclusively and in various parts of the policy cycle. A notable amount of public value has been created from these initiatives.	Citizens and civil society stakeholders in the external digital government ecosystem are informed and but not consulted by the government. They do not engage in partnerships and collaborations with the public sector. A sub-optimal amount of public value has been created from these marginal initiatives.
Policy Questions	Is citizen participation and collaboration treated as a way for the public sector to improve its governance to be more transparent, legitimate and accountable? Do citizens and civil society stakeholders have real power and capability to propose and design initiatives or is the government still largely controlling the consultation and engagement process?	How can the institutional frameworks and mechanisms be improved and leverage digital tools and data to incentivise regular public communication, consultation and engagement in relation to the development of digital government policies and programmes? Is the engagement of citizens and civil society stakeholders inclusive in involving both majority and minority segments of the population?	At which levels of the government do the political and administrative leadership, understanding and capacity for co-ordination and compliance lack for public sector organisations to inform, consult and engage with citizens and civil society stakeholders? Are citizens and civil society stakeholders aware of their rights to civic participation?
Recommendations	Formalise the institutional frameworks and mechanisms for encouraging and enabling citizen participation and collaboration, by incorporating them under existing rules for representative democracy. For example, create steering committees and thematic working groups involving a variety of civil society stakeholders to monitor and advise on the digital government and data agenda.	Provide the opportunity and resources for citizens and civil society stakeholders to engage. Ensure that citizens’ and civil society organisations’ are involved at every critical stage of the digital government and data policy design and implementation process. Be inclusive and active in the involvement of citizens, such as adopting a deliberative and democratic approach and not just stopping at consultation. Create monitoring and impact assessment tools that focus on the quality of engagement.	Inculcate a public sector culture that considers the right of those who are directly and indirectly impacted by government decisions to be involved in the decision-making process. Create institutional frameworks and mechanisms and conduct training programmes to co-ordinate and ensure compliance of public sector organisations on citizen participation and collaboration on the digitalisation of public services to start with.
Practices	The United Kingdom’s Open Policy Making Toolkit is a manual that contains information, tools and techniques for policy makers to design more open and user-led policies. It supports policy makers in open policy making that is agile, includes co-design with users, relies on open data and user research, and shows how to measure its impact and success. “Co-designing with users” demonstrates how to work with users to understand their pain points and deign policies, products and services that solve their problems. This direct engagement with users, who would largely be citizens, ensures that the people who are most impacted are involved, consulted and share ownership of the process. The engagement can take the form of workshops, hack days and idea jams. In Spain, the Madrid City Council developed and implemented a permanent deliberative body called City Observatory in 2019 comprising randomly selected citizens who are nonetheless representative of the population. It holds the mandate to propose and address solutions for societal well-being through regular meetings. The proposals are received through an online platform, decide.madrid. Over the years, the function and composition of City Observatory was reorganised and now comprises politicians and civil servants (OECD, 2020[65]). In France, the Senate and National Assembly launched an online platform for citizen petitions for citizens to file and sign in 2020, which has a possibility of eventually being debated by the members of parliament. It aims to secure the right of petition for citizens. These petitions can relate to any matter of the public interest, such as cultural affairs and education; economic affairs; foreign affairs; national defence and armed forces; sustainable development and land use planning; finances; general economy and budgetary control; constitutional laws, legislation and general administration. Petitions with more than 100,000 signatures would be brought to the attention of the President of the National Assembly and reviewed by the relevant standing committees.

Sub-Dimension 2.4.2 Industry Participation and Collaboration

 

Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government	Sub-Dimension 2.4.2 Industry Participation and Collaboration points to institutional frameworks and mechanisms that governments can adopt to inform, consult and engage with businesses and industry stakeholders in the wider external digital government ecosystem on the policy design and implementation, and service design and delivery process to advance on the digital government agenda. Industry stakeholders are a key source of information, innovation, creation and deployment of digital technologies that governments could engage with in the building of a digitally-enabled state. From digital infrastructure to architecture, points of engagement under public-private partnerships (PPPs) including the procurement of ICT/digital technologies, financing and investments, and open data and data sharing. However, it is crucial for governments to manage the industry engagement process to ensure that it is conducted with transparency, accountability and integrity; to ensure that stakeholders have fair and equitable access such that resources do not end up being concentrated in the hands of a few; and to identify capture risks (OECD, 2017[66]).
Stages of Governance	Advanced	Intermediate	Basic
Characteristics	Businesses and industry stakeholders in the external digital government ecosystem are always informed and consulted by the government. They engage in partnerships and collaborations with the public sector extensively, inclusively and in various parts of the policy cycle. Significant public value has been created from these initiatives.	Businesses and industry stakeholders in the external digital government ecosystem are sometimes informed and consulted by the government. They engage in partnerships and collaborations with the public sector fairly extensively, inclusively and in various parts of the policy cycle. A notable amount of public value has been created from these initiatives.	Businesses and industry stakeholders in the external digital government ecosystem are seldom informed and consulted by the government. They engage in partnerships and collaborations with the public sector not as extensively, inclusively and in restricted parts of the policy cycle. A sub-optimal amount of public value has been created from these initiatives.
Policy Questions	Is industry participation and collaboration conducted in a way that is transparent and of integrity such that the rest of the public sector and civil society is privy to and have a say in the process? Do interest groups and lobbyists among industry stakeholders not have undue influence to propose and design initiatives that prioritises private interests over that of the public?	How can the institutional frameworks and mechanisms be improved and leverage digital and data tools to incentivise regular public communication and consultation of digital government policies and programmes? Is the engagement of businesses and industry stakeholders inclusive in fairly involving start-ups, small and medium enterprises and multinational enterprises alike?	At which levels of the government do the political and administrative leadership, understanding and capacity for co-ordination and compliance lack for public sector organisations to inform, consult and engage with businesses and industry stakeholders? Are businesses and industry stakeholders incentivised to be involved in the public decision-making processes?
Recommendations	Formalise the institutional frameworks and mechanisms for regulating industry participation and collaboration to be aligned with the country’s constitutional principles and democratic practices. For example, standardise the codes of conduct for interest groups and lobbying professionals and associations; establish formal public hearings and consultation processes with industry stakeholders on the digital government and data agenda.	Ensure that businesses’ and industry stakeholders’ are involved at every critical stage of the digital government and data policy design and implementation process. Be inclusive and active in the involvement of businesses, such as creating a level playing field for fair and equitable access to participate in the development of public policies and services. Create monitoring and impact assessment tools that focus on the quality of engagement.	Inculcate a public sector culture that considers the importance and benefits of involving businesses and industry stakeholders. Create institutional frameworks and mechanisms and conduct training programmes to co-ordinate and ensure compliance of public sector organisations on industry participation and collaboration on the digitalisation of public services to start with. Ensure that there is a solid foundation on rules and guidelines on lobbying.
Practices	The European Union (EU)’s Commission has produced a comprehensive resource book on ‘Guidelines for Successful Public-Private Partnerships (PPP)’ as a practical tool for PPP practitioners to co-operate with the private sector on the delivery of a wide range of public services. Published in 2003 (European Commission, 2003[67]), the Guidelines ensure that in enabling participation and collaboration with the private sector, EU Member State governments: (i) ensure open market access and fair competition; (ii) protect the public interest and maximise value added; (iii) define the optimal level of grant financing to realise a viable and sustainable project; and (iv) assess the most effective type of PPP for a given project. This would allow PPP practitioners to manage contracts around complex technologies where it is not clear that the solution will match the need from the outset. It also provides greater flexibility and improved quality of public services than traditional ICT/digital procurement as a PPP contract allows greater economies of scale, innovation in service delivery, includes performance incentives and penalties, and enables greater integration of services with supporting assets. Other approaches to industry participation and collaboration include Pre-Commercial Procurement (PCP) as a way to develop innovative solutions from the demand side and Public Procurement of Innovative Solutions (PPI) for the public sector to be an early adopter of non-commercial solutions. Finland regularly involves the whole digital government ecosystem including the private sector on the development of public services from legislation to service design and delivery. Finland had put out an open letter on the Further Digitalisation Project to collect ideas from the whole digital government ecosystem including the private sector on the development of public services. Finland’s Act on Information Management in Public Administration 906/2019 was developed openly on Google Docs for the private sector and civil society to contribute. The adoption of AI in the public sector was conducted through public-private-people partnerships (PPPP) to ensure the design of citizen-centric services based on AI.