Chapter 5 enumerates the policy instruments under Facet 3 of the OECD Framework on the Governance of Digital Government, which support public sector capacity for implementing digital government policies. They demonstrate the importance of setting in place the strategy and plan, project management tools, financial management mechanisms, and regulations and standards to ensure the sound and coherent management of digital government programmes, enablers, initiatives and public services.
The E-Leaders Handbook on the Governance of Digital Government
5. Governance Facet 3: Policy Levers
Abstract
The importance of policy instrument analysis
Policy levers are hard or soft instruments that policy makers can leverage to enable system-wide change in the public sector from strategy to implementation and delivery. They serve as the foundation on which critical enablers for digital government and data are built on. By using policy levers, governments can increase the effectiveness and efficiency of meeting the needs of citizens and businesses and creating value for them in a coherent and systemic way across the public sector.
Facet 3: Policy Levers draws on Pillar 3 of the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies (2014) “Capacities to Support Implementation”. The third pillar calls for clear methods for value proposition (e.g. business cases), management and monitoring of the implementation, procurement of digital technologies based on an assessment of assets and appropriate regulatory frameworks. Together, they constitute the governance model for which the digital government programme can be implemented in the public sector. Similar to Facet 2: Institutional Models, Facet 3: Policy Levers also takes into consideration the principles in Pillar 1 of the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies (2014) “Openness and Engagement” in terms of enabling the participation of other stakeholders in strategy development, management processes, financing and regulation.
The following four dimensions aim to cover these fundamental elements (see Figure 5.1):
1. Strategy and Plan;
2. Project Management Tools;
3. Financial Management Mechanisms;
4. Regulations and Standards.
The presentation of Facet 3: Policy Levers is like Facet 2: Institutional Models since the dimensions and sub-dimensions that fall under Facet 3: Policy Levers are within the control of the government to implement and/or change. Each sub-dimensions' characteristics, policy questions and recommendations will be elaborated on 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 3.1 Strategy and Plan
Dimension 3.1 Strategy and Plan refers to a digital government strategy that sets the stage, structure and plan for the actions to be aligned with other policy objectives and to be carried out in an effective, efficient and organised manner. The digital government strategy should detail a vision, goals and milestones, the stakeholders and their respective activities.
Sub-Dimension 3.1.1 Autonomy and Alignment with other Policy Strategies looks at the digital government strategy’s placement in respect to other government strategies. Sub-Dimension 3.1.2 Collaboration and Inclusive Development looks at the stakeholders’ involvement and participation in the strategy. Sub-Dimension 3.1.3 Action Plan and Investment Plan looks at the tactical and operational part of the strategy. Sub-Dimension 3.1.4 Monitoring and Impact Assessment looks at how a sustainable and effective digitalisation programme of the public sector can be secured.
Sub-Dimension 3.1.1 Autonomy and Alignment with other Policy Strategies
Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government |
Sub-Dimension 3.1.1 Autonomy and Alignment with other Policy Strategies addresses countries’ approaches to their digital government strategies and how the strategies are placed in the government’s agenda with respect to other strategies. Countries may opt for autonomous or embedded digital government strategies. Autonomous strategies are usually found in one single document while embedded strategies are included in a broader strategy such as a digital economy and society strategy or public sector reform strategy. In both cases, linking the digital government strategy with broader agendas is beneficial for coherence and collaboration within the public administration. A one-size-fits-all approach does not apply since benefits and disadvantages can be found in both cases. |
||
Stages of Governance |
Advanced |
Intermediate |
Basic |
Characteristics |
The digital government strategy has a strong linkage with other government strategies, which is backed by governance measures and mechanisms that ensure strong coherence, effectiveness and efficiency in the design and implementation of the digital government strategy. |
The digital government strategy has some linkage with other government strategies, which is backed by some governance measures and mechanisms that ensure moderate coherence, effectiveness and efficiency in the design and implementation of the digital government strategy. |
The digital government strategy has little linkage with other government strategies, which is backed by very few measures and mechanisms that result in little coherence, effectiveness and efficiency in the design and implementation of the digital government strategy. |
Policy Questions |
Do the governance measures and mechanisms that link the digital government strategy with other government strategies ensure the required sustainability, flexibility and adaptability of the digitalisation of the public sector? Do the strategies’ goals and objectives complement one another and are oriented towards long-term development? |
Which goals and projects of the digital government strategy and other government strategies can be linked and which governance measures and mechanisms can shared such that the coherence, effectiveness and efficiency of implementing the strategies can be enhanced? |
Which other policy areas can the digital government strategy also improve in order to make the case that the digitalisation of the public sector is relevant for other government strategies such as education, business support, public health and safety? What are the challenges to establishing stronger governance measures and mechanisms? |
Recommendations |
Create stronger governance arrangements and mechanisms between the digital government strategy and other government strategies that consider and share not just the short-term plans of digitalisation, but the long-term priorities of creating a digitally mature public sector, economy and society. |
Establish stronger governance arrangements and mechanisms between the digital government strategy and other government strategies that can link more goals and projects and improve the coherence, effectiveness and efficiency of implementing them. |
Identify areas for complementarity, alignment and inter-reinforcement between digitalising the public sector with other policy areas. Develop or identify current measures and mechanisms that can link the digital government strategy, goals and projects with other government strategies. |
Practices |
|
Sub-Dimension 3.1.2 Collaborative and Inclusive Development
Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government |
Sub-Dimension 3.1.2 Collaborative and Inclusive Development addresses the process of creating, developing to implementing and monitoring the digital government strategy within and outside the public sector, which is crucial for building legitimacy, consensus and support, establishing accountability and transparency and creating synergies among stakeholders in the digital government ecosystem. It specifically covers the activities of sharing information, holding consultations and conducting engagements in an agile and interactive way towards building consensus, co-creating and co-delivering in the context of develop a digital government strategy. Governments can also consider developing the green transition agenda alongside the digital development agenda towards a sustainable and resilient public sector and country. This policy lever should be considered alongside the overarching Dimension 2.4 Civic Participation and Collaboration that covers the institutional approach to openness and engagement. Sub-Dimension 2.4.1 Citizen Participation and Collaboration and Sub-Dimension 2.4.2 Industry Participation and Collaboration help governments understand the changing needs and preferences of stakeholders and translate them into concrete public policies and services. Users, where they are impacted, should be given a platform to voice their opinion and contribute. |
||
Stages of Governance |
Advanced |
Intermediate |
Basic |
Characteristics |
The government enables strong collaboration and inclusive development of the digital government strategy among the ecosystem of digital government stakeholders through a variety of open, transparent and trustworthy methods during the entire strategy’s lifecycle. |
The government enables some collaboration and inclusive development of the digital government strategy among the ecosystem of digital government stakeholders through some open, transparent and trustworthy methods during parts of the strategy’s lifecycle. |
The government follows mostly a top-down approach, enabling minimal collaboration and inclusive development of the digital government strategy among the ecosystem of digital government stakeholders through a few open, transparent and trustworthy methods. |
Policy Questions |
Has the collaborative and inclusive development of the digital government strategy been closely aligned with other government strategies? Has it resulted in accountability, sustainability, resilience, innovation and delivering significant public value? |
What other methods can the government explore to improve collaboration and inclusive development of the digital government strategy: crowdsourcing, public consultations, procurement models for implementation and openness for monitoring the strategy? |
Where are the challenges for collaboration and inclusive development of the digital government strategy? How developed and mature is the ecosystem of digital government stakeholders, and what can be done to include and involve more stakeholders? |
Recommendations |
Increase the alignment and coherence of the digital government strategy with other government strategies through collaboration and inclusive development under the overarching aim of improving accountability, sustainability, resilience, innovation and delivering public value. |
Test and reiterate more methods to improve collaboration and inclusive development of the digital government strategy in the ecosystem. Involve more relevant stakeholders from other policy areas with the appropriate governance measures and mechanisms. |
Design a good foundation of governance measures and mechanisms, including collaborative design from start, that can develop the ecosystem of digital government stakeholders, enable collaboration and inclusive development of the digital government strategy and increase alignment with other government strategies. |
Practices |
|
Sub-Dimension 3.1.3 Action Plan and Investment Plan
Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government |
Sub-Dimension 3.1.3 Action Plan and Investment Plan covers the tactical and operational aspects for the execution and implementation phases of the digital government strategy. The action plan should feature how the strategy can be acted upon by specific stakeholders through various governance measures and mechanisms such that their roles, responsibilities and deliverables are defined. The investment plan should address the financial resources needed to support the implementation of the action plan, and be assisted by the elements discussed in Dimension 3.3 Financial Management Mechanisms. |
||
Stages of Governance |
Advanced |
Intermediate |
Basic |
Characteristics |
The action and investment plans of the digital government strategy are well developed and defined such that stakeholders are well informed of their roles, responsibilities and deliverables; and the financial resources are able to support the implementation. |
The action and investment plans of the digital government strategy are fairly developed and defined such that stakeholders are quite informed of their roles, responsibilities and deliverables and the financial resources are able to support the implementation. |
The action and investment plans of the digital government strategy are inexistent or not well developed and defined such that stakeholders are not well informed of their roles, responsibilities and deliverables and the financial resources are not sufficient in supporting the implementation. |
Policy Questions |
Are the action and investment plans also agile and adaptable according to changing contextual factors? Is the institutional model also able to sustainably support the execution and implementation of the plans? |
How can the action and investment plans be better defined, co-ordinated and coherent to support a stable and flexible implementation of the digital government strategy? Can the government involve more stakeholders? |
What is the stage of development of the digital government strategy? What are the challenges to developing the action and investment plans: political will, organisational leadership, strategy or stakeholder ecosystem? |
Recommendations |
Increase the agility and adaptability of the governance measures and mechanisms for the plans through stronger leadership without unnecessary bureaucracy, consistent feedback and ease of tweaking the plans. |
Put in place stronger leadership with supporting governance measures and mechanisms to define, co-ordinate and monitor the plans while involving more stakeholders in the execution and implementation process. |
Ensure that the digital government strategy is well developed and aligned with respect to other government strategies and in the digital government ecosystem. Leverage the leadership and momentum to develop the plans. |
Practices |
|
Sub-Dimension 3.1.4 Monitoring and Impact Assessment
Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government |
Sub-Dimension 3.1.4 Monitoring and Impact Assessment is an important part of the set of governance measures and mechanisms to ensure a proper implementation and accountability of the digital government strategy and plans. They involve setting out key performance indicators (KPIs) in an open and transparent way, and according to the stated goals and deliverables for each stakeholder involved and evaluating the outputs, outcomes and impact achieved such that continual improvement of the digital government strategy can be done. International standards and indices can also serve as good benchmarks. User impact and being user-driven should be a key feature as a key dimension under monitoring and impact assessment. |
||
Stages of Governance |
Advanced |
Intermediate |
Basic |
Characteristics |
The government has highly developed monitoring and impact assessment tools that monitor progresses in the implementation of the strategy and plans, incentivise accountability and allow the feedback to be used to improve outcomes. |
The government has fairly developed monitoring and impact assessment tools that monitor the implementation of the strategy and plans and incentivise accountability. |
The government has minimally developed monitoring and impact assessment tools for monitoring, assessing and evaluating the implementation of the strategy and plans. |
Policy Questions |
Can the government leverage the monitoring and impact assessment tools to practice openness and transparency with the wider ecosystem of digital government stakeholders such that public value can be enhanced? |
How can the government further develop the monitoring and impact assessment tools among stakeholders involved in the implementation process: skills and capabilities, public sector culture or governance measures and mechanisms? |
What is lacking in the monitoring and impact assessment of the strategy and plans: definition of KPIs; measurement of outputs, outcomes and impact or deeper involvement of relevant stakeholders to adhere to the measures and mechanisms? |
Recommendations |
Consider publishing data and information about the outputs, outcomes and impact of the digitalisation process to the public or the ecosystem of stakeholders. Leverage feedback channels to strengthen the strategy and plans. |
Evaluate where the monitoring and impact assessment tools need to be further developed. Channel the necessary resources to securing this part of the execution and implementation process to improve the outputs and outcomes. |
Ensure that there is first a strong foundation of governance measures and mechanisms among the digital government stakeholders involved in the process such that the monitoring and impact assessment tools will be adhered to and used effectively. |
Practices |
|
Dimension 3.2 Project Management Tools
Dimension 3.2 Project Management Tools covers standardised and common governance measures and mechanisms that specifically address the execution and implementation of the strategy and plans at a project- and programme-level. They can be used by civil servants at all levels of the government to ensure the effective and efficient delivery of results.
Sub-Dimension 3.2.1 Value Proposition – Business Cases covers the first step of justifying for the need and value of a project. Sub-Dimension 3.2.2 Agile Project Management covers the management methodology and importance of agility and innovativeness in the design and implementation process. Sub-Dimension 3.2.3 Procurement of ICT/Digital Technologies covers the process of purchasing the needed technologies to materialise the value of the digital government initiatives.
Sub-Dimension 3.2.1 Value Proposition – Business Cases
Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government |
Sub-Dimension 3.2.1 Value Proposition – Business Cases is important for justifying the financing and investing of ICT/digital government projects and programmes in terms of public value creation and public service delivery. They ensure that there is a strong case for requiring public and private resources such that there is support for the digital government policies and initiatives. Where applicable, governments should consider exchanging and collaborating with ministries of finance and central budget authorities in the development of business cases for greater capacity support. Green transition considerations can also feature as an important criterion in the evaluation of business cases. |
||
Stages of Governance |
Advanced |
Intermediate |
Basic |
Characteristics |
The businesses cases for ICT/digital government initiatives are strong, coherent, developed and transparent such that digital government financing and investments are well planned, executed and monitored towards producing significant public value and mitigating risks. |
The businesses cases for ICT/digital government initiatives are moderately strong, coherent, developed and transparent such that digital government financing and investments are fairly planned, executed and monitored towards producing significant public value and mitigating risks. |
The businesses cases for ICT/digital government initiatives are inexistent or not very strong, coherent, developed and transparent such that digital government financing and investments are not well planned executed and monitored towards producing significant public value and mitigating risks. |
Policy Questions |
Can the business cases be integrated more into the decision-making and co-ordinating process such that as many public and private stakeholders are informed and supporting the relevant initiatives, beyond the financing and investing project managers? Are the benefits distinguished between financial and non-financial and among different sectors? |
How can the business cases be more developed, comprehensive and involve the wide ecosystem of digital government stakeholders? Are there common languages, rules and guidelines for using business cases? Which governance measures and mechanisms can be leveraged? |
What are the challenges for using and developing and incorporating stronger business cases in the decision-making and co-ordinating process? What is most lacking in the application of the business case methodology: governance, costs or benefits? |
Recommendations |
Endeavour to design and leverage this management tool in collaboration with appropriate public and private stakeholders across the digital government ecosystem openly and with accountability such that the digital government initiatives are well implemented. Set out clear principles for the use of business cases. |
Ensure that the business cases are transparent, take into account the wider context, consider economic and non-economic value and are specific to each initiative’s development, implementation, monitoring and improvement. Secure synergies with other policy levers such as pre-evaluation of ICT/digital investments, project management or budgeting. |
Increase the awareness and understanding of the business case methodology and practice through training for financing and investing project managers and the wider ecosystem. Encourage co-ordination on the business cases and projects. |
Practices |
|
Sub-Dimension 3.2.2 Agile Project Management
Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government |
Sub-Dimension 3.2.2 Agile Project Management emphasises the importance of adopting an agile approach to managing ICT/digital government projects and programmes in the public sector, including public services. This means that their design and execution should be efficient and effective in the sense that there must be strategic foresight: opportunities are quickly seized, risks are quickly mitigated and changes are quickly made based on a continuous cycle of diagnosis, feedback and iteration. Experimentation, learning and feedback feature as key elements in the agile approach. This is in contrast to a “”waterfall” approach where tasks are undertaken in a linear, systematic and rather rigid fashion (Welby and Tan, forthcoming[11]). |
||
Stages of Governance |
Advanced |
Intermediate |
Basic |
Characteristics |
The digital government initiatives are undertaken with a very agile and innovative national/federal approach to project management, taking into account inputs from a variety of stakeholders and sources and relying on strong governance structures and processes that are open and trustworthy. |
The digital government initiatives are undertaken with a fairly agile and innovative approach to project management, although not widespread across the public sector, taking into account some inputs from stakeholders and sources and relying on good governance structures and processes that are open and trustworthy. |
The digital government initiatives are not optimally undertaken with an agile and innovative approach to project management, barely taking into account inputs from a variety of stakeholders and sources and relying on delicate governance structures and processes that are open and trustworthy. |
Policy Questions |
Can this agile approach to project management also include better data and information intelligence from the use of technologies such as big data analytics and machine learning? Is the approach standardised and aligned across the public sector? |
How can this agile approach to project management be improved in terms of forecasting, information exchange and feedback loops, be widespread across the public sector and co-ordinate with a wider group of relevant government stakeholders? |
What are the challenges for the government to undertake more agile and innovative approaches to project management across the public sector, involve more stakeholders and sources and establish more robust governance structures and processes? |
Recommendations |
Appraise how this agile approach to digital government initiatives can be sharpened based on the use of emerging digital technologies and data, involvement from more stakeholders and alignment with other policy areas. |
Consider improving common project management dashboards and systems that include the necessary functions to improve strategic foresight, communication, collaboration and co-ordination. |
Begin with putting in place governance measures and mechanisms that encourage agile and open co-operation, co-ordination and response among relevant project managers. |
Practices |
|
Sub-Dimension 3.2.3 Procurement of ICT/Digital Technologies
Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government |
Sub-Dimension 3.2.3 Procurement of ICT/Digital Technologies supports the development and implementation of agile digital government projects and programmes through ensuring the timely, economical and efficient acquisition and delivery of goods and services, mostly from the private sector. Broadly, public procurement is a key activity of the public sector that involves the process of identifying the need, determining the best supplier and ensuring delivery at the right place, at the right time and for the best price in a fair an open manner (OECD, 2015[74]). In 2019, it accounted for 12.07% of GDP and 29.56% of total government expenditures in the OECD countries. (OECD, 2021[75]) Given the sheer volume of spending it represents, public procurement can play an essential role in fostering public sector efficiency and establishing citizens’ trust. Furthermore, the COVID-19 revealed showed that public procurement was a critical policy instrument through which governments could provide quick, innovative and effective digital responses (OECD, forthcoming[76]). The 11th principle of the Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies (2014) calls for the procurement of digital technologies based on an assessment of “existing assets including digital skills, job profiles, technologies, contracts, inter-agency agreements to increase efficiency, support innovation, and best sustain objectives stated in the overall public sector modernisation agenda. Procurement and contracting rules should be updated, as appropriate, to make them compatible with modern ways of developing and deploying digital technology” (OECD, 2014[2]). The public procurement cycle takes place in a sequence of needs assessment, market research, tender process, payment and contract management with the delivery of the necessary goods and services based on policy objectives (OECD, 2015[74]). Procurement activities are subject to monitoring and auditing, and should avoid vendor lock-in. As new considerations emerge for selecting ICT/digital technology providers, OECD member countries have started to experiment with more innovative and flexible use of their existing public procurement frameworks to purchase ICT/digital goods and services whilst paying more attention to the centralisation and professionalisation of government ICT/digital functions, including purchases (OECD, forthcoming[76]). In the context of the procurement of ICT/digital technologies, it is also essential to promote the use of new schemes of public procurement for innovation such as innovation partnerships in order to seek innovative solutions that responds better to specific needs and that might not be available in the market (OECD, 2017[77]). Agile approach to procurement practices should engage the market and suppliers earlier on, include user-driven considerations and feedback loops (e.g preliminary market consultation), and involve the relevant stakeholders in the process (e.g. public servants from legal, commercial and service delivery) (OECD, forthcoming[76]). They should also promote the use of Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT) criteria in public procurement procedures to award contracts not only based on the price but also on the quality and to avoid the use of extremely detailed technical descriptions, which is essential in the context of ICT procurement. Governments that have a robust procurement strategy as such, are more agile in managing ICT/digital investments based on policy objectives and towards achieving holistic economic and societal development outcomes. Good public procurement practices should improve the efficiency and effectiveness of channelling finances and resources to the necessary policy objectives such as digitalisation, green growth, the development and participation of small and medium enterprises, promotion of competition and responsible business conduct, to name a few. |
||
Stages of Governance |
Advanced |
Intermediate |
Basic |
Characteristics |
The procurement processes of ICT/digital technologies are well supported by fair procurement laws and new techniques that enable agility and iterative distribution. There is strong accountability, transparency and effectiveness in the management of resources. |
The procurement processes of ICT/digital technologies are limitedly supported by procurement laws and new techniques that enable agility and iterative distribution. There is room for improvement in terms of accountability, transparency and effectiveness in the management of resources. |
The procurement processes of ICT/digital technologies are supported by procurement laws that clearly need to be updated to respond to the digital transformation. There is limited accountability, transparency and effectiveness in the management of resources. |
Policy Questions |
Are the current ICT/digital procurement processes flexible, adaptable and sustainable in the face of fast changing technological developments? How innovative and experimental are the approaches and is public procurement used to stimulate innovation in the public sector? Do the approaches employ data-driven, user-driven and open processes that enable inclusive access on a digital platform with monitoring techniques? |
Is there a central ICT/digital inventory and database for stakeholders to consult openly such that they can undertake joint procurement processes and effectively co-ordinate on the management and use of resources? Are the procurement processes for ICT and digital technologies conducted based on a comprehensive priority and needs assessments? |
Where can the structure for procurement of ICT/digital technologies be improved: legislation, governance frameworks for co-ordination and surveillance, mutual facilities that enable information exchange and resource sharing? Are the processes transparent and ethical across the government and conducted with respect to policy goals? |
Recommendations |
Evaluate the current procurement processes for ICT/digital technologies in terms of being able to incorporate new and emerging technologies and to be used across other sectors and levels of the administration under broader public sector strategies. Be open by default in opening government data on procurement, budgeting and enable easy access by public sector organisations, suppliers and citizens. |
Strengthen the deployment of a central and comprehensive ICT/digital inventory that encompasses property, era, lifespan, a catalogue of public services and a database of contracts and interagency arrangements. Include also business cases and delivery. |
Establish appropriate governance frameworks and a coherent and versatile strategy for (joint) procurement and deployment that can adequately meet the objectives of the digital government initiatives, e.g. research, policy design, business cases. Prioritise including interactions with users. |
Practices |
|
Dimension 3.3 Financial Management Mechanisms
Dimension 3.3 Financial Management Mechanisms contains another set of policy instruments that addresses the management and implementation of the investment plan. They provide the means for which the projects and programmes under the digital government strategy and action plan can be achieved.
Sub-Dimension 3.3.1 Budgeting/Budget Threshold refers to a financial plan that would enable the fruition of a project or programme. Sub-Dimension 3.3.2 Co-Funding refers to a funding agreement for the financing of a project or programme.
Sub-Dimension 3.3.1 Budgeting/Budget Threshold
Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government |
Sub-Dimension 3.3.1 Budgeting/Budget Threshold refers to financial tools that governments have in place to plan and operationalise ICT/digital investments. A budget is “a comprehensive statement of government financial plans which include expenditures, revenues, deficit or surplus and financing. The budget is the government’s main economic policy document, demonstrating how the government plans to use public resources to meet policy goals” (OECD, 2018[82]). A budget threshold is a management tool to streamline internal procedures, for example setting fast-track procedures for implementing investments under a certain limit for ICT/digital investments, boosting agility in the implementation of the digital government strategy. The budgeting should be clear, transparent and supportive of the priorities of digital government initiatives through channelling the necessary resources and finances for each project and programme. |
||
Stages of Governance |
Advanced |
Intermediate |
Basic |
Characteristics |
The budget and budget thresholds are used effectively by the government to channel the necessary finances and resources to achieve an efficient implementation of priority digital government projects and programmes with the achievement of outcomes. |
The budget and budget thresholds are used fairly effectively by the government to channel the necessary finances and resources to achieve an efficient implementation of important digital government projects and programmes with the achievement of outcomes. |
The budget is used less than effectively by the government to channel the necessary finances and resources to achieve a marginally efficient implementation of unfocused digital government projects and programmes with some achievement of outcomes. ICT/digital budget thresholds are inexistent. |
Policy Questions |
Can the government improve flexibility and transparency in budgetary practices and incorporate sustainability into budgetary considerations for digital government projects and programmes? |
What is needed to strengthen the use of budget and budgetary thresholds for digital government initiatives: stronger collaboration with the budgeting department; more robust digital and ICT investment laws? How can digital and data needs of the public sector be considered in a coherent and sustainable manner in the definition of the national/federal budget? |
What is lacking in order to put in place a proper budgetary process for digital government projects and programmes: leadership, expertise, governance frameworks, resources and supporting legislations? |
Recommendations |
Consider adopting technologies, data-driven decision-making and sustainability considerations in the budgetary practices to improve flexibility and sustainability in the allocation of finances and resources. |
Refine the budgeting model and process for ICT/digital, aligning investments plans with relevant budgeting authorities helping develop stronger governance frameworks for ICT/digital investment. |
Focus first on putting in place a clear digital government agenda with specific projects that have action and investment plans – after which it will be easier to have an oversight on the finances and resources needed to effectively develop budgets and define a budget threshold mechanism. |
Practices |
|
Sub-Dimension 3.3.2 Co-Funding
Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government |
Sub-Dimension 3.3.2 Co-Funding refers to the underlying processes of financing projects and programmes by involving two or more entities (including local or national governments, external donors, development banks and international funds) to share a formal arrangement and agreement in the funding. The process for financing digital government initiatives should involve the leading public sector organisation on the digital government agenda to participate and/or have oversight over the financing and investing of the initiatives. The financing should have flexible, standardised guidelines for which budgetary approval and co-funding agreements are made. |
||
Stages of Governance |
Advanced |
Intermediate |
Basic |
Characteristics |
The co-funding of digital government initiatives is well apportioned among two or more entities, including the public sector organisation leading the digital government policy, effectively detailing the sharing of responsibilities and involving and empowering the appropriate stakeholders from the public, private or civil society sectors. |
The co-funding of digital government initiatives is apportioned among two or more entities, with the oversight of the public sector organisation leading the digital government policy, quite effectively detailing the sharing of responsibilities and involving and empowering the appropriate stakeholders from the public, private or civil society sectors. |
The co-funding of digital government initiatives is inexistent or non-co-ordinated, not foreseeing any specific role of the public sector organisation leading the digital government policy. |
Policy Questions |
How can the co-funding mechanisms be better designed to ensure that the management and financing responsibilities are fairly shared based on good relations among the relevant stakeholders such that the projects and programmes are sustainable? |
Is there a good set of guidelines for the funding processes from design to involvement of other stakeholders in co-funding and approval by lead public sector organisations? Are the principles of transparency and accountability incorporated in the funding processes? |
What is the lead public sector organisation that takes charge of the funding processes? How extensive is its powers and duties in involving various stakeholders to participate in the process? Is there a proper set of guidelines for the funding processes? What could be the role of the public sector organisation leading the digital government policy |
Recommendations |
Focus on strengthening relations with stakeholders and developing a culture of sharing responsibilities, empowering and encouraging innovating for digital government initiatives towards the long-term sustainability of digitalisation. |
Involve the relevant stakeholders openly in the funding processes. Ensure that there is transparency of data and information in order to instil financial and management accountability and that the initiatives are financially optimised. |
Appoint a lead public sector organisation to oversee the funding process of initiatives, deeply considering the attribution of this role to the public sector organisation leading the digital government policy, and ensure close alignment and co-ordination with the strategy, action and investment plans through governance measures and mechanisms. |
Practices |
|
Dimension 3.4 Regulation and Standards
Dimension 3.4 Regulations and Standards covers regulatory frameworks, standards, principles, guidelines and regulatory co-operation as a crucial set of policy instruments that serve as the backbone of the policies, measures, governance arrangements and mechanisms for digital government that were presented in the other dimensions and sub-dimensions. They establish the binding and non-binding rules that guide the planning, implementation and monitoring of digital government strategies, enabling changes in behaviour and processes in order to fulfil policy objectives.
Sub-Dimension 3.4.1 Regulatory Frameworks specifies the system taken to establish binding regulations around the enablers that support digitalisation. Sub-Dimension 3.4.2 Standards, Principles and Guidelines specifies the non-binding normative standards that guide the system-wide operationalisation of the digital government strategy. Sub-Dimension 3.4.3 Regulatory Co-operation with Industry Players specifies a method of creating, managing and implementing the regulations among two or more entities between the private and the private sector.
Sub-Dimension 3.4.1 Regulatory Frameworks
Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government |
Sub-Dimension 3.4.1 Regulatory Frameworks refers to a diverse set of policy instruments by which governments set requirements on citizens and businesses, which include all laws, formal and informal orders, subordinate rules, administrative formalities and rules issued by bodies with regulatory powers (OECD, 2018[83]). In the context of digital government, regulatory frameworks provide a crucial foundation for promoting and enabling the digital transformation of the public sector. The 12th principle of the Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies (2014) calls for “general and sector-specific legal and regulatory frameworks [that] allow digital opportunities to be seized by reviewing them as appropriate; and including assessment of the implications of new legislations on governments’ digital needs as part of the regulatory impact assessment process” (OECD, 2014[2]). Some regulatory practices fit for the digital age include broad public and stakeholder engagement; consideration of the international innovation ecosystem; stronger co-ordination and collaboration across policy making and regulatory units in the government; collaboration with external stakeholders on research, monitoring and advice; regulatory sandboxes under supervision and observation; and a “wait-and-see” approach with continuous assessments and reviews (OECD, 2019[84]). Regulatory frameworks provide the grounds and boundaries for experimentation and adoption of digital technologies and data. They express the government’s leadership, commitment and willingness to seize the potential of digital technologies and data to improve socio-economic conditions for its citizens and businesses. Creating a regulatory environment that supports innovation and the use of digital tools in line with human-centred principles is, therefore, key for attaining digital maturity. The domains for digital and data legislation and regulation can be classified into three broad categories: (i) digital rights of citizens and businesses (e.g. once-only, access to public sector information and base registries, transparent and ethical use of data, privacy and personal data protection, cyber security); (ii) digital enablers and infrastructure (e.g. digital documents, digital signatures, digital identification, interoperability, ICT/digital procurement) (OECD, 2019[13]); and (iii) digital principles including the six dimensions of the OECD Digital Government Policy Framework (i.e. digital by design, data-driven, government as a platform, open by default, user-driven, proactiveness) (OECD, 2020[12]). Finally, the pace of innovation raises a need for governments to develop more agile approaches to regulatory governance. In this context, digital governments can also help to capitalise on technological solutions to improve the quality of evidence and enhance regulatory delivery. Through the draft Recommendation of the Council for Agile Regulatory Governance to Harness Innovation, the OECD provides principles to help governments develop agile approaches in regulatory policy and governance to realise the benefits of innovation (beyond the public sector) while addressing its risks. These principles include adjusting regulatory management tools to be fit for the future, laying institutional foundations to enable co-operation and joined-up approaches within and across jurisdictions, developing governance frameworks to enable the development of agile and future-proof regulation, and adapting regulatory enforcement strategies and activities to promote compliance, help innovators navigate the regulatory environment and uphold public protection including across jurisdictions (OECD, 2021[85]). For further details on harnessing innovation through agile regulatory governance (beyond the scope of digital government), see the draft Recommendation of the Council for Agile Regulatory Governance to Harness Innovation (OECD, 2021[85]) as well as the accompanying Practical Guidance on Agile Regulatory Governance to Harness Innovation (OECD, 2021[86]). |
||
Stages of Governance |
Advanced |
Intermediate |
Basic |
Characteristics |
The regulatory frameworks are updated and comprehensive in covering all digital government and data domains, involving relevant stakeholders among the regulators and regulated such that the public benefits are maximised equitably. Regulatory and policy officials actively ensure that regulations are up to date and assessed in terms of impact on digital government needs. |
The regulatory frameworks are quite comprehensive in covering most of digital government areas and initiatives, involving relevant stakeholders among the regulators and regulated such that the public benefits are maximised equitably. Updates and impact assessments on digital government needs are conducted occasionally in specific areas. |
The regulatory frameworks are less than comprehensive in covering all digital government areas and initiatives, involving relevant stakeholders among the regulators and regulated such that the public benefits are maximised equitably. The lack of updates in critical areas and impact assessments on digital government needs is blocking further digital government development in the country. |
Policy Questions |
Are the regulatory frameworks for supporting digital government resilient, flexible and adaptable to contextual changes and the evolving complexities of new technological developments? Are there arrangements and mechanisms among regulatory authorities on the monitoring and compliance of the regulatory frameworks for supporting digital government? |
Is there sufficient regulatory coherence and co-ordination among different sectors and across different levels of government on cross-cutting digital government regulatory issues, such that there is minimal duplication or conflict of regulations? How to accelerate the required update in specific areas? |
How can the regulatory frameworks be further integrated into the digital government strategy? What is blocking the update and review of some key regulatory frameworks? How should the regulatory management capacity and performance at various sectors and levels of government be improved? |
Recommendations |
Incorporate a continuous and consistent policy cycle and process in the regulatory frameworks for supporting digital government, from identifying policy objectives to design and evaluation, such that there is clarity, agility, transparency and responsiveness in identifying and seizing digitalisation opportunities. Put in place independent bodies and impact assessment tools to monitor and ensure compliance of the laws and regulations. |
Strengthen the regulatory frameworks in line with the objectives of digital government policies and initiatives through co-ordinated ex ante impact assessment and ex post evaluation across the government (OECD, 2012[87]). Build on the involvement of different stakeholders to secure political and administrative support for the regulatory framework updates. |
Ensure that the regulatory frameworks for supporting digital government are consulted by a wide variety of digital government stakeholders, secures the necessary political support and covers existing initiatives by ensuring the costs of regulation do not compromise the objectives of digital government policies and initiatives. |
Practices |
|
Sub-Dimension 3.4.2 Standards, Principles and Guidelines
Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government |
Sub-Dimension 3.4.2 Standards, Principles and Guidelines focuses on the normative non-binding frameworks that provide common guidance on implementation approaches to the adoption of digital technologies and data in the public sector and support digital government. In other words, they are soft mechanisms such as voluntary standards, codes and principles of practice and guidelines to navigate the regulatory landscape. Digital government and data standards, principles and guidelines can cover a wide range of legal and regulatory domains (presented in Sub-Dimension 3.4.1 Regulatory Frameworks) where establishing shared rules, models and criteria is critical for a coherent transformation. They offer greater flexibility in the implementation process, which is needed for a regulatory environment that is conducive for innovation. They also ensure that there is a fair and level playing field for all stakeholders in the ecosystem (OECD, 2021[85]). |
||
Stages of Governance |
Advanced |
Intermediate |
Basic |
Characteristics |
The standards, principles and guidelines are comprehensive and complementary to the underlying regulatory frameworks, and are underpinned by the relevant liability laws and provisions. Regulatory and policy officers work with agility and flexibility in designing these standards, principles and guidelines in tune with the development of the digital government agenda, technological developments and innovations. |
The standards, principles and guidelines are quite comprehensive and complementary to the underlying regulatory frameworks, and are underpinned by the relevant liability laws and provisions. Regulatory and policy officers work with some agility and flexibility in designing these standards, principles and guidelines in tune with the development of the digital government agenda, technological developments and innovations. |
The standards, principles and guidelines are not comprehensive and complementary to the underlying regulatory frameworks, and are not underpinned by the relevant liability laws and provisions. Regulatory and policy officers work with little agility and flexibility in designing these standards, principles and guidelines in tune with the development of the digital government agenda, technological developments and innovations. |
Policy Questions |
Does the government ensure that the standards, principles and guidelines respond to the needs and interests of stakeholders in the public sector and the broader digital government ecosystem? Does the government engage extensively with public and private sector players that are driving innovation and promoting open standards to support the development of digital government? |
Is the government able to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the standards, principles and guidelines with the target stakeholders? Do the standards, principles and guidelines contribute to the overall collection of shared tools and resources in the digital government ecosystem for the government to operate well as a platform? |
Is the reason for regulatory uncertainty and lack of innovation and collaboration due to insufficient standards, principles and guidelines or insufficient engagement with stakeholders in the digital government ecosystem? How can regulatory and policy officers better engage in the design of standards, principles and guidelines? |
Recommendations |
Establish open and regular standard, principle and guideline development processes with the digital government ecosystem to foster exchange on regulatory needs, gaps and collaboration on innovation. Promote the creation and sharing of open standards. Conduct regular reviews on these standards, principles and guidelines openly and inclusively with the ecosystem to adapt to recent technological advancements. |
Ensure that the design and publication process of the standards, principles and guidelines for digital government is well communicated to and understood by the stakeholders. Embed data and feedback collection processes in the design and publication process such that regulatory and policy officers are able to collect the necessary information for monitoring and evaluation. |
Develop guidance on the current regulatory landscape through standards, principles and guidelines to support regulatory compliance. Create an attractive incentive system to foster adoption of standards, principles and guidelines. |
Practices |
|
Sub-Dimension 3.4.3 Regulatory Co-operation with Industry Players
Importance and Implications of the Governance of Digital Government |
Sub-Dimension 3.4.3 Regulatory Co-operation with Industry Players is a collaborative arrangement between the government and an entity from the industry in forming regulations and enforcing compliance. The government offers legislative support to allow the agreement to be implemented and followed through. It reduces the use of government resources, allows public participation, encourage higher accountability from the regulated and enable adaptability to contextual factors that call for updates in the regulatory framework. The private sector is a key partner of the government in the implementation of digital government strategies and the uptake of digital tools like digital identity and standards. To build a strong digital government ecosystem, it is good to establish policy dialogue and collaboration with private sector organisations like chambers of commerce. To facilitate this collaboration, the private sector should also be able to understand and embed regulatory practices in their operations and services. Regulatory co-operation offers a way for governments to increase the legitimacy and adoption of regulatory frameworks, and mobilise, align with and foster compliance within the digital government ecosystem. It also ensures that the digital government related regulatory frameworks reflect the reality and context of private sector. |
||
Stages of Governance |
Advanced |
Intermediate |
Basic |
Characteristics |
Regulatory co-operation is conducted in a way where the regulator and regulated have a strong, dynamic, responsive relationship and information is exchanged efficiently such that the regulations supporting the digital government agenda can be updated often according to the needs and context of the private sector. |
Regulatory co-operation in specific areas is conducted in a way where the regulator and regulated have a fairly dynamic, responsive relationship and information is exchanged quite efficiently such that the regulations supporting the digital government agenda are able to be updated occasionally according to the needs and context of the private sector. |
The lack of a regulatory co-operation institutional culture determines that the regulator and regulated have a limited relationship and information is exchanged often such that the regulations supporting the digital government agenda are able to be updated once in a while according to the needs and context of the private sector but still facing much resistance |
Policy Questions |
How can the collaborative regulation approach be conducted in order to increase awareness, participation and accountability from private sector stakeholders inclusively and improve feedback loops for the regulations supporting the digital government agenda to be improved? |
In what way can the regulator improve its practice to deepen the engagement with the regulated in the private sector towards innovating flexible and adaptable regulations: crowdsourcing approaches, public consultations, institutionalising open government data? |
What is lacking in order to build a collaborative regulation institutional culture that can achieve better efficiency and effectiveness: regulatory framework, understanding the needs and context of digital government, relationship with the regulated? |
Recommendations |
Consider adopting delegated and self-regulatory practices by involving having the regulated take a bigger role in the creation and implementation of the regulations supporting the digital government agenda. Enhance strategic foresight and agility through smart analytical practices. |
Endeavour to involve the regulated and other relevant regulatory stakeholders early in the start of the creation, followed by management and implementation of the regulation in support of promoting changes and delivering value in the digital government agenda? |
Evaluate the legal environment and institutions to support the mandate and engagement of the lead digital government regulators to design regulations based on the needs of the regulated and context. |
Practices |
|