1. E-government targets Oxford Executive Government Group Workshop Series, Hilary term 2005 Helen Margetts Oxford Internet Institute

2. Targets for e-government E-government – using information technology and the Internet for government-citizen, government-business and government- government interactions E-government – using information technology and the Internet for government-citizen, government-business and government- government interactions Most governments have set some kind of target for the achievement of e-government – but great variation in definition, level Most governments have set some kind of target for the achievement of e-government – but great variation in definition, level In UK, target set at 100 per cent availability for all electronic services by 2005 (brought forward from 2008) In UK, target set at 100 per cent availability for all electronic services by 2005 (brought forward from 2008)

3. Directing, detecting, effecting Commitment from the top: Blair’s speech to party conference 1997 onwards Commitment from the top: Blair’s speech to party conference 1997 onwards Responsibility: given to Office of e-Envoy in Cabinet Office, now the eGovernment Unit Responsibility: given to Office of e-Envoy in Cabinet Office, now the eGovernment Unit Control: built into department’s PSAs with Treasury and OeE’s limited financial control (all local government built into DTLR’s PSA, with distribution of £350 million to LAs) – but key instrument was “policy, politics and rhetoric” Control: built into department’s PSAs with Treasury and OeE’s limited financial control (all local government built into DTLR’s PSA, with distribution of £350 million to LAs) – but key instrument was “policy, politics and rhetoric” Measurement systems: devised by Office of e-Envoy to September 2004, now eGovernment Unit eg. reviewing e-business strategies, asking departments to identify interactions with citizens which are ‘capable of being completed electronically’ Measurement systems: devised by Office of e-Envoy to September 2004, now eGovernment Unit eg. reviewing e-business strategies, asking departments to identify interactions with citizens which are ‘capable of being completed electronically’

4. Part (what you measure) stands for the whole (what you want to measure) E-government is mechanism – not desired social outcome (eg. Citizen satisfaction – in Canada target for e-government was 10% increase in citizen satisfaction) E-government is mechanism – not desired social outcome (eg. Citizen satisfaction – in Canada target for e-government was 10% increase in citizen satisfaction) What is electronic? (In UK, up to 1999, included fax as ‘electronic’) What is electronic? (In UK, up to 1999, included fax as ‘electronic’) What is government? (Do you include local government, quasi-governmental organisations) What is government? (Do you include local government, quasi-governmental organisations) Availability …. Do all services count the same (eg. OeE gave same ‘weight’ to different transaction volumes) Availability …. Do all services count the same (eg. OeE gave same ‘weight’ to different transaction volumes) Take-up – why not base target on take-up (an e- government that no-one uses is not e-government)? Take-up – why not base target on take-up (an e- government that no-one uses is not e-government)? Precision: In NZ, target is ‘to make the internet the “dominant means” of enabling ready access to Government by 2004’ Precision: In NZ, target is ‘to make the internet the “dominant means” of enabling ready access to Government by 2004’

5. Distribution of quality – where do you put the target E-government targets range from 25% (Netherlands) to 100 % (most countries including UK) E-government targets range from 25% (Netherlands) to 100 % (most countries including UK) If you use 100%, what happens after target date? If you use 100%, what happens after target date? Do you measure process? Targets range from outcome measures eg Canada to process measures eg. US – for 2005, “To have 75% of agencies with acceptable business cases for all of their IT systems”, or “to have at least 50% of agencies managing their IT portfolio in accordance with standard” (OMB, 2004, Expanding E- Government: Partnering for a Results-Oriented Government) Do you measure process? Targets range from outcome measures eg Canada to process measures eg. US – for 2005, “To have 75% of agencies with acceptable business cases for all of their IT systems”, or “to have at least 50% of agencies managing their IT portfolio in accordance with standard” (OMB, 2004, Expanding E- Government: Partnering for a Results-Oriented Government) Allowing targets to stagnate – in Canada, ‘targets for e- government are constantly changing’ Allowing targets to stagnate – in Canada, ‘targets for e- government are constantly changing’

6. Knights into Knaves: avoiding detectors and effectors Implementing e-services as temporary measure for target date – quick-fix solutions Implementing e-services as temporary measure for target date – quick-fix solutions Progress slows down as target date approaches (3% improvement, 6/2003- 1/2004) Progress slows down as target date approaches (3% improvement, 6/2003- 1/2004) Agencies only ‘confess’ close to target date - difficult tasks left until last… Agencies only ‘confess’ close to target date - difficult tasks left until last… And most difficult tasks cut across organisational boundaries – so targets can work against joining up eg. Renewing tax discs for cars > 3 yrs old And most difficult tasks cut across organisational boundaries – so targets can work against joining up eg. Renewing tax discs for cars > 3 yrs old

7. Redistribution of Effort: some pathological outcomes Spending money to meet targets – rather than save money or improve quality Spending money to meet targets – rather than save money or improve quality Expenditure ‘bursts’ as target date approaches, to be followed by funding desert (after end of 2005, e-government projects will have to ‘pay their own way’) Expenditure ‘bursts’ as target date approaches, to be followed by funding desert (after end of 2005, e-government projects will have to ‘pay their own way’) Reliance on trust between agencies: periphery (eg. local authorities) either wait for long-term central projects (eg. Identity card) or baulk at using them (eg. Gateway) on key issues (eg. Authentication) Reliance on trust between agencies: periphery (eg. local authorities) either wait for long-term central projects (eg. Identity card) or baulk at using them (eg. Gateway) on key issues (eg. Authentication)

8. Results of e-government targets By end of 2004, targets not met by around one quarter central government, half of local government services (depending on how you measure) By end of 2004, targets not met by around one quarter central government, half of local government services (depending on how you measure) No systematic data on usage of e-government No systematic data on usage of e-government But private sector figures suggest take-up in UK low compared with other advanced democracies But private sector figures suggest take-up in UK low compared with other advanced democracies And UK slipping down international e- government rankings And UK slipping down international e- government rankings But scores well in e-readiness of the economy But scores well in e-readiness of the economy

9. Government online use % total population 200320022001 Netherlands 52 41 31 Canada 51 48 46 Australia 47 46 31 New Zealand 45 40 NA USA 44 43 34 UK 18 13 11 Japan 15 13 17 Source: Taylor Nelson Sofres (2003)

10. Accenture rankings of e-government Accenture rankings of e-government 2004200320022001 Canada 1 1 1 1 USA 2 3 3 3 Australia 3 5 4 5 Great Britain 10 8 6 8 Netherlands 913 11 7 Japan1315 17 17 Source: Accenture (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004)