Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen
ABSTRACT
Australia, Denmark and the Republic of Korea are among the most connected countries in the world, with high-speed infrastructure widely available and with high rates of internet use by businesses and individuals alike. The three countries are also among the front-runners when it comes to the utilisation of Information Communication Technology (ICT) in the public sector and have all showed significant achievements related to the digital transformation of public services production and delivery. Although many factors may account for their successes, what is the role played by their strategic approach to governance and inter-governmental cooperation models? How have governance and multi-stakeholder coordination and cooperation approach influences the success of the digital transformation and boost innovations in each of the three cases?
The initial findings of this paper support academic that the digital transformation of the public sector largely depends on the focus, governance and intergovernmental coordination and cooperation. Specifically in guiding the use of ICT in building an efficient and user-oriented whole-of-government ecosystem for public service production and delivery. The analysis finds that a strong governance model with clear roles and responsibilities of all institutions complement with formal cross-sectoral bodies for decision-making and ensuring inter-governmental coordination and cooperation are essential for successful digital transformation. High levels of inclusiveness on across all levels of government, society and end-user groups is seen as a positive factor in all three countries. As a result, the success rate of the implementation of their respective ICT/Digital/eGovernment strategies is high, resulting with successful development of the ICT infrastructure, roll-out of key enablers, interoperability systems, technical and legal standards that allowed them as global leaders to move towards real user-centric, integrated service production and delivery. However, to verify the findings, this paper also identifies a set of “leap-frogging” countries for further research.
- About the Digital Service Standard: 2019. https://www.dta.gov.au/help-and-advice/about-digital-service-standard. Accessed: 2019-12-20.Google Scholar
- Arendsen, R. 2006. An Empirical Study on Business-to-Government Data Exchange Strategies to Reduce the Administrative Costs for Businesses. Project E-Society: Building Bricks, 6th IFIP Conference on e-Commerce, e-Business and e-Government (I3E 2006). 226, (2006), 311–323. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-39229-5_26.Google Scholar
- Arendsen, R. 2014. Does e-government reduce the administrative burden of businesses? An assessment of business-to-government systems usage in the Netherlands. Government Information Quarterly. 31, 1 (Jan. 2014), 160–169. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.09.002.Google Scholar
- Australian Government 2019. Australian Government response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee report: Digital delivery of government services.Google Scholar
- Baller Silja, Dutta Soumitra, L.B. 2016. The Global Information Technology Report 2016: Innovating in the Digital Economy.Google Scholar
- Bannister Frank, C.R. 2011. Transformation and Public Sector Values. Electronic Government and Electronic Participation: Joint Proceedings of Ongoing Research and Projects of IFIP WG 8.5 EGOV and ePart 2011 (Delft, The Netherlands, 2011), 231–239.Google Scholar
- Brynjolfsson, E. and Hitt, L.M. 2000. Beyond Computation: Information Technology, Organizational Transformation and Business Performance. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 14, 4 (Nov. 2000), 23–48. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.4.23.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chandler, S., and Emanuels, S. 2002. Transformation not automation. Proceedings of 2nd European Conference on e-Government (Oxford, UK, 2002), 91–102.Google Scholar
- Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P. 2007. The Whole-of-Government Approach to Public Sector Reform. Public Administration Review. 67, 6 (Nov. 2007), 1059–1066. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00797.x.Google Scholar
- Cordella, A. and Bonina, C.M. 2012. A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection. Government Information Quarterly. 29, 4 (Oct. 2012), 512–520. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.03.004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- CPI - Corruption Perception Index: 2019. http://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/overview.Accessed: 2019-12-20.Google Scholar
- Cullen Rowena 2010. Defining the Transformation of Government. Advances of Management Information Systems. 17 (2010), 52.Google Scholar
- Det digitale scorecard: 2017. http://www.scorecard.digst.dk/. Accessed: 2019-12-20.Google Scholar
- Digital Transformation Agency: About us: https://www.dta.gov.au/about-us. Accessed: 2019-12-20.Google Scholar
- Digital Transformation Strategy: 2018. https://www.dta.gov.au/digital-transformation-strategy. Accessed: 2019-12-20.Google Scholar
- DIGST - Digitaliseringsstyrelsen 2011. The digital path to future welfare: Joint National eGovernment Strategy 2011-2015.Google Scholar
- Ease of Doing Business rankings: 2019. https://www.doingbusiness.org/en/rankings. Accessed: 2019-12-20.Google Scholar
- European Commission - DG for Communications Networks, C. and T. 2012. Public Services Online - ‘Digital by Default or by Detour?’ - Assessing User Centric eGovernment performance in Europe – eGovernment Benchmark 2012.Google Scholar
- Farias, P. 2016. Governments that Serve: Innovations that Improve Service Delivery to Citizens. (2016).Google Scholar
- Governance: 2019. https://digst.dk/strategier/digitaliseringsstrategien/governance/. Accessed: 2019-12-20.Google Scholar
- Government of the Republic of Korea 2001. Electronic Government Act.Google Scholar
- Hilding-Hamann, Knud Erik; Meyerhoff Nielsen, Morten; Pedersen, K. 2008. Supporting Digital Literacy: Public Policies and Stakeholder Initiatives (Topic Report 1).Google Scholar
- ICT Development Index (IDI): 2017. https://www.itu.int/net4/ITU-D/idi/2017/index.html. Accessed: 2019-12-20.Google Scholar
- ITU - International Telecommunication Union 2016. Measuring the Information Society Report 2016.Google Scholar
- Karippacheril, T.G. eds. 2016. Bringing Government into the 21st Century: The Korean Digital Governance Experience. The World Bank.Google Scholar
- Korea - Local Government: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/government-local.htm. Accessed: 2019-12-20.Google Scholar
- Krimmer, R. 2012. The Evolution of E-voting: Why Voting Technology is Used and How it Affects Democracy.Google Scholar
- Leitner, C. 2003. eGovernment in Europe: The State of Affairs. Eipascope. (2003).Google Scholar
- Lopes, N.V. 2017. Research gaps on public service delivery. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series (2017).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Martins, Joao; Meyerhoff Nielsen, Morten; Soares, Delfina; Soares Barbosa, L. 2019. A Longitude Analysis of the UNDESA E-Government Surveys. New York, Guimaraes: UNDESA, UNU-EGOV, pp. 1-26.Google Scholar
- Meyerhoff Nielsen, M. 2017. Governance Failure in Light of Government 3.0: Foundations for Building Next Generation eGovernment Maturity Models. 63–109.Google Scholar
- Meyerhoff Nielsen, M. 2019. Governance lessons from Denmark's digital transformation. 20th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research on - dg.o 2019 (New York, New York, USA, 2019), 456–461.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Meyerhoff Nielsen, M. and Krimmer, R. 2015. Reuse of Data for Personal and Proactive Service: An Opportunity Not Yet Utilised. CeDEM 15 Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government 20-22 May 2015 Danube-University Krems, Austria (Krems an der Donau, 2015), 273–282.Google Scholar
- Meyerhoff Nielsen, M. and Yasouka, M. 2014. An analysis of the Danish approach to eGovernment benefit realisation. Internet Technologies and Society 2014 Conference Proceedings. (2014), 47–58.Google Scholar
- Millard, J. 2010. Government 1.5: Is the bottle half full or half empty. European Journal of ePractice. 9, 1 (2010), 35–50.Google Scholar
- Ministry of Interior and Safety; National Information Society Agency (NIA). 2016. Korea e-Government Master Plan 2020.Google Scholar
- NIA - National Information Society Agency 2018. National Informatization White Paper.Google Scholar
- Nielsen, M.M. 2017. Administrative Burden Reduction Over Time. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance - ICEGOV ’17 (New York, New York, USA, 2017), 140–148.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nielsen, M.M. 2018. Empirical analysis of the current digital divides since 2010. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series (2018).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nielsen, M.M. 2016. Governance and Online Service Delivery: The Danish Case. Electronic Government and Electronic Participation: Joint Proceedings of Ongoing Research and Projects of IFIP WG 8.5 EGOV and ePart 2016.Google Scholar
- OECD - Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 2014. Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies 15 July 2014 - C(2014)88.Google Scholar
- Osborne, S.P. 2018. From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: are public service organizations capable of co-production and value co-creation? Public Management Review. 20, 2 (Feb. 2018), 225–231. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1350461.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ozols, G. and Meyerhoff Nielsen, M. 2018. Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery: Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom.Google Scholar
- Panagiotopoulos, P. 2019. Public value creation in digital government. Government Information Quarterly. 36, 4 (Oct. 2019). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101421.Google Scholar
- Rohlfing, I. 2012. Case Studies and Causal Inference: An Integrative Framework. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Roseth, B. 2018. Wait No More: Citizens, Red Tape, and Digital Government. Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
- Savoldelli, A. 2014. Understanding the e-government paradox: Learning from literature and practice on barriers to adoption. Government Information Quarterly. 31, (Jun. 2014), S63–S71. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.008.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Scholl, H.J. 2005. Organizational transformation through e-government: myth or reality? Electronic government. Springer. 1–11.Google Scholar
- The World Factbook: 2019. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/. Accessed: 2019-12-20.Google Scholar
- UN E-Government Surveys: 2019. https://publicadministration.un.org/en/research/un-e-government-surveys. Accessed: 2019-12-20.Google Scholar
- UNDESA - United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2012. E-Government Survey 2012: E-Government for the people.Google Scholar
- UNDESA - United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2018. E-Government Survey 2018.Google Scholar
- Vision 2025 - Digital Transformation Strategy: 2018. https://www.dta.gov.au/digital-transformation-strategy/digital-transformation-strategy-2018-2025. Accessed: 2019-12-20.Google Scholar
- Yin, R.K. 2013. Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications.Google Scholar
Recommendations
Digital Transformation, Governance, and Coordination in Times of Crisis: An Analysis of Australia, Denmark, and the Republic of Korea
Australia, Denmark, and the Republic of Korea are front-runners in the public sector use of Information Communication Technology (ICT) globally, resulting in a high degree of digitisation of public services production and delivery. While a multitude of ...
Exploring digital government transformation: a literature review
ICEGOV '20: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic GovernanceThis paper presents findings of the literature review on the recent developments of digital government transformation. It aims to inform the current debate about the dynamics and potential impacts of such transformation. The review covers the literature ...
Governance lessons from Denmark's digital transformation
dg.o 2019: Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on Digital Government ResearchDenmark has consistently ranked in the global top when the digital transformation of the public sector is evaluated, but what are the lessons we can draw from the Danish approach to technology? This paper focus on three key enablers of Danish approach, ...
Comments