Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen
ABSTRACT
Denmark 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, that is governance, intergovernmental cooperation and benefit realisation. The analysis finds a number of unique and rarely seen features. A strong mandate for coordination, cross- and joint-governmental approach, consultative and consensus culture for strategy formulation and implementation across all levels of government is one uniqueness which helps align objectives and create a sense of joint ownership. While not uniquely Danish, strategy cycles are interlinked with ex ante, ex post evaluations and weaknesses identified for solution. eGovernment strategies are supported by strategic initiatives, which in turn are linked to a mandatory IT-project and business case model which help minimise the risk of failure but also facilitate active benefit realisation at both project and strategy levels. Potential weaknesses are a perceived in-transparency of the consultation process by local authorities and informally consulting with the private sector and academia. Elements addressing change management and innovation in the IT-project model could potentially be strengthened.
- Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development, “FINAL WSIS TARGETS REVIEW,” 2013.Google Scholar
- M. Meyerhoff Nielsen, “The Potential and Evidence of ICT-Based Cost and Burden Reduction in Public Administration and Public Service Delivery – Workshop Report,” WSIS - World Summit on the Information Society, Geneva, 2016.Google Scholar
- T. G. Assembly, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development - draft,” 2015.Google Scholar
- UNDESA - United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, “E-Government Survey 2016: E-Government in Support of Sustainable Development,” United Nations, New York, 2016.Google Scholar
- ISSA - International Social Security Association, “Ten global challenges for social security,” Geneva, 2016.Google Scholar
- UNDESA - United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, “E-Government Readiness Survey Database,” 2018. {Online}. Available: https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Data-Center. {Accessed: 16-Nov-2018}.Google Scholar
- European Commission, “DESI - Digital Economy and Society Index,” DESI - Digital Economy and Society Index, 2018. .Google Scholar
- T. Obi, “WASEDA - IAC International e-Government Index,” Tokyo, 2017.Google Scholar
- M. Meyerhoff Nielsen, “eGovernance and cooperation models for online service supply and citizen use: A comparative analysis of Denmark and Japan,” JeDEM - J. eDemocracy Open Gov. CeDEM Issue Best Pap. from CeDEM Asia 16 CeDEM17 Conf., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 68–107, 2017.Google Scholar
- M. Meyerhoff Nielsen, “Governance and Online Service Delivery: The Danish Case,” in 15th IFIP Electronic Government (EGOV) and 8th Electronic Participation (ePart) Conference 2016, 2016, vol. Joint Proc, pp. 180–190.Google Scholar
- DIGST - Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, “Et stærkere og mere trygt digitalt samfund: Den fællesoffentlige digitaliseringsstrategi 2016-2020.” DIGST - Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
- DIGST - Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, “The digital path to future welfare: Joint national eGovernment strategy 2011-2015.” DIGST -Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, Copenhagen, 2011.Google Scholar
- DIGST - Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, “Governance.” DIGST - Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
- M. Meyerhoff Nielsen, “Danish eGovernment Success Factors: Strategies and Good Practice Examples,” Glob. Strategy. Pract. E-Governance Examples from Around World Examples from Around World, p. 231, 2011.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Ubaldi, C. Tyler, and T. Staub, “Denmark: Efficient e-Government for Smart Service Delivery,” Paris, 2010.Google Scholar
- M. Meyerhoff Nielsen and M. Yasouka, “An analysis of the Danish approach to eGovernment benefit realisation,” Internet Technol. Soc. 2014 Conf. Proc., pp. 47–58, 2014.Google Scholar
- N. Igari, “How to successfully promote ICT usage: A comparative analysis of Denmark and Japan,” Telemat. Informatics, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 115–125, 2014. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Meyerhoff Nielsen and N. Igari, “Speaking Danish in Japan,” CeDEM 12 Conf. E-Democracy Open Gov. 3-4 May 2012 Danube-University Krems, Austria, p. 137, 2012.Google Scholar
- B. M. Bloch, and S. Blumberg, “Delivering large-scale IT projects on time, on budget, and on value,” Digital McKinsey, Oxford, Oct-2012.Google Scholar
- Finansministeriet, Professionalisering af arbejdet med it-projekter i staten - Afrapportering fra arbejdsgruppen. Copenhagen: Finansministeriet, 2010.Google Scholar
- DIGST - Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, “Statens it-projektmodel,” 2018. {Online}. Available: https://digst.dk/styring/projektstyring/statens-it-projektmodel/. {Accessed: 16-Nov-2018}.Google Scholar
- DIGST - Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, “Vejledning til den fællesstatslige it-projektmodel,” Copenhagen, 2016.Google Scholar
- DIGST - Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, “Lovkrav til it-projekter i staten,” 2018. {Online}. Available: https://digst.dk/styring/projektstyring/statens-it-projektmodel/lovkrav/. {Accessed: 16-Nov-2018}.Google Scholar
- DIGST - Digitaliseringsstyrlesen, “Statens programmodel,” 2018. {Online}. Available: https://digst.dk/styring/projektstyring/statens-programmodel/. {Accessed: 16-Nov-2018}.Google Scholar
- J. Kildebogaard, “Her er statens problemer med it-projekter – og succeserne,” Version2, Copenhagen, p. 4, 29-Jul-2014.Google Scholar
- DIGST - Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, “Statens It-råd,” 2018.Google Scholar
- DTMC - Dubai The Model Centre, “Dubai Model for Government Services,” Dubai, 2012.Google Scholar
- R. Heeks, “Understanding and measuring eGovernment: international benchmarking studies,” UNDESA Work. E-Government Underst. Present Creat. Future. Budapest, Hungary, pp. 27–28, 2006.Google Scholar
- DIGST - Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, “Det digitale scorecard,” vol. 2016. DIGST - Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, Copenhagen, 2017.Google Scholar
- DIGST - Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, “Afrapportering af initiative 1.5: Velfungerende selvbetjeningsløsninger.” Copenhagen, Copenhagen, 2013.Google Scholar
- M. M. Nielsen, N. R. Carvalho, L. G. Veiga, and L. S. Barbosa, “Administrative Burden Reduction Over Time: Literature Review, Trends and Gap Analysis,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, 2017, pp. 140–148. Google ScholarDigital Library
- International Working Group on Administrative Burdens, “The Standard Cost Model: A Framework for Defining and Quantifying Administrative Burdens for Businesses,” 2004.Google Scholar
- C.Y. Baldwin and C.J. Woodard “The Architecture of Platforms: A Unified View” in Platforms, Markets and Innovation, pp. 19-44. 2009.Google Scholar
- B. Klievink, N. Bharosa, Y. Tan, “The collaborative realization of public values and business goals: Governance and infrastructure of public–private information platforms” in Government Information Quarterly, vol. 33. Pp. 67–79, 2016.Google Scholar
- JoinUp, “eGovernment Factsheet: Denmark.” 2018. {Online}. Available: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/national-interoperability-framework-observatory-nifo/egovernment-factsheets-and-infographics. {Accessed: 1-May-2019}.Google Scholar
- JoinUp, “eGovernment Factsheet: The Netherlands.” 2018. {Online}. Available: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/national-interoperability-framework-observatory-nifo/egovernment-factsheets-and-infographics. {Accessed: 1-May-2019}.Google Scholar
- JoinUp, “eGovernment Factsheet: Sweden.” 2018. {Online}. Available: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/national-interoperability-framework-observatory-nifo/egovernment-factsheets-and-infographics. {Accessed: 1-May-2019}.Google Scholar
Recommendations
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 ...
Digital transformation, governance and coordination models: A comparative study of Australia, Denmark and the Republic of Korea
dg.o '20: The 21st Annual International Conference on Digital Government ResearchAustralia, 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 ...
Individual Empowerment through Digital Governance: Proposing an Assessment Framework for India
ICEGOV '17: Proceedings of the Special Collection on eGovernment Innovations in IndiaAdoption of information and communication technologies (ICT) in governance contexts is considered empowering for governments and citizens. Digital Governance aims at transforming internal processes, structures and working practices leading to greater ...
Comments