Case study – overseas comparators

In order to achieve the research aim of documenting the results from the review of three comparable cities worldwide and current projects, it was necessary to normalise and compare cities or provinces with similar GEMSD implementations. This

approach sought to establish a clear means of observation similar to that used by David deVaus (1992) in his social research. He recommends factors of commonality when comparing. Whilst not as comprehensive as the Victorian study the

comparators offer alternative views or confirmation of the Victorian realities.

When selecting suitable comparators, comparison standards were developed to deliver reasonable arguments to supplement the extensive Victorian case study. In general there were three significant reasons for inclusion:

1. GEMSD progress;

2. Socio economic similarity; and

3. Similar commencement times for major GEMSD reform.

The GEMSD progress was conducted in June 2001 and reviewed in late 2004 and 2007 and these sites were found to be of comparable standard and are used to supplement the extensive Victorian case study.

Socio economic similarity was based on Sibley’s (2001) World Bank Group data and statistics.

Factors of commonality were located based on existing theories and concepts identified in the literature review and case study highlights. The comparative sites

selected were Finland, Singapore and World Bank. These sites were identified from the literature reviewed as being global leaders in the area of GEMSD as identified by the United Nations (2001), West (2002), (2008), United Nations Dept of Economic and social affairs (2003). Email contact was established with each comparative site to obtain permission and eventually greater detail on those success factors identified in literature.

Australia, Finland and Singapore are all classified by the World Bank as high-income economies and as such were comparable socio-economic comparators for this study. This comparison standard was based on 2003 Gross National Income (GNI) per capita, calculated using the World Bank Atlas method. The groups are: low income, $765 or less; lower middle income, $766 - $3,035; upper middle income, $3,036 - $9,385; and high income, $9,386 or more (all figures are quoted in United States Dollars $USD).

All comparator countries had similar commencement dates for major GEMSD reform in the late 1990’s generally 1997 to 1998 and have progressed in a similar manner until the time this study was completed.

● Finland

The Finnish government administration, primarily the Ministry of Finance, has a number of key policies and projects in place to facilitate GEMSD. The utilisation of existing citizen ID numbers and national databases, plus a strategy of taking

information just once from citizens and re-using it, has made a great contribution to the GEMSD process and the structure of their services. A key example of the benefits is the Finnish census, which since 1985, had been compiled totally from electronic data taken from 30 government databases Office of the E Envoy (2001).

Finland were leaders in secure transactions. Secure electronic transaction requires customer recognition, and Finland pioneered this arena with the introduction of electronic identity (EID) cards and PKI in December 1999. The Finnish Population Register Centre is the certification for this identity roll and verification authority as detailed by the Ministry of Finance (2004).

One of the other major government GEMSD initiates in Finland was the JUNA project http://www.intermin.fi/suom/juna/english/index.html. The objective of JUNA was to increase the number of electronic services available on the Internet and develop the expertise needed to produce these services so that citizens and business could use good quality public services in their daily lives. The particular aims were to:

1. assess the opportunities and restrictions relating to e-Government in order to create the basis for the development of electronic public services;

2. ensure that public authorities move to produce and use coherent electronic services; 3. increase the potential of citizens, enterprises and organisations to apply information and communication technology to public services;

4. improve the quality of public services, while at the same time preventing exclusion of citizens and supporting the harmonious development of regions; and

5. increase cost-effectiveness and service provision potential within the government administration.

The JUNA Project was citizens, enterprises and service provider orientated and covered by all sectors of public administration, at State and local level.

Also Finland has a very high level of ICT with high use of mobile services primarily due to contributions by government and the private sector for example Nokia.

● Singapore

Singapore's e-Government journey started as early as the mid 1980’s with the Civil Service Computerisation Programme (CSCP). The CSCP was conceived with a clear direction of turning the Singapore Government into a world-class exploiter of IT. It marked the beginning of computerisation in Singapore and was primarily focused on improving internal operational efficiencies through the automation of traditional work functions and reducing paperwork as detailed by IDA (2004).

In the late 1990’s Singapore recognised the convergence of IT and

telecommunications technologies and in 2000 launched the first e-Government Action Plan which provided a strong foundation for the implementation of the second Plan. Initially from the ministry of finance but later from the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA), a total amount of S$1.5 billion was committed to the plan. The plans were implemented by a number of government bodies and government corporations such as ‘Crimson Logic’ formerly known as Singapore Network Services. The e-Government strategic framework was centred on three critical relationship dynamics:

2. Government to Businesses (G2B) 3. Government to Employees (G2E)

In 2003 the second action plan was launched. The second e-Government Action Plan was to achieve three distinct goals by 2007 (IDA 2004):

1. Delighted Customers

• Implement 12 more cross-agency integrated e-services;

• have 90% of the Government's customers use e-services at least once a year; and

• have 90% of these users satisfied with the overall quality of e- services.

2. Connected Citizens

• Explain public policies and their rationale online; and

• Provide another channel for public feedback on policy formulation and review.

3. A Networked Government

• Transcend organisational boundaries and evolve into a knowledge enterprise where collective knowledge is harnessed effectively to add greater value to customers and enhance service quality. A government-wide policy on data protection ensures the privacy rights of users.

● World Bank

The comparator jurisdictions: Victoria, Singapore and Finland are chosen in this study based on factors of commonality as described. These factors of commonality will be based on information published by the World Bank. The information published by the World Bank being the foundation of the comparator study; an attempt will be made to gain independent comment during the interview process from a suitably qualified GEMSD representative at the World Bank.