EURIM Working Group Minutes

Working Party:	Theme 01/ Working Group
Ref:	03-T02-Min04
Minuter:	Emma Fryer
Date:	08/04/03
Circulation:	Attendees and Apologies
Queries to:	Emma Fryer, Tel: 0191 384 0282 Mob: 07714 803 650 Emma.fryer@eurim.org

Minutes of EURIM’s Modernising Government Group

Scoping Meeting on A New Strategy for e-Government

1^st April 2003, Committee Room 21, kindly hosted by Brian White MP

Summary

Meeting Outline

A sub-group of EURIM’s Modernising Government working group explored the need for an updated strategic framework overview for Modernising Government and e-Government that would provide a coherent management and investment framework to show how the various initiatives, roles and responsibilities fitted together, identify the priority actions for 2005, and set out a vision for beyond that date. The group identified a number of issues and explored some of the ways in which EURIM could contribute.

Main problems identified

1. A great deal of progress had been made since the original Modernising Government white paper (1999) and the e-Government Strategy (2000) had been published, with the result that there was now some confusion over the numerous emerging components of policy and how they all fitted together.

2. There was confusion over the plethora of initiatives and organisations involved in implementing modernised government

3. It was not clear where overall responsibility now lay for modernising government nor the authority to deliver it .

4. Targets were out of date but were still being used as measures of successful delivery.

5. Those responsible for delivery were concentrating on 2005 targets and not looking beyond them.

6. There was a lack of citizen centric delivery.

7. Technology was not the answer – technology and infrastructure should underpin and enable, not be an end in themselves.

How EURIM can help – suggestions

1. Encourage government to re-focus the 2005 targets to give more direction to departments and local government, stress the need for improved functionality (particularly spanning more than one department) rather than provision of the same services online, and provide guidance on handling failure.

2. Ask government to revise its strategy to produce a current strategic framework that takes account of changes since 2000.

3. Provide an overview of the work that already exists on modernising government to draw it to the attention of government in order to provide a clear framework for communication and further action.

How will EURIM achieve this?

1. Arrange a series of small workshops to explore specific issues and problems.

2. Work with other groups and think tanks to exchange information.

Next Steps

1. Soundings would be taken from EURIM’s parliamentary members and government observers.

2. A series of seminars and workshops would be outlined and group members would be invited to contribute to these.

3. A follow up meeting would be scheduled to review the workshops and outline any further action needed.

4. In the meantime, comments and feedback from members would be welcome.

References

1. Modernising Government White Paper, March 1999 http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/moderngov/whtpaper/index.htm.

2. e-Commerce@its.best - PIU report, September 1999 http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation/1999/ecommerce/

3. ODPM strategy for local e-government http://www.local-regions.odpm.gov.uk/consult/egov/index.htm

Meeting Notes

			Action
1		Chairman’s Introduction
	1.1	JT welcomed everbody and outlined the purpose of the meeting – to review the status of the original e-government strategy and assess whether the framework documents produced in 1999 and 2000 were still valid. Were the priorities for investment, service and infrastructure the same in what was now a more complex landscape? If not, was action needed and could EURIM do anything to draw this to the attention of government and facilitate useful action?
	1.2	The objectives were: to agree whether action was needed, to outline the form it might take, suggest how EURIM might contribute and set some boundaries as to what was feasible.
2		Background
	2.1	JT reviewed the situation. The Modernising Government White Paper of 1999 was an excellent and challenging piece of work, setting out a strategy to transform the way in which government did business by providing technically enabled, customer focused services, that were joined up at source.	Ref 1
	2.2	That high level strategy was complemented by a second strand – the e-agenda. The PIU Report “e-commerce@its.best” laid the foundations for e-government and led to the creation of the e-Envoy and the Information Age Champions who produced a series of very good policy papers. The Government Gateway programme followed and the role of central government changed from policy formation to include infrastructure provision. The Programme Delivery agenda moved departments away from a focus on IT projects towards IT-enabled business change, the OGC was established and produced a Successful Delivery Toolkit and other guidance and the OeE focused on take-up.	Ref 2
	2.3	With this increasing complexity it was becoming difficult to see how things fitted together and how the stream of policy papers fitted into the overall picture. How were investment decisions prioritised? Who was providing which part of the infrastructure? How valid was the original strategy and what was the post-2005 vision?
	2.4	JT asked for comments and suggested that the following points should be kept in mind:
		· What needs fixing – what needs doing? Who is involved? What is the solution? What is the case for doing something?
	2.5	JT outlined two further issues for particular focus:
		1. What was still left to be done from the modernising government agenda? He defined the agenda as the transition from internet-enabled services to internet-transformed government.
		2. The proliferation of policy:- every week another component of policy emerged, but there was no obvious way to identify or validate it within a bigger picture. An updated strategic framework was needed so that people could understand how policy fitted together, the justification for it and where responsibility lay.
		Issue 1: 2005 targets - what was still to be done? Comments from the floor.
3		Targets
	3.1	JC noted that modernising the delivery of services should be the target, not making services electronic. PE agreed - e-Government was about changing the way people could access services and putting a pdf form on a website was not addressing this. JC reported some good e-enabled developments on the Inland Revenue site –for example, those parts of the self-assessment tax return form that did not apply to an individual vanished automatically when it was being completed online.
	3.2	PV noted that focus was still on 2005 targets at the expense of post-2005. RM responded that local government was working to existing targets. The best value indicators were still for all services to be online, irrespective of the utility of that service or whether online delivery gave any advantages over traditional methods. There was no incentive to take a qualitative approach. NS agreed. Priorities were set within departments and successful delivery was measured against those departmental targets. The Modernising agenda was an add-on.
	3.3	JC raised the need for central government to restate priorities. NS asked what mechanisms there were for one element of government to get others to adopt its priorities, or to evaluate the different priorities of different parts of government.
4		Citizen-Centric Delivery
	4.1	MJ noted that emphasis was on delivery but should be on fulfilment of service to the citizen. There was a fundamental difference between investment in infrastructure and investment in the community and citizen. The way to achieve joined up government was by putting more control in the hands of the citizen and federalising the government system.
	4.2	JC noted that the Citizens’ Charter was the precursor to the concept of putting the citizen at the centre of delivery, and was technologically neutral.
	4.3	RS noted that building up trust was an important aspect of electronic service delivery, if citizens did not trust government they would not allow the sharing of data across departments that enabled real e-government. The benefits and risks had to be demonstrated clearly, openly and equably to citizens. RM noted that an e-commerce study illustrated that the UK was on a par with European counterparts in terms of citizen to business transactions but lagged well behind in terms of citizen to government.
	4.4	AN noted that the public sector focused too much on delivering what was ordered, not what was needed. The private sector was better at goal oriented project and programme delivery.
	4.5	RM noted that online and traditional service delivery methods had to be maintained in parallel and this posed a cost burden on service providers, at least temporarily.
5		Technology
	5.1	JC asked whether technological infrastructure needed to be in place before the business vision could be delivered. The Citizens’ Charter was underpinned by technology but not dependent on it – technical standards were available and could be used when needed.
	5.2	It was agreed that there was a difference between using technology to save money and using it to help the customer. Broadband rollout was partially to enable cost savings, partially to get all physical government locations online and partially to give citizens better access to services.
	5.3	JT recapped – technology was only part of the answer. Would technology be the key to transforming the vertical stovepipes into horizontal government? The next stage was functional information flow across government so that there were joined-up services – and sometimes competition to provide them. These reforms relied on central authority and genuine will. RM noted that this was a major cultural change and would take time.
6		Chairman’s Summary
	6.1	JT summed up. They had covered problems such as citizen-centric delivery, the use of technology and out of date targets. With those in mind he asked what kind of refinements the group might wish to propose to the 2005 targets.
	6.2	Refinements proposed for the 2005 targets
		· JC noted that one major problem was dealing with the spectacular failures.
		· AN noted that unexpected consequences of success also had to be handled – civil servants used to paper-based work were now dealing face to face with citizens and this caused problems.
		· RM suggested that since the 2005 targets were so close it was unrealistic to try and modify them, instead they should concentrate on what should follow.
		· JT asked whether targets were pitched at customers/citizens or internally to government. RM noted that there were some targets related to take-up and customer satisfaction.
		· MJ noted that targets should include consideration of non e-enabled people.
		Issue 2 – the need for an updated strategic framework – comments from the floor
7		Roles and Responsibilities
	7.1	PV noted that ownership for e-government sat with the Electronic Service Delivery Committee of Cabinet, whose members included Paul Boateng, Douglas Alexander and Stephen Timms. There was a need for ownership to rest with a committed team.
	7.2	CH observed that focus had been on projects rather than people. No-one was responsible for changing cultures yet it was accepted that this was a bigger task than implementing the technology. There was no point delivering a range of services that no-one would use.
	7.3	JT noted that the Next Steps Initiative, good policy in its day, had given departments the funding to spend on their own infrastructure and this ironically had contributed to the stovepipe structure that was the problem today.
	7.4	PV proposed that a strong framework of rules and common standards was needed with a policing function.
	7.5	RM referred members to the ODPM strategy, which was a good example of a readable, non-technical big picture seen from their perspective.	Ref 3
8		Chairman’s Summary
	8.1	JT noted that they must identify what form a framework should take. What was needed was a policy strategy roadmap that defined where things were, what was being done, and outlined roles and responsibilities. The question of infrastructure provision – whether a broad national resource should be available centrally or whether each department should be investing in its own infrastructure - was fundamental
	8.2	The group could build on existing work to help people understand the big picture and encourage government to rebuild a policy framework.
9		What could EURIM do?
	9.1	KW noted that Government liked targets because they helped focus resources within departments. However, some targets could be met without government achieving the desired change, or they could lead to unexpected and negative effects elsewhere. EURIM could usefully commend the 2005 targets and point out the need for review. The 2005 targets needed revising to give more direction to departments and local government, and to stress the need for improved functionality rather than online provision
	9.2	PV noted that the real 2005 target had undoubtedly moved on and a tangible re-interpretation would be useful.
	9.3	PV noted that EURIM’s Guide to Modernising Government had identified 143 different studies and reports on modernising government, with many duplications. Would a summary of these be useful to illustrate what had already been done and the need to build on it rather than produce new studies? Studies were viewed as objectives in themselves and not enough – if anything - was being done with the results.
	9.4	KW suggested that, since there was so much material in circulation, EURIM could usefully do a refocusing exercise with the 2005 target in mind. There was also a need for assurances that the money released by the reduction in the OeE staff would be ring-fenced for modernisation within the Departments. Take-up of services was important.
	9.5	PV referred to other groups and think tanks currently working on policy papers – IPPR and DEMOS. It was important to work with them because the process of information exchange was a good means of educating and informing those involved in policy and just as effective a deliverable as briefings or status reports.
	9.6	It was agreed that the group should organise some small workshops between EURIM members and colleagues in government to take advantage of prepared presentations on specific topics by individuals.
10		Workshops – Issues to be covered.
	10.1	It was agreed that a series of issues would be aired through workshops. Each issue had to be prepared and the group must define carefully the invitees for each workshop. The proceedings of each workshop could be used as the basis for outputs and any pressing issues that arose from them could be dealt with subsequently.
	10.2	JT asked members to propose issues that should be raised at the workshops.
	10.3	Issues proposed for the workshops
		· RS proposed the growing importance of intermediaries in delivering government services. They were particularly important in defusing some of the Big Brother issues.
		· JC noted that one task was to define what central government needed to do and how they could support the implementation of the e-government agenda.
		· CH noted that it was vital to get the message not to the converted but to those in departments who either did not understand what was required or did not want to do it.
		· JC agreed - workshops had to draw the three main parties together –industry, central government and the public sector. A stakeholder group was needed.
		· AN suggested a review of the relevant EC legislation coming out.
		· RM suggested the issue of how much more had to be done for electronic signatures to be usable as opposed to legal.
		· RM proposed they encourage departments to be less ambitious about achieving large changes all at once. Many projects failed from being too ambitious.
		· CH noted that the most important thing was to clarify responsibilities. There would in future be a SRM (Senior Responsible Minister) in addition to the SRO for major projects.
		· CH noted that the digital divide was another issue – providing different channels for use at different times by different people. Technology alone would not solve that – intermediation was the key.
11		Next Steps
	11.1	JT outlined the next steps – Meeting notes would be circulated Soundings would be taken from EURIM’s parliamentary members and government observers. A series of seminars and workshops would be outlined and group members would be invited to contribute to these. A follow up meeting would be scheduled to review the workshops and outline any further action needed. In the meantime, comments and feedback from members would be welcome.
	11.2	JT thanked everyone for attending and closed the meeting

Attendance – 1^st April 2003

F name	Surname	Organisation	email
Sam	Baglioni	Intellect
Jane	Chittenden	OGC
Peter	Eckersley	IPF
Emma	Fryer	EURIM
Charles	Hughes	e-Management
Mike	Jenkins	Fujitsu Services
Roger	Marshall	Corporation of London
Susan	Morgan	BT
Adrian	Norman	BCS
Lord	Renwick	EURIM
Rick	Smith
Neil	Sutherland	Ordnance Survey
Jonathan	Tamblyn	LogicaCMG
James	Tilling	Nortel Networks
Philip	Virgo	EURIM
Kay	Withers	Researcher to Brian White MP

Apologies:

Ian	Bruce	IBA
Stephen	Coleman	Oxford Internet Institute
Colin	Cram	NERC
Steve	Doughty	NAO
Roger	Gale	MP
Michael	Gough	NCC
Nig	Greenaway	Fujitsu Services
Andrew	Hardie
Mary	Forrester	Accenture
Paul	Jackson	CIPFA
Nick	Kalisperas	Intellect
Kieran	McGuirk	Fujitsu Services
Paul	McKeown	IBM
Sarah	Pearce	P.O.S.T.
Mark	Pollard	ONS
Alastair	Reid	DTI
David	Rippon	BCS
Stuart	Ritchie	PCG
Tony	Singleton	OeE
Walter	Smith	DEFRA / ITD(I)E
Henryk	Trzebiatowski	Royal Mail
Ernest	Wardle	SOCITM
Edward	Wood	House of Commons Library