Presentation of my initial ph.d. finding at https://ttu.ee/nurkse and https://egov.unu.edu project on ICT enabled public service delivery (http://bit.ly/2pXhHSL) on Estonia and Georiga. Presented in the eGov Working Group at the 25th NISPAcee Annual Conference Innovation Governance in the Public Sector Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan, Russian Federation May 18 - 20, 2017

1. CITIZEN USE OF GOVERNMENT eSERVICES:
Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen
NISPAcee conference
Kazan (RU), 18-20 May 2017
COMPARING USE, GOVERNANCE AND COOPERATION
MODELS IN ESTONIA AND GEORGIA

2. THE GORDIAN KNOT –
THE eGOVERNMENT CONUNDRUM

3. ICT investments to date has not:
• Achieve the efficiency and effectiveness envisaged.
• Public-sector governance model and multi-stakeholder
cooperation lacking.
• Dispite similarities, different countries have achieved vastly
different results.
CONUNDRUM

4. OUTLINING A CONUNDRUM
Linearrelationshipbetweenhomeaccessand frequencyof use–
confirmed by year-on-year Spearman non-parametric correlation
test

5. OUTLINING A CONUNDRUM
Linearrelationshipbetweeninternet and eBankinguse

6. OUTLINING A CONUNDRUM
Non-linear relationshipbetweeneBankingand public eServices

7. Public service is service provided by government to people living
within its jurisdiction, either directly (through the public sector)
or by financing provision of services (McGregor et. al., 1982).
Two types of public service: Core public services (i.e. what you
must do as a citizen, thus legally required), and;
Public value adding service (i.e. what you like to do as an
individual or out of civic duty)
Service consist of a combination of
information, transaction and data.
DEFINITIONS

8. eGovernment is the use of IT and technology
in the provision of information and services to citizens
and businesses.
…eGovernance encompass all processes of governing,
thus relating to the processes and decisions oriented toward
defining actions, granting power and verifying performance.
… the e is for electronic.
DEFINITIONS

9. Classical public administration literature
understands government and service delivery.
Fail to merge strands of PA literature e.g.
new/new public management and joint-up
government, address the role that governance
plays in introducing ICT in PAs and combine
measures for maturity and take-up.
ICT ENABLED PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFORM

10. Information system management and capability
maturity models address political and legal
dimensions.
Most focus on business processes in single
organisations, not the cross-organisational,
national, or international ones of PA and
eGovernment.
INFORMATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT

11. eGovernment stage models are simple, generic,
sequential, and technologically deterministic.
Lack a clear link between supply and outcomes
and between governance’s role in the successful
implementation and subsequent use of ICT and
eServices solutions.
eGOVERNMENT AND eGOVERNANCE

12. METHODOLOGY

13. 1. Does a strong governance and high level of intergovernmental
cooperation lead to successful supply and use (i.e. demand) of core
online citizen services?
2. Can success factors be mapped into a universal governance model
for successful digitisation of public sector core service delivery (i.e.
supply) and eService take-up (i.e. demand) by citizens?
TWO QUESTIONS ASKED

14. • Exploratory, qualitative multi-country case comparative study (Yin, 2013;
Rohlfing, 2013).
• Framework for within-case analysis to establish the governance
mechanism in play in each of the cases (ideally more X, means more of Y)
• Findings will enable cross-case comparison.
• Objective to determine:
- Correlation between a strong governance and cross-governmental cooperation
model (cause).
- Decision to introduce a eGovernment strategy and citizen eServices (effect 1).
- Citizen use of the eServices option (effect 2).
• Iterations of desk research, semi-structured interviews and validation to
populate the conceptual framework (Benbasat, 1987; Plummer, 2001;
Krimmer, 2012)
METHODOLOGY

15. BACKGROUND INDICATORS
• Internet access
• Internet use
• eBanking use
• eCommerce use
• eService use
NATIONAL GOVERNANCE AND
COOPERATION MODEL
• Institutional framework and
governance
• Decentralisation of government
authority
EFFECTS
• eServices in place
• Service delivery volumes per
channel
CONCEPTURAL FRAMEWORK
NATIONAL APPROACH TO eGOVERNMENT
Responsibility for eGovernment:
• Strategy
• Action plan
• Initiation, development, coordination,
monitoring and evaluation
• Chair
• Host organisation and secretariate
• Member oragnisations
eGovernment elements:
• Strategy underpinned by action plan
and KPIs
• Legality of strategy and action plan

16. • Selection of most similar, most different cases with a degree of
influential ones (Barbour, 2001; Benbasat et. al., 1987;
Seawright&Gerring, 2011).
• Geographical parameter (countries, for large federal countries focus
on national level and a region).
• Size (small, medium and large countries).
• General governance model (central and federal countries).
• Experience parameter (considered and/or choice to introduce
eServices).
CASE SELECTION

17. CASE SELECTION
The
Netherlands
United
Kingdom
Singapore
Mexico
Japan
South
Korea
Australia
New
Zealand
Finland Estonia RussiaGeorgia
United Arab
Emirates
OmanAustria
Denmark
KEY: Green = Desk case published. Grey = potential back-up cases.
Canada
Colombia
Faroe
Islands
Uruguay

18. GONE FISHING –
IN ESTONIA AND GEORGIA

19. Estonia Georgia
Population 1,258,545 (July 2016 est.) 3,720,400
Territorial size 1.399 km2 69.700 km2
Population density 34 per km2 57.3per km2
Official languages Estonian Georgian, Abkhazian (in Abkhazia)
Ethnic groups Estonian 68.7%, Russian 24.8%,
Ukrainian 1.7%, Belarusian 1%,
Finnish 0.6%, other 1.6%, unspecified
1.6% (2011 est.)
Georgian 86.8%, Azeri 6.3%,
Armenian 4.5%, other 2.3% (incl.
Russian, Ossetian, Yazidis, Ukrainian,
Kist, Greek)
Median age and life expectancy 42.4 and 76.7 years 38 years and 74.4 years
Population growth -0.54% -0.05%
Urbanization 67.5% 53.6%
GDP (billion) € 35.64 billion €13.67 billion
GDP per capita € 25,433.46 € 5,025
Unemployment 6.2% 12.1%
Imports (billion) € 12.52 billion € 6.43 billion
Exports (billion) € 11.62 billion € 2.69 billion
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA (2015)

20. EE ICT AND eGOVERNMENT (1998-2020)
1998-2003
Principles of the
Estonian
Information Policy
• First eGovernment strategy
• Focus on promotion and entrenchment of democracy, development and roll-out of government ICT infrastructure
• Increase competitiveness esp. through de-monopolisation
• Increase the speed post-Soviet property restitution, develop eCommerce and eBanking; sustain Estonian culture and language, and improve
State defence by using ICTs.
2004-2006 Estonian
Information Society
• Aligned with the EU Europe 2002 and 2005 action plans
• Focus on introduction and promotion of citizen, business and intra-government eServices; roll-out of ID-card (incl. eID); promote internet
access and use through training (incl. reaching EU average, 1 PC per 20 students in schools); increase public sector productivity though ICT
(incl. document management and archiving, improved registries and data, launch of X-road); economic growth and export capacity of the ICT
sector; promote ICT security, and international promotion and improved “eGovernment position”.
2007-2013 Estonian
Information Society
Strategy 2013
• Aligned to tEU i2010 eGovernment Action Plan
• Focus on infrastructure underpinning the promotion of a knowledge-based society and economy. Objectives incl.: multi-channel service
delivery, WCAG compliance of government websites, more transparent and user-centric eService’s; improve digital literacy with 70% of
Estonians using the internet; 80% user satisfaction for citizens and 95% for business; 15% of GDP is generated by the ICT sector and
productivity levels are at least 75% of the EU average. Separate broadband and cyber security strategies were launched in 2011 and 2012,
respectively, as well as initiatives for local government (2008-2011) and a programme for increased awareness (2007-2011).
2014-2020 Digital
Agenda: Estonian
Information Society
Strategy
• Focus on: smart solutions and enabling infrastructure, such as 100 MB/s internet country wide; 60% of Estonians use the internet daily; 20%
of the population uses eID/eSignature; update eService usability standards and uniformity across government; provide technical and
organisational infrastructure for citizens to use and control their personal data; increase cross-border cooperation on data exchange, eID,
eSignature, etc.; promote eResidency, and improve policy and decision making framework. Health care (2014-2020), education, business
environment and cyber security (2014-2017) are set out in other strategies.

21. GE ICT AND eGOVERNMENT (2014-2018)
2004-2014 ICT use in the
public section
• No national eGovernment strategy or action plan
• Individual initiatives in line-ministries
• Part of a general drive for public sector reform, increased access to public services, transparency
and an anti-corruption drive
• ICT initially used to create basic information systems, digitalizing internal information resources,
automating information flows, creating data centres, and connecting national
2014-2018 Digital
Georgia – eGovernment
strategy and action plan
• First eGovernment strategy and action plan was approved in 2014
• Focus on efficient and effective public
• Integrated, secure, and high quality eService’s, improve usage and participation
• ICT-driven sustainable economic growth.
• 11 thematic grouped into service areas, future excellence, ICT enablers
• Horizontal measures, such as enabling frameworks, governance and awareness.
• eGeorgia is part of the Public Administration Reform Roadmap 2020

22. THE CATCH TO DATE –
GOVERNANCE AND COOPERATION

23. INTERNET ACCESS AND USE (2010-2016)
2010 2013 2016
Estonia Georgia EU28 Estonia Georgia EU28 Estonia Georgia EU28
Household internet
access
67% 27% 70% 79% 82% 79% 85% 95% 86%
Individual with
mobile internet
33%(a) 18.80(a) 21%(a) 33% 42.74(b) 24% 26% 63% 27%
Individual using the
internet (at least
once a week)
71% -- 65% 77% 45.5%(c) 72% 85% 90% 79%

24. GOVERNMENT eSERVICES AND USE (2010-2016)
eService
availability
Degree of digitisation
(i.e. % of service delivery volume online)
2010 2013 2016
Estonia Georgia Estonia Georgia Estonia Georgia Estonia Georgia
eID/eSignature Yes Yes - -- 48.3%
(2015)
101.5%(a) 62,7 %(f)
Digital post Yes Yes -- -- (255,669) 584(g) 294,689(b) 1,869
Tax declaration Yes Yes 92% 18.2%(h) 92% 67.9%(h) 96% 70.6%(h)
Register for school Yes(c) No - -- 670.054
Register for university Yes(d) No - --
Apply for student grant Yes No - --
Change of address [94] Yes No - - (75,719) 81,919
Housing subsidy Yes(e) No - --
Apply for pension Yes(e) No - --
Report vermin (FixMyStr) No Yes - -- 400
reports
51 reports
Report theft No No - -- -- --

25. PRIVATE AND PUBLIC eSERVICE USE (2010-2016)
2010 2016
Estonia Georgia EU28 Estonia Georgia EU28
Online banking 65% -- 36% 79% 21% 49%
Online commerce 17% -- 40% 56% 14.6% 55%
Interacted with government online 50% -- 41% 77% -- 48%
Obtained info. from a gov. website 49% -- 37% 66% 28.7% 42%
Downloaded a form (for
submission)
39% -- 26% 41% 9% 29%
Submitted a complete form
(eService)
38% -- 21% 68% 9.3% 28%

26. INITIAL CASE FINDINGS: EE ORGANIGRAM
Thematic
work group /
network 2-n
Information Society
Council (ISC)
Vision-network
Government Cabinet
(incl PM IT advisor)
Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communication (MKM))
CIO Network
Dept. of State Information
Systems (RISO)
Government CIO Unit
Thematic
work group /
network 1StrategiclevelOperationallevelDailyimplementation
Note: Full and broken lines represent formal and informal network structures,
respectively
Estonian eGovernance and coordination model (by author)
Pre-2014 eGovernance and coordination model

27. INITIAL CASE FINDINGS: EE COORDINATION
Co-ordination of the
implementation of
strategy
Wider co-ordination of
the development of
information society
Vision Vision networks
Strategy Information Society
Council
Implementation of
action plans
Information Society
Council and
MKM / RISO
Discussions between
ministries
Daily implementation
and everyday work
Individual Ministries
and responsible
agencies,
CIO network,
Thematic work groups /
networks
Estonia’s eGovernance and coordination model since 2014

28. INITIAL CASE FINDINGS: EE IN PRACTICE
Thematic
work group /
network 2-n
Information Society
Council (ISC)
Vision-network
Government Cabinet
(incl PM IT advisor)
Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communication (MKM))
CIO Network
Dept. of State Information
Systems (RISO)
Government CIO Unit
Thematic
work group /
network 1
StrategiclevelOperationallevelDailyimplementation
Note: Full and broken lines represent
formal and informal network
structures, respectively
Estonian eGovernance and
coordination model (by author)
Implementation is
decentralised.
Coordination on a daily
and operational level
key.

29. INITIAL CASE FINDINGS: EE STAKEHOLDERS
Ad hoc and informal networks important.
Clear division of labour within MKM in
practice but not on paper!
Local authorities weak and do not feature.
None-governmental stakeholders
consulted.
PPPs and outsourcing common.
‘
Local government
(183 + 30
municipalities)
Association of Estonian Cities
Association of Municipalities in
Estonia
Ministries
Private industry
and civic society
Governmentcabinet
Vision-network
Ministry of Eoonomic Affairs
and Communication (MKM)
(regulatory and mandated body)
Thematic work groups and
networks
Information Society Council (ICS)
Chaired by Priminister, vise-chair minister of MKM.
Permenentrepresentatives incl.Kkey minister for
finance,social affairs,
GCIO ICS secretariate
Dept of Info Systems
(RISO

30. INITIAL CASE FINDINGS: GE ORGANIGRAM
Legend:
Artefacts scoping this governance model
eGeorgia Strategy 2014-2018
Relevant legislation
StrategiclevelPoliticallevelTacticallevelOperationallevel
Role Institutional
body
Related [Policy]
Initiative or
Programme
+
Related [Policy]
Initiative or
Programme
+
Major tasks and
activities in the
context of policy
implementation
Major tasks and
activities in the
context of policy
implementation
Actors in the governance model
Relationship
among actors
Crucial relation-ship with other
Policy domain(s) that may
impact governance
CIO Council
Data Exchange
Agency
Consultative bodies /
Stakeholder Forums
Give advice on relevant
issues
Contribute in joint
specifications /
developments
Contribute in awareness
raising and take up
Give advice on relevant
issues
Contribute in joint
specifications /
developments
Contribute in awareness
raising and take up
Preparing strategy
Approving directions of strategy
Approving projects and investments
Strategic monitoring and assessment of
achievements
Preparing strategy
Approving directions of strategy
Approving projects and investments
Strategic monitoring and assessment of
achievements
Provide
administrative
support
Relevant actors implementing strategic objectives
through projects and service provisioning
monitor projects
of eGeorgia Strategy
Public
Administration
Reform (PAR)
+
Public
Administration
Reform (PAR)
+
Government of Georgia
Setting political priorities
Enforcement of legislation
Formal approval of strategic
priorities
Budget approval
Enforcement of legislation
Formal approval of strategic
priorities
Budget approval
MoJcollaborate with
chairs
Head of DEA
is Member
eGeorgia Strategy
2014-2018
+
eGeorgia Strategy
2014-2018
+
is part of
Other
working
groups as
needed
OGP
MoF MoEd MoEc
Prime
Minister’s
Office
responsible owner of
Prime
Minister
Prepare draft legislation and draft
strategy for E-Gov Commission
Implement decisions of E-Gov
Commission
Monitor decisions and
implementations of e-gov strategy
Coordinate with stakeholder forums
Carry out operative work for E-Gov
Commission
Prepare draft legislation and draft
strategy for E-Gov Commission
Implement decisions of E-Gov
Commission
Monitor decisions and
implementations of e-gov strategy
Coordinate with stakeholder forums
Carry out operative work for E-Gov
Commission
...
Ministers are members of Government
CIOs are members of E-Gov Commission
Implement strategic objectives through own projects
Report status of projects to DEA
Submit new projects of strategic importance to E-Gov
Commission
Collaborate and coordinate with E-Gov Commission /
DEA and among relevant actors on E-Gov
implementations
Implement strategic objectives through own projects
Report status of projects to DEA
Submit new projects of strategic importance to E-Gov
Commission
Collaborate and coordinate with E-Gov Commission /
DEA and among relevant actors on E-Gov
implementationsSubmit new projects
Give advice on needs,
priorities and directions
supports
Georgia’s eGovernance and
coordination model being
implemented 2016-on

31. INITIAL CASE FINDINGS: GE COORDINATION
Co-ordination of the
implementation of
strategy
Wider co-ordination of
the development of
information society
Vision Administration of the
Government of Georgia
Civil society
organizations
Strategy Administration of the
Government of Georgia
DEA
Implementation of
action plans
DEA DEA, Communication
Regulatory Body
Daily implementation
and everyday work
Individual Ministries
and responsible
agencies,
Thematic work groups
/networks
Georgia’s eGovernance and coordination model since 2016

32. INITIAL CASE FINDINGS: GE IN PRACTICE
Note: Full and broken lines represent
formal and informal network
structures, respectively
Georgian eGovernance and
coordination model (by author)
Implementation is
decentralised.
Coordination on a daily
and operational level
failing as eGDU in
Cabinet office is left
vacant.
Ministry 2-n
CIO Council
Government Cabinet
eGDU
Data Exchange Agency
(DEA)
Ministry 1
StrategiclevelOperationallevelDailyimplementation
Consultative
bodies /
Stakeholder
forums 1
Consultative
bodies /
Stakeholder
forums 2-n
Indirect:
Through ministers
and members in
bodies and forums

33. INITIAL CASE FINDINGS: GE STAKEHOLDERS
Ad hoc and informal networks important,
but failing e.g. due to unstaffed eGDU.
Local authorities weak and do not feature.
None-governmental stakeholders
consulted and even in the CIO Council (e.g.
TI and international experts)!
Outsourcing is common.
Local government
(74 municipalities)
Ministries
Private industry
and civic society
Governmentcabinet
Ministry of Justice:
Data Exchange Agency (DEA)
(regulatory and mandated body)
CIO Council (CIOC)
Chaired by Priminister. Members are CIOs from
ministries plus DEA
Thematic work groups and networks
eGDU and secretariat for CIOC

34. DISTILLING THE FINDINGS –
PATTERNS IDENTIFIED

35. Governance and intergovernmental cooperation models change over
time.
Three general phases identified:
1. Initially no formal structure. Sporatic development. Cooperation
often based on personal contacts and informal networks.
2. Increased formalisation, mandates established and increased
coordination and cooperation. Structure and mandates emerge.
3. Formalised governance structure, joint-development, joint-
cooperation, formalised networks.
EMERGING PATTERNS

36. GOVERNANCE ELEMENTS REQUIRED
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE
i.e. agreement on mandates, responsibilities and decision making structures in
relation to the strategy, action plan, individual projects etc.
STRATEGY
i.e. what is the strategic focus areas, individual objectives and measurable goals
and timeframe. Should be underpinned by an action plan.
ACTION PLAN
i.e. underpins the strategy with ndividual focus areas (programmes) , the
indidual objectives and measurable goals.
PROJECTS
i.e. the individual initiatives, their objective, how they fit within the action plan
focus areas (programme) and support the strategic objectives. Incl. Individual
objectives, budget and timeline.
DECISIONS AND
MONITORING
THE STRATEGY,
INITIATIVES AND
IMPLEMENTATION,
INCL. DAILY
DECISIONS

37. • Importance of a strong eGovernance model.
• Need for high level of inter-governmental cooperation and decision
making.
• Strength of a politically driven and motivated public sector
modernisation.
• Importance of consensus seeking and inter-governmental approach
to eGovernment.
• Facilitating role of role of informal networks and trust between
actors.
• Positive impact of cooperation with the private sector.
CASE ANALYSIS SUPPORT

38. To minimize the risk of failure if:
• consensus cannot be reached,
• personal and institutional contacts and capacities does not exist.
Beneficial to:
• formalising informal networks,
• streamlining the governance model.
IDENTIFIED RISKS TO BE ADDRESSED

39. CONTACT
MORTEN MEYERHOFF NIELSEN
Tallinn University of Technology, Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance (TTU-RND)
United Nations University, Operating Unit for Policy-Driven Electronic Goverance (UNU-EGOV)
Tel (EE): +372 59 06 07 09
Tel (PT): +351 93 05 97 009
Tel (DK): +45 23 92 22 91
Mail: morten.nielsen@ttu.ee / meyerhoff@unu.edu / mortenmeyerhoff@gmail.com
Twitter: @mortenmeyerhoff
LinkedIN: mortenmeyerhoff
Call for papers June 2017
Galway conference April 2018
www.icegov.org