Content uploaded by Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen on Jun 11, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................ 1
List of Acronyms .................................................................................................................................................. 2
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................ 4
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 5
2. Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 7
3. National and socio-economic context ................................................................................................. 8
4. Digital Government and Public Service Delivery strategic focuses .................................................. 10
4.1 e-Government in Latvia since 1991 ..................................................................................................... 10
4.2 e-Government in Denmark since 1991 ............................................................................................... 11
4.3 e-Government in the United Kingdom since 1991 ............................................................................ 13
4.4 Current Digital Government and Public Service Delivery strategies of Latvia, Denmark, and the UK
15
5. Governance models and institutional frameworks ............................................................................ 19
5.1 Government – governance and coordination aspects of Digital Transformation ........................... 20
5.1.1 Latvia .................................................................................................................................................... 20
5.1.2 Denmark ............................................................................................................................................... 24
5.1.3 The United Kingdom ........................................................................................................................... 26
5.2 Current digital governance and intergovernmental models in Latvia, Denmark and the UK ......... 28
6. Internet access, key digital enablers, citizen e-Services, take-up and impact ................................. 30
6.1 Internet access, use, digital skills and non-users of the Internet ...................................................... 30
6.2 Key enablers ......................................................................................................................................... 31
6.3 Digitalisation levels of main government services ............................................................................. 35
6.4 Take-up of commercial government digital services ........................................................................ 36
6.4.1 Take-up levels of digital services: commercial and government ...................................................... 36
6.4.2 Take-up levels of main government digital transactions .................................................................. 38
7. Comparative analysis and concluding remarks ................................................................................. 41
7.1 Context ................................................................................................................................................. 41
7.2 Preconditions to transformation: strategy, governance, enabling technologies and practices ..... 42
7.2.1 Strategy ................................................................................................................................................ 43
7.2.2 Leadership and governance................................................................................................................ 45
7.2.3 Enabling technology, culture, regulatory and service-delivery practices ........................................ 45
7.2.4 Outcomes and results ......................................................................................................................... 47
7.2.5 Evaluation and monitoring .................................................................................................................. 48
8. Conclusion............................................................................................................................................ 50
9. Policy recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 53
References ......................................................................................................................................................... 54
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 2
List of Acronyms
API Application programming interface
CIO Chief Information Officer
DESI index European Union Digital Economy and Society Index
DG CONNECT Directorate General on Communications Networks, Content and Technology
DIGST Agency for Digitalization (Denmark)
DK Denmark
EC European Commission
EGOV Electronic Government
eID Electronic identification
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
EU European Union
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GDS Government Digital Service Agency (United Kingdom)
ICT Information and Communications Technology
ISDC Information Society Development Council
LV Latvia
n/a Not applicable
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NGO Non-governmental organization
OECD Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development
PKI Public Key Infrastructure
PSC Portfolio Steering Committee
TDLN Technology and Digital Leaders Network
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
VARAM Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development (Latvia)
VRAA State Regional Development Agency (Latvia)
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 3
Acknowledgements
This report is a result of the project “SmartEGOV: Harnessing EGOV for Smart Governance (Foundations,
methods, Tools) / NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000037”, supported by Norte Portugal Regional Operational
Programme (NORTE 2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European
Regional Development Fund (EFDR). The report was also supported by the Ministry of Environmental
Protection and Regional Development (VARAM) in Latvia.
The analysis was carried out by Gatis Ozols (VARAM) and Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen (UNU-EGOV) in 2018
under the auspice of the UNU-EGOV projects on Electronic Governance for Administrative Burden
Reduction and Electronic Governance for Context-Specific Public Service Delivery. The authors would like
to thank Mário Peixoto and Louis Geoffroy-Terryn for their support in finalising the report.
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 4
Abstract
During the last decade, Electronic Government (EGOV) has been seen as instrumental for a more efficient
public sector and more effective public service delivery. Recent trends in government and public service
delivery transformation strategies emphasise a move from organisational silos to joined-up, whole-of-
government and citizen-centric service delivery and service improvement. The scope of impact implies a
move from intra-government focused improvements to the relationships between government, business
and citizens. Technology, in this context, acts as a catalyst and enabler for such changes. The
transformational maturity of public sector organisations is largely dependent on the strategic focus,
horizontal and vertical integration between government departments and across levels of government (i.e.
national, regional and local). Other change agents include different partnership models with external agents
and improved governance and inter-governmental cooperation. This, in turn, should be backed up by
proper technological enablers that provide consistent user experience and process redesign across sectors
and is supported by enabling skills and organisational culture, such as customer-centricity, partnership
building, collaborative and cross-sectoral customer value creation.
Influenced by different organisational, political and socio-economic factors, strategies in Latvia, Denmark
and the United Kingdom (UK) have taken different approaches to digitally-enabled and customer-centric
service delivery. This report analyses intergovernmental governance and partnership models of the three
countries since 2013. The report identifies existing strategies, practices and technologies in the delivery of
core government services, and in progression from silos-based, disjointed government towards a customer-
centric, whole-of-government approach in public sector service production and delivery.
The analysis finds that the whole-of-government approach for public service delivery has been strategically
recognised in all three analysed countries, but that countries have different structural approaches when
addressing technology-enabled public service delivery and whole-of-government concepts. Research
shows that in order to ensure holistic and consistent digital transformation as illustrated by the example of
Denmark and the UK, it is essential to compile sufficient governance maturity and organisational capacity,
combining strategic and operational competencies. It is also critical to grant a broad mandate to
coordinate, guide, set standards and supervise across government sectors and government levels.
Government-wide design standards, process redesign practices, centralised user insight analysis, and cross-
sectoral process ownership are other common elements necessary to whole-of-government approaches. It
is also evident that when supply-side digitalisation activities and enablers are supported by opt-out rather
than opt-in strategies on the user’s side, more dynamic shifts in channel choice are evident, and a higher
eServices user base is reached, as it is demonstrated in the Latvian and Danish examples.
The analysis concludes that current methods and practices for performance monitoring and impact
evaluation are generally designed for agency- and service-based performance assessment. This means that
government cross-agency methods and practices must be elaborated to support further and facilitate a
whole-of-government approach. All countries would benefit from closer cooperation between agencies and
across administrative levels, but also with private sector stakeholders. This applies to strategy development
as well as operational joined-up service delivery partnerships.
Keywords: whole-of-government; digitalisation; e-Governance; customer-centric; public service delivery;
Latvia; United Kingdom; Denmark
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 5
1. Introduction
Digital technologies enable governments to function more efficiently, to become more effective and to
provide more customer-oriented public services. However, the increased pace of technology evolution,
government budgetary constraints and changing demographics are posing both new challenges and
opportunities for governments and service production and delivery. Changing citizen demand and
expectations for more customer oriented, personalized and value-added government services adds to the
challenges. The use of information and communications technology (ICT) and e-Government strategies by
the governments are now reaching new levels of maturity (Digital Government), where technologies and
user preferences are integrated in the production and delivery of service, and is often part of broader public
sector reforms drive – whereby technology becomes an integral part of a government wider strategies to
create public value.
Transformative digital government trends and the new role of governments are addressed in numerous
recommendation and guidelines released by the United Nations (UN) (United Nations, 2012), the
Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (OECD, 2014), the European
Commission (EC) (European Commission, 2013), as well as private advisory and technology companies
(PwC, 2007). The OECD’s comparative study on Digital Government Strategies for Transforming Public
Services in the Welfare Areas emphasises that successful digital government initiatives are characterised by
a shift in focus: That is, from the efficiency and productivity of public services to one of governance,
openness, transparency and engagement of private and non-governmental actors in collaborative co-
creation of public value. In terms of public service delivery, this translates into data sharing, the once-only
principle, joined-up administrations, interoperability standards, common ICT platforms and the
development of innovative services tailored to individual needs or designed to reduce administrative
burdens or services and confirmed by multiple other authors (Arendsen & van Engers, 2004; Lopes, Soares,
Nielsen, & Tavares, 2017; Meyerhoff Nielsen & Krimmer, 2015; Nielsen, Carvalho, Veiga, & Barbosa, 2017)
(OECD, 2014). In its recommendations on national digital government strategies, the OECD emphasises
that the challenge is not merely the introduction of technologies into public administration, but rather the
integration and use of certain technologies in public sector modernisation efforts. Major challenges
highlighted include organisational fragmentation and limited readiness to create a broad political
commitment and ownership for the integration of digital government agenda into overall public sector
reform strategies (OECD, 2014). The OECD study also recognises that governments are failing to make the
transition to new digital environments can have important consequences, including poor service delivery,
the underperformance of spending, privacy and security breaches, and loss of citizens trust (OECD, 2014)
(OECD - Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2014).
The “Vision for Public Services”, drafted by the Public Services Unit of the European Commission’s
Directorate General on Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG CONNECT), it is stressed
that the future of government is decreasingly likely due to the auspice of governments alone: instead, the
report highlights that, in the future, governments will be connected, networked and fully joined-up and will
interact with each other as well as with end-users, private actors and civil society. This is likely to happen in
an open and participative governance structure, where both administrations and third parties can
collaborate and share responsibilities in producing and providing services according to the accepted
principles of subsidiarity. As acknowledged by practitioners, it is central to the design of a customer-centric
service delivery model the realisation that service delivery can be organised as a non-core government
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 6
function, and that it can be handled equally well by third parties - as long as there are an appropriate
capacity and interest in the market and/or voluntary sector to do so (PwC, 2007). To achieve this, breaking
down governmental silos and moving towards a "whole-of-government" approach is needed (European
Commission, 2013). Understanding customer needs is essential and requires an integrated approach to
service production and delivery. Connecting government silos by networking them rather than abandoning
them, building institutional capacity, creating collaborative partnerships and innovating are key enablers for
a successful transformation of government, especially in the short and medium term.
The literature on the implementation of effective public service delivery and whole-of-government
approach recognises that it cannot be achieved by technology alone, neither can it be achieved by imposing
a specific policy and regulatory framework without addressing performance in individual organizations are
wider and systematically transformation organizational structures, processes, partnership models, cultural
aspects, etc. Research on the whole-of-government approach similarly sees the concept as broader than
technology alone, suggesting that it can be analysed on different levels, including policymaking and
implementation; and that the concept does not form a coherent set of ideas and tools, but can best be
seen as an umbrella term regrouping a set of responses to the issue of increased fragmentation of public
sector and public services, and expressing an intention to enhance coordination (Brynjolfsson & Hitt, 2000;
Chandler & Emanuels, 2002; Cullen, 2010; Farias et al., 2017; Klievink & Janssen, 2009; Roseth, Reyes, &
Santiso, 2017; Scholl, 2005; West, 2004) (Christensen and Lægreid, 2006).
To analyse different approaches and practices, countries have taken towards more citizen-centric and
coordinated public service delivery. Thus, the research question of this analysis reads: How can the public
sector facilitate the development of the next generation, whole-of-government approach, enabling
personalised and proactive public services? To take into account the current developments in digital
governance and key enabling aspects therein, the main focus areas of the report are as follows:
• Governance and intergovernmental models (decision making, policy/strategy, compliance,
breaking down silos, regulation);
• Technology choices and opportunities (channel choices/mix, artificial intelligence (AI), once-only);
• Design approach (co-creation, agility, development/maintenance/updates, and feedback).
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 7
2. Methodology
The methodology used to address the research question of this report is a classical exploratory, qualitative,
case study methodology framework. The method enables the with-in case analysis as well as a cross-case
comparison (Rohlfing, 2012; Yin, 2013).
To facilitate the cross-case comparison, a context, content, process model (CCP model) (Symons, 1991) is
adapted for ICT use in in the public sector (Devos, Buelens, & Bouckenooghe, 2007; Krimmer, 2012) and for
online service delivery (Meyerhoff Nielsen, 2017b, 2017a). The conceptual model in use consists of four
macro-dimensions: background indicators; national governance and cooperation model; national approach
to e-Government; and effect measurements and preconditions. Each dimension explains a key area that
influences processes, choices and outcomes in relation to electronic services (eServices) supply, take-up
and customer satisfaction. Using the framework for the with-in case analysis to identify the governance
mechanisms in play will allow the author to make a cross-case comparison to determine the potential
relationship between a strong cooperative governance model, technological enablers, enabling services
design practices, citizens use of the online service delivery channel, reduction of administrative burden and
citizen satisfaction with government services.
The case selection is based on the differences between the countries analysed (Collier & Mahoney, 1996;
Eisenhardt, 1989; Rohlfing, 2012). Denmark and the UK are rated among the most advanced digital
economies. According to the European Union Digital Economy and Society Index (European Commission,
2018c, European Commission, 2018b), Denmark is ranked in 1st place, the UK in 7th and Latvia in 20th. In the
Digital Public Services dimension, Denmark is ranked in 3rd, Latvia in 9th and the UK in 14th in 2018 (European
Commission, 2018c). The three countries have taken different structural approaches and paths when
addressing technology-enabled public service delivery and whole-of-government.
The case studies are developed based on desk research analysis. The primary sources include relevant
policy documents, national and international statistical sources and benchmarking results and officially
published government information. The research focused on the period since 2013 and took place between
May and July 2018.
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 8
3. National and socio-economic context
Latvia, Denmark and the UK are countries with different socio-economic contexts. As a result, population
size, income levels, administrative systems and complexity varies. Latvia is a small country with a moderate
level of urbanisation (Central Intelligence Agency, 2018).1 The largest concentration of people is found in
and around the capital city of Riga (32% of the population) (The Latvian Institute, 2011). Small urban
agglomerations are scattered throughout the country. Latvia is a member of the EU and North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO), joined the Eurozone in 2014 and OECD in 2016. In terms of Gross Domestic
Product (GDP), Latvia is a high-income country and is currently experiencing relatively rapidly growing
economy. For historical reasons, Latvia has a large Russian-speaking minority. Like most other EU and OECD
countries, the population is ageing due to low birthday rates but also due to emigration (OECD, 2018).
Denmark is a relatively small country, but with considerably higher population density and urbanization level
(ibid). Denmark is a high-income country with a high matching standard of living and more consistent GDP
growth rate, especially when compared to Latvia. By comparison, the UK is a large country with a
substantially bigger population and higher population density, particularly in England and the southern
parts of Scotland and Wales. The urbanization levels are higher than those of Latvia but lower than those
found in Denmark. Income levels and economic growth rates are comparable to Denmark. In contrast to
Latvia, both Denmark and the UK are, in general, monolingual. The national and socio-economic contexts
of Latvia, Denmark and the UK are summarized in Table 1 (next page).
1 Latvia ranks 77 out of 192 in the 2018 Edition of the CIA’s World Factbook Urbanisation Ranking, with an Urbanisation level close to
68% of its total population.
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 9
Table 1: socio-economic data for 2018 (Central Intelligence Agency 2018, Eurostat 2018, OECD 2018).
LATVIA
DENMARK
UNITED KINGDOM
Population
1 934 379 5 781 190 66 238 007
Territory (km2)
64 589 43 094 243 610
Population density (2016)2
31.0 136.4 270.5
Ethnic groups
Latvian 62%, Russian
25.4%, Belarusian 3.3%,
Ukrainian 2.2%, Polish
2.1%, Lithuanian 1.2%,
other 3.8%
Danish (includes
Greenlandic who are
predominantly Inuit and
Faroese) 86.7%, Turkish
1.1%, other 12.2%
(largest groups are
Polish, Syrian, German,
Iraqi, and Romanian)
white 87.2%,
black/African/Caribbean/
black British 3%,
Asian/Asian British:
Indian 2.3%, Asian/Asian
British: Pakistani 1.9%,
mixed 2%, other 3.7%
(2011 est)
Life expectancy / median age
74.7 / 43.6 79.5 / 42.2 80.8 / 40.5
Urbanisation (%)
68.1 87.9 83.4
GDP (PPP) (US $,2017)
53.9 billion 296.9 billion 2.86 trillion
GDP per capita (PPP) (US$,2017)
27.813 51.495 43.402
GDP growth rate (%) (2018 est.)
4.1 1.7 1.4
Government consumption (%)
17.8 25.5 19.0
Eurostat: Final consumption expenditure
of general gov, 2017
17.9 25 18.2
Unemployment (%)
8.7 5.7 4.4
Inflation (%) (HICP 2017)
2.9 1.1 2.7
Confidence in Government (%)3
32 47 41
Trust In government, 2018
(Eurobarometer)
28 47 31
2 EUROSTAT 2018b. Population Density (tps00003). Luxembourg: European Commission.
3 OECD 2017a. Government at a Glance 2017. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 10
4. Digital Government and Public Service Delivery strategic
focuses
The development of digital government largely depends on historical policies, strategic decisions and
orientations. As the analysis main focus is on the digital transformation of a citizen-centric and whole-of-
government approach, the historical review focuses on a cross-country comparison of the three countries
respective governance models.
4.1 e-Government in Latvia since 1991
e-Government in Latvia has gone through several development phases: from the late 1990s until 2005, the
main focus was on intra-agency digitalisation, and on the establishment of basic government ICT
infrastructure and regulations.
The 2006-2013 strategy shifted the focus to one of broadband infrastructure provision, especially in remote
areas; and on the implementation of e-Government and e-Services foundation, such as key registries, data
exchange platforms, shared platforms for e-Service development (including the national one-stop portal),
digital authentication and online payments. During this period, the focus was on the digitalisation of
government services. To facilitate the process, all European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)-funded e-
Government projects had to include digitalisation of at least one transactional government service, leading
to the mass digitalisation of over 270 transactional services between 2006 and 2013. Despite some
coordination on a strategic level, development remained fragmented and lacked coordination between
sectors: as a result, although shared platforms were launched, their use by sectoral agencies was insufficient,
and e-Service take-up by citizens did not increase.
The 2014-2020 strategy saw a more coordinated implementation: in 2014, the Government ICT conceptual
architecture model was adopted, and a Chief Information Architect was nominated, establishing a federated
ICT governance model and centralised e-Government projects coordination mechanisms. In 2015, a
programme of the State and Regional Unified Customer Service Centres (Unified Customer Centres) was
established, whereby municipal face-to-face customer service centres integrated provisions of major central
government services and provided assistance for citizens to make use of government eServices.4 In March
2017, a Digital Post component for government-to-citizen communication (national and municipal) was
introduced; as from January 2019, this component will become mandatory for all central and local
government institutions to use as the primary channel of communication with citizens and businesses, as
well as between institutions. Where service delivery is concerned, Latvia has had a strategic focus on the
digitisation of service production and delivery for over a decade. Similarly, decentralised processes have
been established, in such contexts as priorities and responsibilities for implementation approach, quality
assurance and customer needs analysis. However, there has been no strict national policy framing the
transition to digital-only government services. In 2017, a regulation was put in place for both central and
local government services. The regulation establishes a minimum baseline for online service quality, user
4 In June 2018 there were 72 local and 6 regional importance Unified Customer Centres established in Latvia (VALSTS REĢIONĀLĀS
ATTĪSTĪBAS AĢENTŪRA. 2018. Vienotie klientu apkalpošanas centri [Online]. Available: https://www.latvija.lv/lv/pakalpojumucentri
[Accessed 21/11/2018 2018].)
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 11
engagement, performance measurement requirements and awareness raising. In the same year, an open-
data strategy was put in place, including the launch of a centralised open data portal (data.gov.lv) and the
generalisation of government data opening. Historical developments, including core phases of e-
Government in Latvia, are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: historic development stages of e-Government in Latvia.
PERIOD
MAIN E-GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT FOCUSES AND HIGHLIGHTS
1991 - 2005
The building of base registers, agencies internal digitalisation, base government ICT regulation
and first e-Government plan. Examples:
• e-Government program;
• Regulation on State Information Systems;
• government and citizen electronic communication (including the once-only principle);
•
digital signature conception (European Commission, 2015b).
2006 - 2013
Latvian e-Government
Development Programme
(2005 - 2009)
Guidelines for the
development of Information
Society
(2006 - 2013)
Electronic Government
Development Plan
(2011 - 2013)
Development of e-Services ecosystems (shared platforms), mandatory government service
digitalisation, digital skills of citizens and entrepreneurs. Examples:
• State Information System Integrator;
• citizens portal (Latvija.lv);
• Qualified Digital Signature;
• More than 300 government services available online;
• Bank authentication and payment systems become available for government services;
• Citizen online initiative platform (manabalss.lv) legalised;
• Citizen eID cards implemented;
• ICT governance model adopted in 2013.
2014 - 2018
Guidelines for the
development of Information
Society
(2014-2020)
Governance, government ICT architecture, data-based innovations and partnerships. Examples:
• Government ICT conceptual architecture model (Latvijas Republikas Ministru kabineta, 2014);
• Chief Information Architect;
• Network of State and Regional Unified Customer Service Centres;
• Centralised benchmarking and awareness building initiatives;
• Horizontal regulation on public service delivery;
• Quality assurance and performance measurement;
• Open data portal;
• The release of agencies data;
• Multi-stakeholder initiative on Data-Driven Nation.
4.2 e-Government in Denmark since 1991
Over time, Denmark has undergone a transition to digital administration, communication and services,
currently exploiting the digital channel as a major channel for public service delivery. Digital strategies have
followed a traditional trajectory, starting from the implementation of base infrastructure (internal
digitalisation and digital signature), then phase of development of common infrastructure, such as national
portals (for citizens Borger.dk and for business Virk.dk), eID solutions, and communication platforms (Digital
Post) (Igari, 2014; Meyerhoff Nielsen, 2017b). To reap the potential benefits of digital infrastructures and
established service delivery channels, the digital-by-default approach (in many cases mandatory online self-
service) was implemented in the 2011-2015 period. The cross-governmental digitisation strategy initiated a
gradual transition towards mandatory online self-service and digital communication. The goal was to
eliminate paper forms and paper letters and reach, by 2015, digital-only 80% of Danish citizens’ and 1005
business communications with public authorities (more than 100 central, regional and local government
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 12
procedures were made mandatory for online self-service). In addition, mandatory Digital Post from public
authorities was introduced in 2014 (DIGST - Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, 2011; Meyerhoff Nielsen, n.d., 2016b;
Meyerhoff Nielsen & Yasouka, 2014).
In its current strategy (A Stronger and More Secure Digital Denmark), the country main focus areas are
clearly defined, providing for high-quality government digital services and welfare solutions. Regarding
public services, the focus is on information sharing, so as to provide automated and proactive public services
solution, and to encourage the development of more cohesive digital journeys when a case crosses the
competences of authorities. To achieve this, work on selected user journeys are initiated, and citizens and
businesses are increasingly provided with personalised information about themselves and authorities will
proactively inform users of upcoming deadlines and events (DIGST - Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, n.d.-a). The
historical development core phases of e-Government in Denmark are shown in Table 3.
Table 3: historic development stages of e-Government in Denmark.
PERIOD
MAIN E-GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT FOCUSES AND HIGHLIGHTS
2001 - 2003
Digital collaboration. Examples:
• Digital signature;
• Email communication between authorities and citizens.
2004 – 2006
Efficient payments and internal digitalisation. Examples:
• Nem Konto (mandatory default citizen account for payments from authorities);
• e-Invoicing;
• Virk.dk (business portal);
•
Sundhed (eHealth portal).
2007 - 2010
Common infrastructure. Examples:
• NemiD (eID solution);
• Federated user management;
• EIndkomst (digital income reporting);
• Digital Post (unified communication platform with citizens);
• Borger.dk (citizen portal);
• Common ICT infrastructure.
2011 - 2015
The path to the future of the
welfare
Digital communication is mandatory. Examples:
• Mandatory Digital Post;
• Mandatory online self-service;
• Digital welfare services;
•
Basic data program.
2016 - 2020
A Stronger and more secure
Digital Denmark
(2016 - 2020)
Digital Growth Strategy
(2018 - 2025)
Government Digital Strategy: user-friendliness and quality, data as a source for growth, security
and inclusive digital society. The National Digital Growth Strategy aims to improve Denmark's
tech ecosystem and improve conditions for businesses to utilise the
benefits of new
technologies. Examples:
• Digital Government: focus on the user-friendliness of digital services, once-only principle and
better welfare services, open data, smart cities, automatic business reporting, efficient utility
sector, data sharing for once-only principle, digital skills and information security awareness
building.
• Digital Growth Strategy: matchmaking talents platform, agile regulation to test new business
models, computational thinking in elementary schools, cybersecurity reporting tool for
companies.
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 13
4.3 e-Government in the United Kingdom since 1991
Published in 2000, the e-Government: a strategic framework for public services in the Information Age can
be considered as UK’s first official e-Government strategy. The UK has, initially, followed a similar
development pattern as other countries, that is: the development of central portals, coordination
mechanisms (Chief Information Officer [CIO] Council drawn from representatives of national and local
authorities established in 2005), focus on cost efficiency and productivity improvements.
In 2005, the UK’s national Digital strategy, and a separate e-Government strategy, entitled Transformational
Government – Enabled by Technology were published. The nation strategy tackles the development of
broadband, set up a multi-stakeholder initiative Digital challenge to facilitate digitisation of local authorities’
services. Aspects of low take-up of e-Government services, digital divide and social exclusion are addressed.
This usher in a period of new organisational setups to facilitate more citizen-centric service design and
delivery. A first step consisted in the creation of a dedicated e-Government Unit in the Cabinet Office.
Further to this, the Service Transformation Board was created to ensure compliance with a new set of service
design principles, as well as to coordinate the work of Customer Group Directors (HM Government’s
Cabinet Office, 2005). The use of shared services and standardization and implementation of portfolio
management and supplier management governance practices were among other focus areas addressed in
the strategy.
In 2007-2009, the Cabinet Office announced the centralization of government websites and the creation of
the citizen and business portals Directgov.uk and Businesslink.gov.uk. In the 2009 action plan Putting the
Frontline First: Smarter Government, the focus shifts to digital public services, a more radical approach to
opening up government data, integrate back-office functions, coordinate inspections and assessments. At
a national level, the rollout of once-only services such as Tell Us Once and the publication of public service
performance data is particularly relevant.
In 2010, another wave of government service delivery optimisation followed. Initiated by the UK Digital
Champion Martha Lane Fox’s strategic review of government internet communication and service delivery,
a transition to a more centralised and professionalised government information and service delivery and
presentation is initiated (Lane Fox, 2010). In response to the report, a consolidation of all central government
information services and application programming interfaces (APIs) under the GOV.uk website was initiated
(GOV.uk is a single website that brings government information and services together); the position of
Executive Director of Digital under the Cabinet Office is created to oversee all of the online government
presence, and a central team responsible for overall user experience in all digital channels and cross-
departmental digital reforms is established in the person of Government Digital Service (GDS) (Lane Fox,
2010).
In 2013, the strategic focus was on building and redesigning government digital services to make them a
default choice for citizens and businesses. The strategy has been followed up with departmental digital and
awareness raising strategies and cross-government and multi-stakeholder approach to assisted digital and
API provision. During this strategy centralization, efforts continued on different aspects - Digital by Default
Standard for digital services was elaborated, service quality management and cross-agency governance
procedures were implemented (e-Government projects assessment procedure executed by GDS); the
strategy also foresees the development of centralised e-Government platforms, centralised performance
dashboard for service performance reporting as well as front line information and service provision
centralisation - transition to GOV.UK. This strategy strengthened the role of GDS as centralised horizontal
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 14
coordinators, shared infrastructure developers, guidance providers and gatekeepers for investments in
major services. A stronger focus on third-party involvement in public service delivery was also carried out
(assisted digital, APIs, etc.).
In 2017, the UK’s Government released the national UK Digital Strategy 2017 and Government
Transformation Strategy 2017–2020. The national strategy focused on strengthening the UK’s digital
economy and turning it more resilient to changes associated with the exit from the EU (Brexit). The
Government Transformation Strategy concludes that the UK delivers increasingly sophisticated digital
services and recognises that many departments have reached the limits of transformation without changing
how the organisation works. The strategic focus of the new digital government agenda was set on enhanced
collaboration across organisational boundaries by joining-up across central and local administration and
third parties. As a result, the strategic scope covered not only the shift in delivery channels but also the
redesigning of internal back-office processes. The strategy foresaw several other elements, including the
integration of service and policy design practices; the forming of multidisciplinary policies and of delivery
teams; and a remodelled approach to measuring value and performance at the level of government: instead
of conducting it at the service or department level, addressing it through project or programme
governance. Further to this, there were three priorities assumed in the strategy: first, design and delivery of
joined-up services; second, delivery of major transformation programs, and; third, the Establishment of a
whole-of-government approach to transformation. The main instruments for reaching this is building a
community group of experts and senior leaders, partnering with similar local GOV community groups,
platforms and cross-governmental processes. The historical development core phases of e-Government in
the UK are shown in Table 4.
Table 4: historic development stages of e-Government in the United Kingdom.
PERIOD
MAIN E-GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT FOCUSES AND HIGHLIGHTS
2000 - 2004
e-Government: a strategic
framework for public
services in the Information
Age (HM Government’s
Cabinet Office, 2000)
Main focus: facilitate innovation in organisations, departmental e-Business strategies, initiate the
provision of common infrastructure and leadership. Examples:
• Citizen portal UKonline.gov.uk;
• BusinessLink.gov.uk;
• Directgov;
• e-Policy principles for agency policy makers.
2005 - 2011
Transformational
Government - Enabled by
Technology (HM
Government’s Cabinet
Office, 2005)
Connecting the UK: the
Digital Strategy (HM
Government’s Prime
Minister’s Strategy Unit and
Department of Trade and
Industry, 2005)
Focus on addressing the digital divide when accessing the internet, ICT in schools, digitalisation
of local administration, internet safety and security, administration digitalisation, citizen-centric
public services, use of shared services. Examples:
• eGov unit in the Cabinet Office;
• CIO Council;
• Customer Group Directors;
• Service Transformation Board;
• Transfer GOV websites to central portals (European Commission, 2014)
2009 - 2011
Putting the Frontline First:
Smarter Gov (Action plan)
(Chief Secretary to the
Treasury, 2009)
The main focus is on improving public services while reducing public expenditure. Examples:
• Tell Us Once;
• Open data;
• Datagov.uk.
•
Service data publishing;
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 15
• Expansion of shared service Centres;
• UK digital champion appointed;
• Martha Lane Fox review;
2011 - 2013
Government ICT Strategy
(HM Government’s Cabinet
Office, 2011)
Main focus: an open approach to ICT, mandating open standards, re-aligning take-up of open
source and encouraging greater SME participation in government ICT contracts. Examples:
• The prototype of GOV.UK was launched;
• 1500 government websites closed;
• Creation of the Executive Director of Digital position;
• Centralized government Digital Service.
2013 - 2015
Government Digital
Strategy (HM Government’s
Cabinet Office, 2013)
Main focus: digital by default, improvement of departmental leadership, redesign of major
transactional services, centralization of platforms, awareness building, wider stakeholder
engagement in public service delivery, co-design. Examples:
• Redesign of services;
• >10000 transactions/year;
• Departmental digital leaders;
• Digital by Default Service Standard;
•
Digital Assistants.
2017 - 2020
UK Digital Strategy 2017
(Bradley, 2017), Government
Transformation Strategy
Focus on the whole-of-government and joined-up service delivery, multichannel approach and
proactive service delivery (reduction of GOV transactions). Examples:
• Communities of interest (transformation together network experts);
• Transformation Peer Group (senior leaders);
• Platforms;
• Components and business capabilities;
• GOV.UK Verify, Notify, Pay;
• API standards;
• Agile;
•
Customer-centric procurement guidelines.
It should be noted that Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have, for various periods, elaborated their
respective digital strategies and plans (European Commission, 2018d). However, these digital strategies
and plans are out the scope of this report.
4.4 Current Digital Government and Public Service Delivery strategies of
Latvia, Denmark, and the UK
All three countries have national digital strategies in place. The UK and Denmark have distinct national
digital strategies and strategies for Government digital transformation. In Latvia, the digital transformation
of government is addressed in several sections of the national digital strategy, while some other aspects
are included in the Concept of Improvement of the Public Service System in Latvia and the public sector
reform plan. Current digital strategies and government (digital) transformation strategic documents and
their content outlines are summarised in Table 5.
While contextually and semantically different, all three have followed traditional patterns focusing first on
infrastructure, digital literacy, systems development for back-office efficiency gains in service development,
websites and online transactional services and the rollout of key enablers, like eID and digital signatures.
The key differences are in the timing of different strategies and initiatives, with Latvia formulating its first e-
Government strategies and initiatives later than Denmark and the UK.
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 16
Strategically, all three countries have recognised the importance of optimising public service delivery
channel strategies, and of ensuring a whole-of-government approach in public service delivery. While initial
strategies focused on digitalisation issues and platform development aspects, recent ones put more
emphasis on integrated and coherent service delivery.
Different tactics and scopes have facilitated the transition towards more efficient service delivery practices.
In the UK, the digital by default principle is realised by forcing the supply side (agencies) to offer their
services online, and by ensuring that quality benchmarks serve as incentives for their use. From an end-user
perspective, opting for digital channels is voluntary (opt-in model). In Denmark however, strategic approach
is similar in terms of forcing of government to put user-friendly services online, yet in parallel, Denmark has
established active opt-out policies, which imply mandatory usage of digital services by citizens, with
exemption rights for specific citizen groups. In Latvia, the approach retained favours a decentralised
organisation, whereby the strategic level prioritises digital channels but leaving implementation and
channel strategies to respective institutions. On the usage side, digital-only and voluntary digital opt-in
approaches are combined, depending on the context, including the service sector and its funding source.
Noteworthy exceptions are e-Services financed by EU ERDF (currently most of the cases), for which specific
targets for the degree of digitisation have been established. Current ERDF funding requirements imply that
respective agencies must ensure that business and public administration- / officials- related digital services
reach 90%, and citizen-oriented services reach 50%, digital take-up threshold by 2020 (Latvijas Republikas
Ministru kabineta, 2015). In addition, in Denmark and Latvia, the scope of supply-side regulations covers
both central government and local administration levels, whilst in the UK only central government services
are targeted.
In relation to a conceptual whole-of-government approach, the strategies in all three countries
acknowledge the need for the development of shared platforms and components, but on an operational
level there are differences: the UK’s Digital Transformation strategy recognises the need for design and
delivery of joined-up services and sets specific tasks to establish cross-government mechanisms, language,
tools and techniques, and frameworks to approach and deliver major transformations across government.
The strategy also outlines a preliminary list of services areas and user-journeys to be improved (HM
Government’s Cabinet Office and Government Digital Service, 2017a). Denmark’s recent strategic focus is
on the need to develop a more cohesive public sector when it comes to service delivery. Specific initiatives
are set, including 1.1. “More cohesive user journeys” which foresees the redesign of selected cross-agency
digital journeys from the citizens / businesses perspective; 1.3. An integrated overview of citizens’
interactions with authorities and benefits; and 3.1. “Cohesive welfare pathways for citizens”, where cross-
sectoral welfare pathways will be analysed and data sharing piloted. The current Latvian digital government
strategy (the oldest of the three compared) recognises the problem of fragmentation in public sector service
delivery. It is addressed by the development and usage of common platforms and implementation of the
once-only principle, but the strategy does not identify specific service areas or user-journeys which could
benefit from a review of their service design.
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 17
Table 5: strategic documents and initiatives related to Digital Government development.
LATVIA
DENMARK
UNITED KINGDOM
NATIONAL DIGITAL STRATEGY
Information Society Development Guidelines 2014-2020:
Action Lines
• ICT Education and e-Skills;
• Wide access to the Internet;
• Effective public administration;
• e-Services and digital content;
• Cross-border cooperation for Digital Single Market;
• ICT Research and innovation;
• Trust and security.
Overlying Principles
• Open data for economic development;
• Rational ICT governance;
• Effective operational processes;
• E-Governance quality.
Strategy for Denmark’s digital growth (2018-2025)
• Digital Hub Denmark (increase business access to digital
skills);
• SME: Digital;
• The Technology Pact (facilitate technical education);
•
Strengthened computational thinking in elementary
school;
• Data as a driver of growth (open data, facilitate take-up);
• Agile regulation for new business models;
• Strengthened cybersecurity in companies (security portal,
reporting for companies).
UK Digital Strategy 2017
• Connectivity: building world-class digital infrastructure:
• Skills and inclusion: giving access to digital skills;
• The digital sectors: making the UK the best place to start
and grow a digital business;
• The wider economy: help every British business become
a digital business;
• Cyberspace: making the UK the safest place in the world
to live and work online;
• Digital government: maintain the UK government as a
world leader in serving its citizens online;
• The data economy: unlocking the power of data in the UK
economy and improving public confidence in its use.
NB: Table 5 continues on the next page.
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 18
LATVIA
DENMARK
UNITED KINGDOM
GOVERNMENT (DIGITAL) TRANSFORMATION
STRATEGY(ies)
Information Society Development Guidelines 2014-2020
(parts)
• Part “Advanced and Effective Public Administration”:
process improvements by registry integration, e-
Participation tools, ICT infrastructure optimization;
• Part “eServices and digital content for Public”: service
delivery, open data, APIs, shared platforms (payment,
eID, eDelivery), e-Health, solutions for cross-border
service delivery and natural language processing;
• Part “Trust and Security” - eID, ICT security and safety
aspects.
Concept of the Improvement of the Public Service
System in Latvia
Establishes unified public service quality and performance
management framework and Unified Customer Centres.
Public administration reform action plan 2017-2020
Foresees
the
development of methodology and training for
citizen-centred service transformation, set up of
transformation laboratory to reduce administrative burden.
A stronger and more secure Digital Denmark 2016-2020
• User-friendly and Simple Digital Public Sector;
• Better use of data and quicker case processing;
• Better and more cohesive welfare services;
• A better framework for the business community;
• Public Sector data as a growth driver;
• An efficient utilities sector;
• The Public Sector Protects Data;
• Robust digital infrastructure;
• Digitalization for everyone.
Government Transformation Strategy
• Design and deliver joined-up services
o user centred
o focused on meeting user needs
o evidence-based
o delivered using agile methods
o high quality (meeting Digital Service Standard)
• Deliver the major transformation programs:
o Location
o Organization change
o Operating model
o Digital
• Establish a whole-government approach to
transformation
o creates mechanisms to help dep. Identify where they
will need to collaborate before funding is set
• Create a safe environment for experimentation and
learning around business transformation.
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 19
5. Governance models and institutional frameworks
Having looked at the strategic focuses of e-Government and service delivery, it is useful to look at the
governance models and institutional capacities for intergovernmental cooperation and coordination to
understand the outcomes of digital government. Understanding the mechanisms at play for the realisation
of the whole-of-government concept in public service delivery is of particular interest.
Latvia has a centralised institutional framework, with few central institutions providing most public services
to citizens. Latvia has a two-tier public sector whereby service delivery is largely delegated to municipalities
(119), and they have a high level of autonomy. There are existing cooperation initiatives between central
and local administrations on the shared provision of national public services in the municipalities (Unified
Customer Centres). Denmark has a three-tier public sector, consisting of five regions and 98 municipalities,
with a high level of local government autonomy, decision making and service delivery responsibilities
(Meyerhoff Nielsen, 2016a). The UK has a more complex organisational set-up, which differs greatly from
Latvia and Denmark. Even though it is a unitary state, the UK consists of four constituent countries: England,
Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The latter three are devolved nations with their own directly elected
government. The intermediate level consists of 27 county councils, plus the Greater London Authority; at
the municipal level, there are 389 local authorities, under which lies a structured grid of sub-municipal
authorities that differ greatly among constituent countries (OECD and UCLG, 2016). The general
governance and institutional frameworks of Latvia, Denmark and the UK are summarised in Table 6.
As a general summary, all three countries have adopted a centralised approach to governance, with the UK
having devolved greater levels of decision making to the Scottish, Northern Irish and Walsh regional
authorities. In all countries, service delivery is largely carried out by local governments with high levels of
autonomy. Whereas Latvia has a newer and by far simpler administrative framework and approach to
governance, Denmark and the UK have additional administrative layers in place for coordination, with the
UK having the most complex model in the form of three devolved administrations with their own elected
governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. At the same time, critical functions in the UK are
centralised at the national level, especially in terms of tax collection, budgeting of allocation and
expenditures. These aspects lay down the context in which governance and coordination models take place
in the coming sections.
Table 6: general governance and institutional frameworks in Latvia, Denmark and the United
Kingdom
LATVIA DENMARK UNITED KINGDOM
NATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL
FRAMEWORK AND
GOVERNANCE
•
Centralised model
• 2 levels of government (national
and local)
• 119 municipalities
•
Centralised model
• 3 levels of government (national,
regional and local)
• 5 regions and 98 municipalities
•
Centralised model
• 3 Levels of government
(national, regional or
intermediate and local or
municipal)
• 4 constituent countries, 27
country councils and Greater
London Authority, 389 Local
Authorities
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 20
DECENTRALISATION
OF GOVERNMENT
AUTHORITY
A moderate degree of local
autonomy and decision-making,
including tax and budget spending,
well-financed and with a strong
lobby in government decisions. A
great number of public services
delegated to municipalities as
autonomous functions. (Kažoka and
Stafecka, 2017).
A large degree of local autonomy
and decision-making, including tax
and budget spending. 70-80% of
citizen services are provided by
municipalities (Kažoka and
Stafecka, 2017).
At the regional level, the system of
devolution is asymmetric, the three
devolved nations enjoying different
levels of autonomy. 25.2% of its
public expenditures are carried out
by subnational governments,
ranking the UK as the 14th most
centralised country in the OECD on
public spending (OECD, 2016).
5.1 Government – governance and coordination aspects of Digital
Transformation
As expected from different socio-economic contexts and histories, all three countries have also adopted
different approaches to governance, decision-making and degree of cooperation between authorities and
levels of government, private sector, and the civil society.
5.1.1 Latvia
The governance model in Latvia as evolved over time. While it remains complex in its nature, three layers
can be identified: the strategic, the operational, and the implementation layers. The Latvian e-Governance
and coordination model is illustrated in Figure 1.
At the strategic and policy level, direction and vision of digital government in Latvia are framed by the
Information Society Development Council (ISDC), which is chaired by the Prime Minister, with members
including key relevant ministers and stakeholders from the private sector (Latvijas Republikas Ministru
kabineta, 2018). The core responsibilities include advice to the Cabinet of Ministers on information society
policies and regulatory issues, implementing shared services in government, monitoring structural funds
projects as well as monitoring and coordinating information society activities and projects at the national
level.
At the operational level, major changes to the governance model were initiated in 2013. The adoption of
the “Concept of the Organizational Model of Public ICT Management” established a two-level, federated,
and partly centralised, coordination model. At the national level, the Ministry of Environmental Protection
and Regional Development (VARAM) operates as State CIO office and is responsible for e-Government
strategy and policy coordination, ICT architecture, and e-Government program management functions as
a result. Therefore, it is tasked with establishing principles and coordinating national-level issues, such as
the implementation of shared services and coordinating cross-agency issues.
Subordinated to the VARAM is the State Regional Development Agency (VRAA), which provides centralised
shared services to state and municipal authorities, including the citizens portal Latvija.lv, the data exchange
platform VISS.gov.lv, the national Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) for the e-Authentication and e-Payments
modules.
Authorities and agencies are responsible for implementing daily activities and projects in their respective
service areas but must apply horizontal principles, comply with national standards and use national shared
services. To reduce fragmentation and facilitate coordination at the sectoral level, each sector appointed a
Sectorial CIO, who is responsible for the strategic representation of all agencies under the particular
ministry. Operational coordination at national level happens in the National CIO forum, which is chaired by
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 21
the State CIO (the Deputy State Secretary of VARAM). In addition to government representatives,
participants from local government associations and the Parliament are participating. Extended meetings
with the participation of private sector representatives are held on a regular basis.
Figure 1: Latvian e-Governance and coordination model. Source: authors.
The Latvian governance and coordination focus is generally associated with information society policy and
issues related to ICT implementation and use. The coordination of service delivery is, at the strategic and
policy level, a competence shared between VARAM and the State Chancellery. VARAM is responsible for a
one-stop shop and once-only principle implementation in public service delivery – both electronic and face-
to-face – whilst the State Chancellery is responsible for the initiation and coordination of reform
programmes and policies related to areas such as good governance and administrative burden reduction.
As the implementation of the whole-of-government approach is closely associated with organisational
aspects, the State Chancellery and VARAM work in coordination.
At the operational level, the responsibility for service delivery is decentralised with the respective agencies
being responsible for their own service delivery strategy and implementation. An exception to this are
ERDF-funded ICT initiatives especially related to the digitalisation of services and service production. If
ERDF-funded a minimum, pre-defined threshold level for digital usage (or take-up), it is required to be
agreed with the funding authority (i.e. VARAM). The division of main functions and involved actors in public
service delivery in Latvia are shown in Table 7.
Table 7: public service delivery responsibility allocation structure in Latvia
NATIONAL LEVEL
VARAM
• Public service delivery strategy, policy and digitalization principles;
• Definition of public service delivery performance KPIs;
• e-Government architecture and standardization initiatives;
• Government data exchange and open data policy and standards;
• Portfolio management, monitoring of ERDF-funded e-Government projects;
• Coordination of Unified Customer Service Centres network;
•
Coordination of Information society development council and CIO network.
VRAA
• Data exchange and shared services platforms for agencies digital services;
• Citizens portal and unified citizen digital account (official e-address);
•
Centralized performance KPIs platform and public service catalogue.
AGENCY LEVEL
Sectorial
Agencies /
Municipalities
• Public service identification, provision and quality control;
• Sector-specific public service delivery and channel strategy;
• Regular performance measuring and reporting in the platform;
• Provision of central government services and e-service assistance, participate in distributed call-
centre network of Citizen’s portal.*
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 22
* Only municipalities participating in the Unified Customer Service Centre program.
The model of service delivery adopted in Latvia is complex, as the various coordinating formations in place
address and coordinate different aspects of public service delivery at the strategic level.
In relation to coordination and steering, several entities address different aspects of service delivery. The
National CIO forum focuses on coordinating the development of e-Government platforms and e-
Government project realisation, according to government ICT architecture. Parallel to this is a Supervisory
board on Unified Customer Centres, responsible for coordinating the development of a Unified Customer
Centres’ network. Business-related process and service improvements are addressed in a steering group,
as part of the Business Environment Improvement Plan. In 2018, a Latvija.lv portal advisory board was being
established, in view of coordinating the content and development of the government digital gateway with
agencies and local governments. The board will consist of representatives from ministries, major
government service providers and representatives from local government and industry NGOs. Coordination
at the local government level is organised through two existing stakeholder organisations representing
municipalities, namely the Latvian Association of Regional and Local Governments and the Latvian
Association of Big Cities. These associations are represented in all national government coordination
formations, ensuring a higher degree of coordination between national and local government initiatives.
There is currently no permanent steering or coordination forum addressing cross-sectoral process and
service redesign initiatives. In practice, a high level of centralised outsourcing a cross-sectoral service
redesign projects with decentralised implementation by respective agencies in their sectorial projects (such
as the implementation of automatic processing of sick leaves5) has been the norm. Recently, the State
Chancellery has initiated cross-sectoral initiative on creating a cross-agency administrative burden reduction
lab consisting of change agents from each service sector (ministry) that will work collaboratively on issues
identified and submitted by citizens. Figure 2 shows the Latvian public service delivery model for
governance, coordination mechanisms and actors.
Figure 2: Latvian public service delivery governance and coordination (source: authors).
5 In 2011, as part of larger project an initiative of preparation of redesign plan for sick leaves was initialized by VARAM Ministry. Sick-
leaves processing is cross-sectorial process involving agencies from social security and health sectors, so integrated analysis of process
from citizens perspective was outsourced and done in cooperation with respective competent authorities. Tasks resulting from
redesign plan were integrated in respective agency level service optimization projects and respective ministries ensured needed
regulatory amendments.
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 23
To summarise, Latvia currently has a number of horizontal coordination mechanisms in place related to ICT
architecture, shared platforms and their usage, coordination of physical customer service centres
development and different aspects of service delivery. Government (digital) transformation policies and
coordination function are, however, not currently delegated to a single entity with overall responsibility for
transformation policy and coordination. Instead, the current institutional set-up involves the State
Chancellery and VARAM with some overlapping mandates and responsibilities. On the operational level,
the service delivery regulatory framework provides for basic requirements for service identification,
minimum quality standards, performance assessment and service digitalisation, which agencies must
comply with.
Operational responsibility for service delivery is decentralised, with each agency responsible for a given
service area. The only exception is the regulated spheres, such as the establishment of new customer service
centres and ERDF-funded service digitalisation, for which VARAM is responsible. The VARAM mandate
includes the validation and monitoring of all ERDF-funded e-Government projects, ensuring compliance
with government ICT architecture – including data exchanges with local administrations – supervising
shared services take-up and consider the interests of local administrations in the process (VARAM, 2017a).
Further to this, VARAM has the power to initiate termination of the project in case of non-compliance
(Latvijas Republikas Ministru kabineta, 2015). All proposals of shared platforms and other agency projects
financed by structural funds are coordinated with representatives of local governments, which have a strong
mandate to accept or suspend any given project.
Mechanisms for cross-sectoral and cross-administrative coordination of e-Government projects funded by
structural funds are well established; yet, on an operational level, there is currently no single institution
responsible for, or steering group with mandate and capacity to, drive and coordinate the realisation of a
whole-of-government approach, and to design customer-centric, cross-agency processes and services.
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 24
5.1.2 Denmark
The Ministry of Finance is the main initiator of strategies and policies regarding e-Government in Denmark.
The ministry develops initiatives concerning administration, public leadership and digitalisation to improve
efficiency in public administration. The specialised Agency for Digitalization (DIGST) within the Ministry is
the main catalyst of initiating cross-governmental strategies in the areas of IT and technology use. The main
responsibility of DIGST is to contribute to the accomplishment of the political vision and the strategy,
including the associated action plan. DIGST gathers strong strategic, professional and technical
competencies within a single organisation. This increases its ability to run e-Government strategies from
idea generation to conceptualisation, approval and actual implementation and benefit realisation post-
implementation. Table 8 summarises the division of main functions and involved actors in public service
delivery in Denmark.
Table 8: public service delivery responsibility allocation structure in Denmark.
NATIONAL LEVEL
Ministry of Finance • Initiatives concerning administration, public leadership and digitalisation;
• Initiator of strategies and policies related to e-Government.
DIGST
(Digitaliseringsstyrelsen,
n.d-d)
• Development of digitalisation policy for the public sector (including initiatives to cut red
tape);
• Portfolio management, monitoring of Joint Government Digital Strategy 2016-2020;
• Shared services for agencies digital services, development of national digital identity;
• Citizens portal and unified citizen digital account (Digital Post);
• Cyber and information security regulation and standards;
• e-Government architecture and data exchange;
• User experience, accessibility and cohesive user journey coordination;
• IT project management frameworks and professionalisation;
•
Coordination of Steering Committee for the e-Government Strategy.
AGENCY LEVEL
Sectorial Agencies /
Municipalities
• Public service identification, provision and quality control;
• Sector-specific public service delivery and channel strategy.
At the strategic level, DIGIST coordinates the national e-Government strategy and chairs the Portfolio
Steering Committee (PSC), acting as chair of the decision-making body responsible for the coordination
and implementation of the cross-governmental e-Government Strategy and its associated action plan. The
PSC is a unique feature of the Danish approach to e-Government as it is cross-governmental and includes
stakeholders from all levels of government (DIGST - Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, n.d.-b; Meyerhoff Nielsen,
2017b).
Coordination is ensured at the operational level by project steering groups, which are set up for each
initiative in the form of individual projects or programmes consisting of multiple associated projects. Some
initiatives are rooted in already existing forums and steering groups, in which case coordination is ensured
within the said group. In order to conduct implementation, and to coordinate work across initiatives, the
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 25
PSC can set up specific coordination and working groups. Individual programme leaders, project steering
committees and working groups report to the PSC on a monthly basis, and/or escalate issues to the PSC
whenever necessary. The PSC is supported by two standing committees on legal, financial and budgetary
issues, respectively. Stakeholders directly involved in the PSC and in the e-Government strategy action plan
include key central government entities, the management committees of umbrella organisations
(representing all regions and municipalities) of Danish Regions and Local Government. Stakeholders
indirectly involved include representatives of the IT sector, public and private, e.g. Danish Industry (a
stakeholder organisation), and citizen groups, e.g. senior citizen representatives and handicap
organisations. Similarly, private vendors contracted for the implementation of individual initiatives generally
participate in the relevant programme and project steering committees and working groups (DIGST -
Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, n.d.-b; Meyerhoff Nielsen, 2017b). The governance levels of Danish e-Governance
model is illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3: e-Government strategy 2016-2020 Portfolio Steering Committee, project steering
committees and work and coordination groups (DIGST - Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, n.d.-b).
At the project level, all state authorities must apply the Common IT Project Model; further to this, for any
project over 10 million DKK (approx. €1,3M), a risk assessment must be conducted by the IT Council, and
the State Business Case Model must be used. The common IT Project Model is inspired by PRINCE2, it
includes principles of phase division and phase transition, a number of management tools, and provides for
principles of organisation and roles (Meyerhoff Nielsen & Yasouka, 2014) (Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, n.d-e).
To summarise, the strong mandates and central roles assumed by both DIGST and the PSC have been
recognised as key elements facilitating the Danish e-Government success-story. The joint-governmental
nature helped to create a joint vision and ownership of the national vision, strategies and action plans across
all three levels of government. Similarly, the link between goals and KPIs in the strategy and individual
initiatives helped to ensure successful implementation and benefit realisation.
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 26
5.1.3 The United Kingdom
In the UK, the Cabinet Office holds overall responsibility for the government efficiency and reform agenda,
with the overarching objective to improve the government productivity and effectiveness. Coordination of
the e-Government policy resides in the Cabinet Office, under the political responsibility of the Minister for
Cabinet Office (European Commission, 2018d).
The Government Digital Service (GDS) was established as the central team in the Cabinet Office, in order
to control the overall user experience across all digital channels; it is considered to be the mandated and
reference authority responsible for the implementation of the Digital Transformation Strategy and, through
support and monitoring, ensure the implementation of the Government’s various digital initiatives. In doing
so, the GDS oversees various tasks, including establishing standards for the Government’s digital
technologies; identify, curate and share good practices; set professional standards and act as a centre of
digital expertise; build and operate shared services that other governments can use; provide digital, data
and technology expertise to other Government-led projects; and actively assure compliance with approved
standards, spending, timely implementation, envisaged outcomes etc.
Responsibilities of the GDS include running the gov.uk portal; coordinating cross-government strategy
aiming at simpler and better public services delivery online; building cross-government platforms, e.g. the
e-Identification verification method on gov.uk; assisting departments in buying technology. Table 9
summarises the division of main functions and involved actors in public service delivery in the UK.
Table 9: Public service delivery responsibility allocation structure in the United Kingdom.
NATIONAL LEVEL
Cabinet Office, Minister
for Implementation
(European Commission,
2018d)
• Government efficiency, including digital government policy;
• Civil service human resources, Single Departmental Plans.
GDS
(HM Government’s
Digital Service, 2018)
• Shared services for agencies digital services, development of national digital identity;
• Running the government’s portal;
• e-Government architecture, digital service standards and guidance;
• User experience, accessibility and cohesive user journey coordination;
• Coordination of government steering networks and communities;
• Centre of Digital, data and technology expertise, including development capacity;
• Spend controls and service assessments.
AGENCY LEVEL
Departments /
Municipalities
• Public service identification, provision and quality control;
• Sector specific public service delivery and channel strategy;
• Departmental transformation plans and initiatives (central government).
The GDS is governed by the Ministerial Group on Government Digital Technology, together with digital,
data and technology leaders responsible for central government departments and devolved
administrations (HM Government’s Digital Service, 2018). In addition, the GDS receives guidance by the
GDS Advisory Board, the Data Steering Group and the Privacy and Consumer Advisory Group.
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 27
During the implementation phase, two major coordination networks are involved: the Technology and
Digital Leaders Network (TDLN) and the Data Leaders Network. TDLN was established following the merger
of two previously distinct networks of Digital Leaders and Technology Leaders, in order to further the
integration of cross-government digital and technology decisions and to meet the objectives of the Digital
Transformation Strategy. The Network is chaired by the GDS and is composed of digital and technology
leaders from key government departments, plus leaders from each of the devolved administrations (HM
Government’s Digital Service, 2018). Further to this, a joint Infrastructure and Project Authority, as well as
the GDS Transformation Peer Group coordinate major government transformation projects (Meggs and
Infrastructure and Projects Authority, 2018).
Coordination of regional and local e-Government policies falls under the responsibility of the Ministry of
Housing, Communities and Local Government. At the implementation level, local Councils are responsible
for carrying out e-Government projects within the framework of their competence. In Devolved
Administrations, additional formations run customer-centric service design programmes, such as the
“Customer First” programme in Scotland, the Public Service Leadership Group in Wales, and the Delivery
and Innovation Division in Northern Ireland.
The UK is currently in the process of strengthening central government capacities, capabilities and
functions; in doing so, it is building capabilities of core government functions, notably through ten corporate
functions addressing specific issues, including, among others, a digital function (HM Government’s Cabinet
Office, 2015). This will bring specialist skills together and will take a cross-cutting and whole-of-government
approach to the way central government entities operates, with the objective to improve the delivery of
government policy and services. This approach is expected to strengthen the role of the GDS in the process
further.
To summarise, the UK managed the whole-of-government approach by establishing a key competent
authority at the centre of government and equipping it with a strong mandate, multi-disciplinary capacities
and competencies. This effort includes all digital functions coordinated by GDS, as well as by joining up
steering networks, so as to create a more coherent knowledge-sharing and coordination across government
sectors and level. Departments still define and implement their own digital strategies, but standards are set
centrally, and major or high-risk transformation programmes and services of the central government are
centrally-guided, supported and scrutinised. The current coordination models seem loosely connected to
regional and municipal levels, though a closer integration at the local level on the usage of shared services
and information integration is currently being explored (HM Government’s Cabinet Office and Government
Digital Service, 2017a).
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 28
5.2 Current digital governance and intergovernmental models in Latvia,
Denmark and the UK
In conclusion, the three countries have taken different approaches to the coordination of e-Government
implementation and the digital transformation of public sector production and delivery. In Latvia and
Denmark, the responsibility of strategy development lies at the ministerial level, while the UK has embedded
this function to the Cabinet Office. Both Denmark and the UK have specialised and mandated agencies
setting-up and implementing respective national digital strategies. The presence of professional and
technical competencies within a single organisation facilitates their ability to run e-Government strategies
and to coordinate a whole-of-government approach. In Latvia, on the other hand, there is no such single
digital transformation centre; instead, roles are shared among VARAM (ministry), VRAA (technology focused
shared services agency) and the State Chancellery.
Denmark’s DIGST has a strong and recognised mandate, working both at the strategic and operational
level, towards the development and execution of strategies and individual initiatives. At the operational
level, DIGST works within a framework of formalised steering committees, the PSC, which includes
representatives from different agencies and municipal and regional associations; this format can be used to
escalate issues for decision making or troubleshooting. Although it is chaired by DIGST, it remains cross-
governmental in nature, with a sense of joint ownership across all levels of government. In the UK, GDS
plays a central role in implementing and coordinating strategic digital transformation initiatives; it also has
the capacity to oversee strategic coordination, monitoring, analytical work, provision of advisory assistance
and even to execute practical implementation. The GDS cooperates with existing coordination networks;
yet considering the administrative context, integration with regional and local authorities occur with a lower
frequency than in Denmark. In Latvia, the coordinating roles for ICT-enabled government transformation
are at the policy level shared between the State Chancellery and VARAM. At the operational level, VARAM
coordinates the development of e-Government architecture and standards, yet the development of specific
platforms, like data exchange platform and the national portal Latvija.lv, remains in the hands of the VRAA
shared services agency; in this way, however, additional effort is required to ensure that policy development
and implementation is consistent and coordinated.
Coordination models differ in the three countries. In Denmark, the PSC coordinates both the policy and
strategy levels; at times, and at the operational level; it is composed of representatives from all government
levels. Similar to this is the UK’s ministerial-level coordination group (the Ministerial Group on Government
Digital Technology) which is set up at the strategic level. In addition, the work of the GDS is guided by
several groups involving members from the government, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the
private sector. In Latvia, there is a ministerial-level network (ISDC) chaired by the Prime Minister, with
members from central and local governments, business and ICT stakeholder organisations and NGOs.
At the implementation level, steering models also differ in the three countries. In Denmark, each strategic
initiative in the action plan has a steering committee, as well as a number of permanent steering
committees; this allows for better cross-sectoral coordination. In the UK, there are two permanent
coordination networks: TDLN and Data Leaders networks, chaired by the GDS. In Latvia, there is a
coordination network of state CIOs, which mainly focuses on ICT and data exchange matters; yet there is
currently no interdisciplinary coordination network for the transformation and public service aspects. Table
10 summaries the governance of Digital Government and public service delivery strategies and action plans
in Latvia, Denmark and the UK.
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 29
Table 10: e-Governance in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom.
LATVIA
DENMARK
UNITED KINGDOM
The responsible
authority for
government (digital)
transformation
strategy
VARAM, ISDC on Information Society
Development Plan and Public Services
Improvement Conception, State
Chancellery on state administrative
reform (Latvijas Republikas Ministru
kabineta, 2012)
Ministry of Finance,
DIGST (including the
PSC for the e-
Government strategy)
Cabinet Office, Minister for
the Implementation,
Ministerial Group on
Government Digital
Technologies, +GDS Advisory
board, Data Steering Group,
Privacy and Consumer
Advisory Group
Action plan
high level yes no (there is a roadmap)
The responsible
authority for the
action plan
VARAM DIGST Cabinet Office, GDS
Steering networks
CIO network (national and local
government representatives)
Steering committees
(strategy specific and
permanent)
Technology and Digital
Leaders Network and Data
Leaders Network
Chairperson
organisation
VARAM Ministry DIGST Cabinet Office6
National e-
Governance and
cooperation model
Hybrid: centralised in relation to strategy
and policy but decentralised in
implementation. At projects level, central
and local government coordination
formats with strong mandates exist.
Centralized and driven
by DIGST,
representatives from all
levels of government.
Hybrid: centralized in relation
to national strategy but
decentralised in relation to
Devolved Administrations and
local governments.
6 Starting on 1 April 2018, the Secretariat team running the Data Leaders Network moved under the Department for Digital, Culture,
Media & Sport.
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 30
6. Internet access, key digital enablers, citizen e-Services, take-up
and impact
Having outlined the relevant countries’ socio-economic contexts, their governance and inter-governmental
models, this section provides insights on their respective results vis-a-vis information societies and digital
governments. Aspects include access to the Internet, digital skills, key digital enablers in place and the level
of citizen services digitalisation and take-up.
6.1 Internet access, use, digital skills and non-users of the Internet
Internet-mediated services are widely accessible in all three countries, thanks to the successful roll-out of
internet infrastructures: Next Generation Access (NGA)7 broadband coverage in all countries is comparably
high, reaching 91.3% of households in Latvia, 94.6% in Denmark and 93.9% in the UK (European
Commission, 2015a). Rural territories are also reasonably well covered with fixed broadband: in the UK and
Denmark, fixed broadband coverage in rural areas is close to 100% (UK: 99.8%, DK: 97,5%). In Latvia, the
figure is lower, at 82.4% (European Commission, 2015d, European Commission, 2015c); a determining
factor, however, lies in the tendency of Latvian consumers to switch to unlimited mobile 4G internet data
plans provided by mobile operators competitively priced when compared to fixed broadband. Indeed, the
OECD’s Digital Economy Outlook 2017 highlights that, as a result of the introduction of unlimited data
plans, Latvia and Finland currently have the EU’s highest mobile data usage per mobile broadband
subscription (OECD, 2017b). A defining feature of Latvia’s and Denmark’s internet infrastructures is the
availability of high-speed internet access, with fibre-to-premises coverage in Latvia reaching 85.3% (the EU’s
second highest) and in Denmark reaching 62.7% of households. In the UK, however, overall broadband
coverage remains high, the proportion of fibre-to-premises broadband is nonetheless considerably lower,
at a mere 2.3% rate (Eurostat, 2018a).
With respect to mobile Internet access, Denmark has considerably higher mobile broadband subscriptions
rates than Latvia and the UK (Eurostat, 2018a). Concerning the take-up of available internet access at home,
this correlates to the regular usage of internet access indicators, with over 90% of Danish and UK citizens
using the internet regularly, i.e. from daily to at least once a week. By comparison, only 78.5% of Latvians
do so, as illustrated in Table 11. The proportion of people who have never used the Internet in Latvia remains
higher than both in Denmark and the UK.
Table 11: broadband access and internet take-up by citizens (source: Eurostat, 2018a).
LATVIA
DENMARK
UNITED KINGDOM
EU28 AVERAGE
Broadband at home (%) / Mobile
broadband (subs. per 100)
76.5% / 90.8% 92.1% / 129.5% 93.1% / 89.8% 84.7% / 90.2%
Fibre to premise (% of households)
85,3%
62,7%
2,3%
26.8%
Using once a week
78.5%
95.3%
92.7%
80.9%
Have never used
15.8% 2.03% 3.9% 12.9%
7 Next Generation Access refers to Internet access featuring at least 30 Mbps/s download speed.
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 31
6.2 Key enablers
The availability of key e-Government enablers, such as online identification, authentication, digital signature
and digital post, varies across the three countries. Since 2003, Denmark has had a common e-Identification
solution called NemID (EasyID) used by the public and private sectors. The UK does not have a government-
provided eID solution, yet in 2016, the UK’s GDS implemented “UK Verify”, whereby online identification is
provided by certified private companies. Identification is currently used in main government services, yet
critics are regularly voiced, in particular regarding the low success rate, slow expansion to other government
services and privacy concerns. Online identification is widely available in Latvia, yet implementation differs
from both the UK and Denmark. Latvia has a combined approach: as from 2012, Latvia implemented national
ID-cards for citizens with integrated digital signatures and online identification authentication certificates.
However, most of the government e-Services are currently using online-banking authentication solutions
for secure access and identification; consequently, in more than 95% cases, identifications are made through
online banks. Nine bank-provided eID services are currently integrated into government services platforms,
representing a 96% market share of Latvia’s consumer banking system. In order to solve the eID take-up
challenges at the national level, a national mobile ID and signature system were launched in January 2018:
eParaksts.lv, as part of the national ID scheme. It provides a cloud-based, qualified identification and signing
solutions (Latvijas Valsts radio un televīzijas centrs, 2017). Further to this, in 2018, amendments to regulations
were initiated, so as to introduce mandatory ownership of eID cards for citizens and providing unlimited,
free-of-charge e-Authentication and e-Signature functionality starting from 2019, both in national ID cards,
Mobile ID and Mobile e-Signature solutions.
Both Latvia and Denmark have national PKI and ID schemes. The Danish scheme was developed and is
being used across public and private sectors alike, thereby providing a unified user experience for citizens,
and boosting take-up levels as a result. Since 2013, all Danes are, by default, issued with a digital identity.
Active opt-out is possible if a citizen is in a unique situation, does not have Internet access or the required
digital literacy to use e-Services. In Latvia, the national ID is currently not as widespread and thus has not
become the default tool for citizens’ online identification authentication. This lack is compensated for by an
open eID policy, establishing an ecosystem allowing private sector providers to play a major role: Internet-
banking authentication has, therefore, become the de facto default tool for receiving government services,
thus providing a unified tool for public and private digital services with a relatively high level of take-up. The
UK does not have a country-wide electronic ID scheme; if UK Verify provides a unified tool for receiving
public and private digital services, the level of take-up remains too low for the service to reach a significant
proportion of the UK’s citizens.
The official digital post is fully introduced in Denmark and has been mandatory for citizens aged 15 or
above since 2013. Like the eID digital post, it can be opted out of if a user is in a unique position, lacks
internet access or digital skills. All government entities must be able to send and receive digital post via the
national infrastructure, but it is not mandatory for digital communications. However, the 2012-2015 e-
Government strategy specified that a minimum of 80% of all physical communication is to be done via digital
post from 2015 onwards – a target generally exceeded. In Latvia, an official digital post (e-Adrese) was
launched in June 2018 for institutions, and it is expected to be extended to citizens and businesses in
January 2019 (starting from October 2018, e-Adrese is accessible in beta mode (VRAA, 2018c). While
e-Adrese is already mandatory for national and municipal institutions, the obligation will only be extended
to businesses (by 2019) and courts (by 2020); adoption expected to remain accessible on a voluntary basis
for citizens (VARAM, 2018).
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 32
The once-only principle has been recognised as one of the ways to ensure more integrated service
delivery, as administrations can exchange information for their functions without interfering with citizens.
Such a principle is widely adopted both in Latvia and in Denmark: in Latvia, the principle is listed in
legislation, i.e. in Article 59 of the Law on Administrative Procedures, which reads: “If the information
needed by an institution is [..] at the disposal of another authority, the institution shall acquire the
information itself rather than requiring it from participants in the administrative proceeding”, and in the Law
on State Information systems; it is applicable to any government procedure as a result (Latvijas Republikas
Ministru kabineta, 2003). In Denmark, this principle is realised through the “Basic Data” programme
(Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, n.d-a). In the UK, it is applicable on a case-by-case basis, e.g. the Tell Us Once
service allows information births and deaths to be shared across government departments so that citizens
are only required to provide this information once to public authorities (HM Government, n.d-h).
Supporting technical infrastructure is supervised by national data exchange platforms in place in Latvia
and Denmark. At the moment, the UK does not have a similar set-up. However, there are disclosed plans to
create authoritative registers and to forego actions to remove current barriers to effective data use in
government (HM Government’s Cabinet Office and Government Digital Service, 2017b).
All three countries have established national citizen portals. The Latvian portal Latvija.lv serves as the
central platform for delivering services at the national level but also contains descriptions of municipality-
level service and, in some cases, links to municipality websites for further information. In Denmark, the
Borger.dk portal integrates information and e-Services from all levels of government. Borger.dk is
considered a critical infrastructure component and the default portal for all citizens services in Denmark, no
matter the level of government, and is governed by a cross-governmental board and jointly funded by the
central, regional and local governments. The UK’s gov.uk portal is centrally-administered, and mainly
focuses on central government information, but some local level information and transactions are also
integrated, e.g. bank holidays in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, or application for alcohol
licensing in specific areas, such as England and Wales.
Latvia, Denmark and the UK applied different strategies regarding minimum standards-setting for
usability and unified citizen digital experience across government. In Latvia, basic requirements for the
development and provision of digital services at national and local levels are stated in regulatory acts -
“Regulation on Government Digital Services” – (Latvijas Republikas Ministru kabineta, 2017). The regulation
covers such aspects as customer-oriented service design (Latvijas standarts, 2016, ISO, 2010)8, performance
measurement, customer analysis, once-only principle, use of shared components, web accessibility (Latvijas
standarts, 2017, ETSI et al., 2015)9, development of APIs, proactivity and duty to facilitate take-up of the
digital service. More specific technical guidelines are provided for services developed within the national
citizen’s portal Latvija.lv (VRAA, 2018a). There is no community practice built around standards or usability
or citizen-centric service design. Agencies are responsible for the compliance, but no strict compliance
validation process has been put in place so far.
In Denmark, a usability guide, namely Udviklingsvejledning for god selvbetjening, was developed as part of
the e-Government strategy 2012-2015. The usability guide and its current 25 requirements are mandatory
8 Latvia’s standardisation authority registered the internationally recognised ISO rule from 2010 in 2016.
9 Latvia’s standardisation authority registered the European Standard from 2015 in 2017.
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 33
for all government websites and e-Services, as part of the mandatory self-service strategy applicable to
approximately 70 high-frequency, high-volume service areas; adoption and compliance remains voluntary
for others (Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, 2015). DIGST is the responsible authority for guideline development.
Guidelines include process recommendations, usability criteria, code examples, tools and templates; there
is also a practitioners’ community, including vendors. Regarding compliance to standards, all high-
frequency, high-volume e-Services, which fall within the scope of the mandatory online self-service strategy
(at the national, regional and local level), must comply with national usability standards set out in the
usability guide. All relevant central, regional and local authorities are responsible for the compliance of their
own services, but a screening and escalation process is in place. National portals are responsible for
screening and, in case of non-compliance, the portals can escalate issues to the PSC.
In the UK, the GDS has developed the Digital Service Standard, a mandatory set of guidelines for all national
authorities, which remains open for others to follow on a voluntary basis (HM Government, n.d-d). It contains
18 design principles, including mandatory reporting of performance measures on the Performance Platform
(HM Government, 2013). In addition, there is a service manual laying down recommendations to meet
standards and covering such aspects as accessibility, measuring success, agile delivery, service assessments,
design and end-user research (HM Government, n.d-f). Further to this, in June 2018, the GDS released a
GOV.UK Design System framework containing styles, components and patterns designed to help teams in
government create user-centred digital services (HM Government, 2018a). The UK has a strong GDS-backed
practitioners community, curating user research and service design, such as the Design System working
group (HM Government, 2018b). Compliance is ensured by mandatory and voluntary assessment
procedures, carried out centrally by specialised teams in GDS, or by the responsible authority, depending
on service transaction volumes (HM Government’s Standards and assurance community, 2017). Availability
and take-up of key e-Government enablers are shown in Table 11.
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 34
Table 12: availability and take-up of key e-Government enablers.
AVAILABILITY LEVEL OF TAKE-UP
LATVIA DENMARK UK LATVIA DENMARK UK
National eID or other eID solution
recognised for public services10 yes10 yes yes 15,4%
(300’000)
71,8%
(1.42 million)
87,4%
(4,9 million)
2,3%
(1,5 million)
Official digital post
yes11
yes
no
0%
89%12
n/a
Once only principle13
general
principle
for specific
data sets
for specific
services n/a
National data exchange platform yes14 yes15 no n/a
e-Services usability standard/guides yes/no16 yes yes Mandatory for Latvija.lv e-
Services
Mandatory for major e-Services
at all government levels
Mandatory for all central
government e-Services
Is there a compliance process? yes/no16 yes yes Screening: VRAA (citizens’
portal). No escalation foreseen.
Screening: portals. Compliance:
agencies. Escalation foreseen.
Screening: GDS. Compliance:
agencies. Escalation foreseen.
National citizens’ portal yes yes yes
Key platform for central
government information and e-
Services, information loosely
linked to the local level.
Key platform for information
and e-Services at all levels of
government
Key platform for central
government information and e-
Services, deep links to the local
level.
Linked private sector info? no no no n/a
10 Most public services are available means of internet banks: the proportion of take-up is calculated as % of population, who are online banking users of 9 banks providing e-Identification for public e-
Services. The Number of clients of those 9 banks make up 96% of all private clients in Latvian Banks. LATVIJAS KOMERCBANKU ASOCIĀCIJA. 2018. Vispārējie dati uz 31.12.2017. Available:
https://www.financelatvia.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Visparejie-dati-2017-gada-4-ceturksni.pdf.; Data for Denmark and the UK is also from 2017 BBC NEWS. 2017. Low success rate for government
online ID service [Online]. The British Broadcasting Corporation. Available: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41642044 [Accessed 27/11/2018], FINANCE DENMARK. 2017. NemID (future MitID)
[Online]. Finance Denmark. Available: http://financedenmark.dk/hard-figures/financial-institutions-branches-employees/payments/nemid-future-mitid/ [Accessed 27/11/2018].
11 Mandatory for central and local government from June 2018; available for businesses and citizens on 2 January 2019.
12 DIGITALISERINGSSTYRELSEN. n.d-f. Special focus on young people [Online]. Digitaliseringsstyrelsen. Available: https://en.digst.dk/policy-and-strategy/mandatory-digitisation/digital-post/young-
people/ [Accessed 26/11/2018], ibid., ibid.
13 GOVERNMENT OF LUXEMBOURG (CTIE) & KURT SALOMON. 2015. Security and data protection measures in the context of ‘Once-only’ and reuse of existing data approaches [Online]. Luxembourg
Government. Available: http://www.eupan.eu/files/repository/20151209104842_Presentation_-_CTIE_Study_'Security_and_data_protection_measures'_-_Luxembourg_Presidency_2015.pdf [Accessed
23/11/2018], ibid.
14 State information System integrator VRAA. 2018b. Informacijai [Online]. Valsts Reģionālās Attīstības aģentūra. Available: https://viss.gov.lv/lv/Informacijai [Accessed 01/12/2018].
15 Denmark Data Distributor STYRELSEN FOR DATAFORSYNING OG EFFEKTIVISERING. n.d. Datafordeler [Online]. Styrelsen for Dataforsyning og Effektivisering,. Available: https://datafordeler.dk
[Accessed 01/12/2018].
16 Regulation on service digitalization basic requirements, but without guides + specific design and technical standards and guides to publish services on citizens’ portal.
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 35
To summarise, in order to guarantee an integrated citizen experience in government service design, each
of the three countries applied different strategies. All of them have established basic standards for online
public sector services but with different level of support for their actual application, and with different
strengths of compliance control. Latvia, Denmark and the UK established whole-of-government approaches
regarding the development of services standards, yet with different levels of details. The UK and Denmark
provide guidelines covering look-and-feel aspects of all major government services at all government levels.
In the UK, the major central government services must comply with the Digital Service Standard. In Denmark,
all high-frequency, high-volume e-Services at any level of government must comply with the usability
requirements and is voluntary for low volume, infrequently used e-Services. In Latvia, basic requirements
and general principles are set, but they do not go as far as specifying design and look-and-feel aspects;
look-and-feel aspect requirements are only provided for e-Services developed within the national portal
Latvija.lv. Another characteristic common to the UK and Denmark is active and functioning communities of
practices, working around service design and usability aspects.
Approaches to compliance also differ among Latvia, Denmark and the UK: while all three rely on
decentralised development and maintenance, Denmark and the UK have gatekeeping compliance and
escalation procedures in place 8under the command of GDS in the UK and in national portals in Denmark),
while compliance procedures are not formalised in Latvia.
When looking at the national citizens’ portal concepts, different levels of integration and whole-of-
government maturity are found: Denmark has a shared platform for all national, regional and local
government services, where information and transactions are integrated on, or link to, the portal. Portals
are cross-governmental, co-owned and jointly financed. The UK provides a lower level of integration of local
government services, although basic information is centralised and deep-links are provided to local content
(although not always complete). In Latvia, the national portal mostly covers national services and links to
local government services in the form of a centralised catalogue of municipal services, yet this is not fully
integrated in terms of presenting the content of the national portal. None of the three countries currently
achieved fully-integrated integrated private sector services on their portals.
6.3 Digitalisation levels of main government services
When it comes to the availability (i.e. supply) of online government services, Denmark and Latvia score
above the EU average on online availability of services, while the UK scores below. The EU DESI index for
Life Event situation services online in 2017 shows that Denmark scores highest with 95%, followed by Latvia
at 90,8% and the UK at 76,3%, with the EU28 average being 82,1% (European Commission, 2018a).
Considering the approach to digital channel positioning, the Danish approach to channel strategies is
characterised by a high percentage of mandatory digital services, and the focus is on actively eliminating
paper applications and physical correspondence in favour of a digital post and online self-service. The
approach is based on active marketing, increased usability and active opt-out. By comparison, in the UK
and Latvia, only a minor part of procedures monitored in the life event benchmark are accessible solely
through on digital channel. While citizens are encouraged to use e-Services, this is voluntary, and most
services are available on paper forms. Although it is not reflected in the latest e-Government benchmark
results, Latvia has systematically realised digital-only approaches to several high-frequency, high-volume
service areas, such as applications for rural support grants, sick-leave automatic data exchange and e-
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 36
Prescriptions. Table 13 summarises the online availability of basic government services and the share of
mandatory digital services in major life situations in the three countries.
Table 13: online availability of basic government services (life situations), EU e-Government
benchmark.
(European Commission, 2017c, European Commission, 2016)
LATVIA DENMARK UK
ONLINE MANDATORY17* ONLINE MANDATORY17* ONLINE MANDATORY*
Share of steps in a life event that
can be completed online (total
average), 2017
93,9% - 95% - 76.3% -
Business18 97% 0% (0/17) 98% 75% (3/4) 79% 0% (0/14)
Family18 80% 0% (0/8) 100% 57% (4/7) 72% 0% (0/8)
Job18 94% 0% (0/7) 94% 71% (5/7) 79% 0% (0/8)
Studying18 86% 0% (0/3) 96% 100% (3/3) 89% 0% (0/4)
Economic activity19 100% - 100% - 100% -
Moving19 90% - 100% - 81% -
Transport19 89% - 95% - 61% -
Justice19 90% - 77% - 49% -
6.4 Take-up of commercial government digital services
To gain insight into the actual and potential impact of approaches pursued by Latvia, Denmark and the UK,
it is useful to look at availability and actual take-up of digital services in relation to preconditions, such as
internet availability and the digital skills in each country. Therefore, it is particularly interesting to consider
the use of online public sector service offers in relation to comparable private sector service offers, such as
uses in online banking (e-Banking) and commerce (e-Commerce). While this is not a perfect comparison,
looking at peoples’ use of e-Banking and e-Commerce provides valuable insight into peoples’ attitudes to
internet-based services, their perceived value, trust in technology and the presence of digital skills.
Interaction with banks and shopping is generally more frequent than the interaction with public sector
services. This holds true even as the complexity of services, security and data sensitivity issues are
comparable.
6.4.1 Take-up levels of digital services: commercial and government
All three countries rank above the EU28-average of 67,6% (of internet users) when it comes to ordering
goods and services online (European Commission, 2017b); the UK is the highest-ranking country in the EU
(86.2%), Denmark ranks third (82.4%), while Latvians seem more traditional: slightly more than half of Latvians
(55.4%) have used e-Commerce solutions in 2017 (European Commission, 2017b). Similarly, when online
17 Mandatory indicates percentage and number of procedures in specific life situation which have been made mandatory online.
18 Data based on the 2017 edition of the EU e-Government benchmarking.
19 Data based on the 2016 edition of the EU e-Government benchmarking.
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 37
banking use is considered, all three countries ranked above the EU28-average of 61,4% (European
Commission, 2017d); with more Danes (92.5%) using e-Banking solutions than in Latvia (75.2%) and the UK
(72.2%). However, digital interaction with the government does not follow the same trend: Danes are the
most frequently acquiring information online (91.7%) and using transactional e-Services (72.9%) in Europe.
Meanwhile, far more Latvians are using the Internet to search for government information (83.2%) than their
UK counterparts (51.5%), with slightly more Latvians using e-Services (46.8%) compared to their UK
equivalents (36.3%). The degree of digital take-up between 2013 and 2017 has remained relatively stable in
Denmark for e-Banking, e-Commerce and the use of government service offered online, following the rapid
growth of the later in the years 2010-2012 (European Commission, 2018a). By comparison, the picture in
Latvia and the UK is more mixed: between 2013 and 2017, there has been a relatively stable growth in terms
of digital take-up of the private sector (e-Banking, e-Commerce) and government services in the UK. In
Latvia, e-Banking and e-Commerce services follow the same trend, while the use of government services
online grew rapidly between 2013 and 2015. This period coincides with sectorial digital take-up plans
introduced then, together with the first government-wide awareness campaigns. Historical evolution of
commercial and government online services take-up during the period of 2013-2017 in Latvia, Denmark and
the UK are illustrated in Table 14 and Figure 4.
Table 14: take-up of commercial and government online services (source: European Commission,
2017a).
LATVIA
DENMARK
UNITED KINGDOM
2013
2015
2017
2013
2015
2017
2013
2015
2017
Individuals ordering goods or services
online (% of internet users)20 41.5 47.6 55.4 81.2 81.7 82.4 84.7 87.4 86.2
Online banking (% of internet users)21 73.0 81.2 75.2 87.1 88.1 92.5 60.1 63.5 72.2
Citizens’ use of e-Government services
(% of internet users)22 46.4 65.2 83.2 89.5 91.2 91.7 45.0 52.9 51.5
Submitted a complete form (e-Service) 23 16.5 36.4 46.8 68.9 71.1 72.9 23.8 34.4 36.3
20 Variable code: isoc_ec_ibuy
21 Variable code: isoc_ci_ac_i
22 Variable code: isoc_r_gov_i
23 Variable code: isoc_r_gov_i
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 38
Figure 4: take-up of commercial and governmental online services.
6.4.2 Take-up levels of main government digital transactions
In order to analyse digital take-up of government services in different sectors, a basket consisting of a
selected number of major citizen- and business-oriented transaction services were measured. The selected
services are all monitored in the European Union e-Government benchmarks but are also found for
comparable procedures in at least two of the three countries compared in this analysis. As Latvia and the
UK only address central-government level in their digital strategies, while in Denmark’s e-Government
strategy, all government levels are addressed, only data for central government services is analysed.
Based on publicly available data, in the three countries, the total number of transactions for government
services measured differ considerably due to their different population sizes (HM Government, n.d-g). In
Latvia, 120.6 million transactions were measured, whereas in the UK, 3.26 billion public service transactions
were recorded in 2016 (HM Government, n.d-g, VARAM, 2017b). In Denmark, information is available only
on e-Services included in the mandatory online initiative, amounting to 5.5 million requests for central
government services in the same year. At the same time, there is a considerable amount of mail shipments
to citizens and businesses: 96.5 million annual physical shipments plus 20.9 digital in 2011 (Spitze&Co, 2016).
It is therefore important to look at the “degree of digitisation”, i.e. the percentage of online service
requested out of the total volume of requests in a given service area.
When comparing digital take-up of specific government services, data of services transactions for the UK
and Denmark are available for 2012 and 2016, and for Latvia for 2013 and 2016, but not all data is available
41,5 47,6 55,4
81,2 81,7 82,4
84,7 87,4 86,2
2013 2015 2017
Latvia Denmark UK
73 81,2 75,2
87,1 88,1 92,5
60,1 63,5 72,2
2013 2015 2017
Latvia Denmark UK
46,4
65,2
83,2
89,5 91,2 91,7
45 52,9 51,5
2013 2015 2017
Latvia Denmark UK
16,5
36,4
46,8
68,9 71,1 72,9
23,8 34,4 36,3
2013 2015 2017
Latvia Denmark UK
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 39
for all three countries, as illustrated in Table 14. While Denmark monitored the degree of digitisation under
the past e-Government strategy, the measurement was discontinued in 2017. Therefore, the data analysis
is based on results obtained in the 2016 digital transition report (Spitze&Co, 2016). In the UK, the GDS
performance platform is mandatory and must be populated with certain key data, including the degree of
digitisation of individual central government services. In Latvia, data is gathered through the annual national
e-Government benchmark, Latvijas e-indekss (Latvijas e-indekss, 2018). As from 2020, data on public service
performance will be published on the national performance platform.
Table 15: digital take-up of government procedures. (VARAM, 2017b) (HM Government, n.d-g)
(Spitze&Co, 2016)
LATVIA
DENMARK
UNITED KINGDOM
2013
2016
2012
2016
2012
2016
Registering a company 23% 40%24 - 100% - / 96%25 23% / 97%25
Income TAX declaration 13% 56% 100% 100% - -
Rural support grants / payments 22% 100% - - 81%26
Apply for child birth benefit27 0% 16% - 98% - 1,5%28
Apply for pension 0% 0,019% 94%29 95% 6% 31%
Jobseeker’s allowance 0% 3% - 100% 31% 87%30
Apply for practical driving exam 0% 100% See31 79% 98%
Change of address32 - 58% 63% 92% See31
Data for individual services show different patterns. In Denmark, there seems to be a high and consistent
level of digital take-up across different government sectors. This can be explained by a strategic,
coordinated policy implementation, notably the mandatory self-service (active opt-out) initiative rolled-out
between 2012 and 2015 (Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, n.d-c). The high take-up of the national PKI and eID
solution, service usability standards and compliance procedures arguably facilitates these results. There
remains a lack of information on the proportion of digital take-up in service areas out of the scope of the
24 VARAM 2017b. Valsts iestāžu e-indekss 2017. Online: data.gov.lv: Vides Aizsardzības un Reģionālās Attīstības Ministrija,.
25 Digital transactions include transactions by intermediaries, as an example for March 2018: 23% through website; 75% - by web
service, used also by intermediaries; HM GOVERNMENT. n.d-c. Company Registration [Online]. HM Government,. Available:
https://www.gov.uk/performance/company-registration [Accessed 01/12/2018].
26 HM GOVERNMENT. n.d-a. Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) [Online]. HM Government. Available:
https://www.gov.uk/performance/defra-basic-payment-scheme-bps [Accessed 30/11/2018].
27 In Latvia - average data on two services – application for an allowance for child birth and allowance on child care.
28 HM GOVERNMENT. n.d-b. Child Benefit transactions [Online]. HM Government. Available:
https://www.gov.uk/performance/hmrc-child-benefit [Accessed 30/11/2018].
29 NIELSEN, M. M. 2017. eGovernance frameworks for successful citizen use of online services: A Danish-Japanese comparative
analysis. JeDEM JeDEM - eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 9, 68-109.
30 HM GOVERNMENT. n.d-e. Jobseeker’s Allowance: new claims [Online]. HM Government, . Available:
https://www.gov.uk/performance/jobseekers-allowance-new-claims [Accessed 01/12/2018].
31 No such centralized service is legally required / existing
32 For Latvia- data from Office of Citizenship and Migration of Latvia, 2016; For Denmark - service handled by local authorities.
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 40
mandatory digital initiative, due to the lack of performance data. Both Latvia and the UK have progressed
considerably during the 2012-2016 period, although the take-up of the digital channel varies by sector. In
the case of the UK, the voluntary digital-by-default approach (active opt-in) is in place, but the lack of a
widely used PKI and eID solution makes it difficult to drive an e-Service take-up, even if the quality and level
of usability of e-Services are high. In some cases, the UK offsets this by relying on APIs allowing to provide
face-to-face, assisted e-Services, including through third parties, e.g. private sector care providers. By
comparison, the Latvian experience shows that in service areas where channel strategies and legal tools
have been actively applied to promote e-Service use, the degree of digitisation has also risen, even in
services areas were the target users do not necessarily have a high level of digital literacy, such as
applications for rural support grants and applications for drivers licence exams, which both have 100%
digital take-up.
An observation drawn from the UK experience is that online service use can be driven by usability for specific
service (see Table 14) if the overall degree of digitisation has remained the same (see Figure 4, citizens
submitted a complete form). This contrasts with Latvia’s experience where e-Service use has been slower
for specific services, yet more rapid progress in e-Service user base is observed, up from 16,5% in 2013 to
46.8% in 2017. One interpretation of this may be that when opt-in strategies are applied, then the user base
tends to remain stable; on the other hand, the application of active opt-out strategies where the degree of
digitisation increases for both individual service areas and for the country overall. This indicated that
behavioural change can be facilitated by a cross-governmental approach to channel strategies and that
active opt-out strategies, on the whole, are helpful, as reflected in Latvia’s and Denmark’s situation.
Connected Government Approach for Customer-centric Public Service Delivery
:
Comparing strategic, governance and technological aspects
in Latvia, Denmark and the United Kingdom
Page 41
7. Comparative analysis and concluding remarks
The context in which public services are produced and delivered has a direct impact and critically affects a
number of policy decisions, including the definition of priorities, the application of relevant instruments and
the attainment of objectives. Such contextual elements as social, cultural, economic, technology,
governance and strategic characteristics of any giv