Swedish E-Gov 2010: Where is it Coming From and Where is it Going

Abstract

The concept of an agency was pioneered in Sweden in 1650. Several of today?s agencies are direct descendants from that historical period. Freedom of the press, access to public documents, and a high degree of agency independence, are likewise early Swedish concepts. When discussing e-Gov in Sweden, it is therefore commonplace to make historic references, partly because of Sweden?s early introduction of computers into the public sector, and partly because today?s practices are often a direct result of policies and laws established decades and sometimes even centuries ago. Forcefully introduced welfare reforms resulted in highly computerized and independent state agencies by 1970. Thirty years later, Sweden was placed solidly as a leading e-Gov nation in international bench markings. The Swedish definition of e-Gov is a direct translation of the definition used by the European Union1, i.e. as the use of information and communication technology in public administrations combined with organizational change and new skills in order to improve public services and democratic processes and strengthen support to public policies. In 2007, the incoming Government sensed that the Swedish e-Gov saga had to be defended by means of more concerted action by the ministries. Hence the Central Government Offices were provided with an Action Plan for their concerted respective handling of e-Gov issues. At the same time, the traditional system of reliance on support agencies was terminated. Since there is no central e-Gov office to implement the Action Plan, the Government appointed an E-delegation to act as a proxy central e-Gov office. The E-delegation was established a year after the birth of the Action Plan. The Delegation has had a number of good ideas, and has gradually become more visible. However, the ideas cannot bridge the fact that for three years there has been no leadership and no coaching in the e-Gov arena, defined by the approximately 300 state agencies and 300 regional and local governments. The Delegation has no power per se, and has to make proposals on decisions which are required to be taken by the Government. The Action Plan talks about agency federation(s), and to this effect the Delegation has proposed that clusters be formed around four lead agencies. The Action Plan has a low (if any) profile with regard to architecture. Unfortunately this has not been challenged by the Delegation. State agencies will largely be able to determine their own processes and architecture. Lead cluster agencies are supposed to produce architecture behavior within their respective clusters. Cross-cluster problems will be dealt with as they occur?