How japan can learn from danish best practice v01 20120503_meyer
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

How japan can learn from danish best practice v01 20120503_meyer

on

  • 702 views

Speaking Danish in Japan: Good practice lessons to learn and emulate

Speaking Danish in Japan: Good practice lessons to learn and emulate
(Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen – http://www.flickr.com/photos/40451858@N04/6993025986/in/pool-1909773@N24/)

Statistics

Views

Total Views
702
Views on SlideShare
552
Embed Views
150

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

1 Embed 150

http://digitalgovernment.wordpress.com 150

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

How japan can learn from danish best practice v01 20120503_meyer Presentation Transcript

  • 1. SPEAKING DANISH IN JAPANHow Japan can learn from Danish best practiceMorten Meyerhoff Nielsen (meyer@digst.dk)Danish Agency for Digitisation (www.digst.dk)CeDEM 2012, 30 april 2012
  • 2. OUTLINING A CONUNDRUM Japan has a… …well-developed broadband infrastructure 86.5% of households having fiber-to-home access* …but low levels of take-up 11.7% of companies used a national eGovernment service (national level)** 13.2% of Japanese access government website or used an online service** 0.0000021% of address change (pension) are online**** (OECD, 2009a)** (Goto & Sudo, 2008)*** (MIC, 2012)
  • 3. COMPARING THE CONUNDRUM Denmark has a… …well-developed broadband infrastructure 86% of households have internet but only 14.6% have fiber-to-home access* …and HIGH levels of take-up 92% of companies use the internet to interact with government** 67% of Danes use the internet to interact with government** 40-60% of address changes are online (municipality dependent) *** c. 25% of all service transactions are online (35 selected municipality services) **** OECD, 2009a and Eurostat 2011** Eurostat, 2010*** Komhen, 2012
  • 4. SOME STATISTICSCategory Denmark Japan SourceSubcategory (ranking) (ranking)InfrastructureFTTH/B availability (%) 14 (a) 4 86.5 1 OECD 2009aFiber connections in total broadband (%) 13 6 61 1 OECD 2011 (b)Fastest advertised connection offered by the 51 Mbps - 1Gbps - OECD 2011 (b)incumbent operator MIC 2009Avg, advertised broadband download speed (Kbit/s) 25,771 18 80,612 3 OECD 2011 (b/c)Median price per 1mbps (USD) 2.27 10 0.39 1 OECD 2011 (b/d)3G coverage (%) 97 6 100 1 OECD 2011 (b)ICT usageEstimated internet users per 100 inhabitants (%) 82 6 75.4 16 ITU 2008Online availability of gov’t services (%, individuals) 75 - - Eurostat 2010 Cabinet Secretariat 2010aOnline availability of gov’t services (%, businesses) 100 - 52 -Public Certification Service for Individuals (%) 24 - 1 - MIC 2010bBasic dataPopulation (million) 5.5 - 126.5 - United Nations 2010GDP per capita (US$) 55,986 6 42,783 17 IMF 2010
  • 5. INSTITUTIONAL DIFFERENCESNATIONAL STRATEGIES JP: Transition to ICT usage/utilisation with emphasis on broadband infrastructure DK: Focus on a consistent eGovernment system. Emphasis convenience, efficiency and effectiveness, key infrastructure and components (eg standards, eIDs, Single-Sign-On), platforms (eg portals, shared services) ICT-PROMOTION MECHANISMS JP: Weak IT Strategic HeadquartersDK: STS and strategy committees, Agency for (Cabinet Secretariat). Vertical Digitisation, cross-organisational initiatives inconsultation with other national stakeholders. structure contributing to weak Existence of ICT-promoting mechanisms in collaboration. Weak ICT-promoting different fields, eg national portals borger.dk, mechanisms in each field virk.dk, sundhed.dk and campaigns
  • 6. INSTITUTIONAL DIFFERENCESPERSONAL INFORMATION JP: Protection by laws. Strong DK: Protection by laws and the Data discomfort with the personal Protection Agency. Trust in agencies information protection system. No neutral agencyDECENTRALISATION OF GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY DK: Highly advanced, also in budgetary aspects JP: Little progressPOLICY-MAKING PROCESSDK: Consensus/mixed top-down and bottom-up JP: Weak consensus/top-downINCENTIVE POLICIES JP: Handful of incentives for digitisation DK: Clear incentives and semi- and semi-mandatory measures mandatory measures
  • 7. CONTRIBUTING TO INFRASTRUCTUREUNIQUE IDENTIFIERS AND INDENTITY MANAGEMENT* DK: Personal ID/CPR since 1968. Cooperation with the private sector; Corporate ID/CVR in operation; Property ID/BBR in operation JP: Discussion on personal ID ongoing but aim for 2013 introduction. Corporate andDIGITAL SIGNATURE property IDs not unified DK: c. 3.7 million active personal - simple three factorauthentication - digital signature with an ID, password, and keycard Professional/corporate - software based but with simple three factor authentication being developed for roll-out in 2012  NB: Smartphone version expected in 2012 JP: Personal - emphasis on security. Not widely adopted, hardware reliance, not user-friendly Professional/corporate do not exist
  • 8. SERVICE DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT APPROACH DK: Business case, user-centric, private sector inspired, testing, JP: Technology-oriented. participatory design Ideas from developersSOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT - VENDORSDK: Initiatives taken by Local GovernmentDenmark (KOMBIT /Umbrella projects) for JP: Competition among four companies joint development and/or procurement Slow in standardisation (past KMD set-up and owned bymunicipalities). Limited competitionSYSTEM CONSTRUCTION DK: In-house. Accumulation of know-how In-source expertise, out-source developmentJP: Reliance on manufacturers and vendors
  • 9. INFLUENCING FACTORS BUSINESS RELATIONS DK = cooperation with the private sector vs JP = low levels of cooperation THE MARKET DK = demand-pull vs JP = supply-push UNIVERSITY RELATIONS DK = regarded as a source of competitiveness vs JP = considered of little relevance RISK ADVERSITY* DK = tendency to try to change risks into investment opportunities vs JP = risk-averse and emphasis on safe measures ENGAGEMENTDK = high level (c 85% voting rate) vs JP = medium level (c 60% voting rate) * Symantec, 2009
  • 10. CONCLUSIONS Key efficiency lessons from the Danish context incl: – Governance model and inter-agency collaboration to achieve strategic goals – Standards, standardised formats and processes – Share components and contents, incl key enablers like IDs and digital signatures – User-centric and personalised services, testing and participatory design
  • 11. FOR QUESTIONSNoriko Igari (n.igari@glocom.ac.jp)GLOCOM - Center for Global Communication (www.glocom.ac.jp)International University of JapanMorten Meyerhoff Nielsen (meyer@digst.dk)Danish Agency for Digitisation (www.digst.dk)