1. ”The eParticipation environment is a set of web
tools ranging from ”Like”-activism to making
legislative initiatives”

2. The Finnish e-participation environment
Project brief – in English

3. National e-participation environment
• Enhances and enables dialog and interaction
between citizens, politicians and public servants
and improves e-participation possibilities – at a
local and national level
• Creates new web-based tools and practices,
into a ”toolbox” that is easy to take into use –
by citizens, NGO’s, government agencies and
municipalities

4. In practice: tools for, e.g.
• Planning of participatory actions
• Deliberative discussions
• Several kinds of online consultation
• in e.g., drafting of laws
• Questionnaires, polls, statements
• Citizens’ initiatives (national & local level)
• Monitoring the work of representatives (i.e,
think ”Theyworkforus.co.uk”

5. Execution
• The program runs 2010-2013, led by Ministry of
Justice
• Part of larger national SADe eServices and eAdministration
acceleration program run by Ministry of Finance
• Partners include municipalities, ministries, Parliament
• Iterative approach – first official releases in public
use mid 2012, with pilots starting during start of
2012

6. Engagement with citizens
• Involvement of Citizens, activists, NGO’s etc.
a key success factor – during planning, building,
testing, rollout…
• Long-term goal: an ecosystem of services – with
commercial and non-profit add-on services

7. Engagement with citizens, cont’d
Some our transformation leaders from the citizen jury

8. Key benefits
• For citizens and NGO’s, e.g,
– Smooth participation in current projects
– Active doing, not just being informed
– Advanced tools for web discussions, real-time online collaboration,
networking, etc.
– Tools for online drafting and submission of formal
comments/statements
– Note: NGO’s and citizens can also be draftsmen
• For public servants and agencies
– Harmonized processes – increased service level, productivity, impact
– Less overlapping information systems & personnel dependency
– More transparency in public sector projects
– Better decicions, more satisfied stakeholders
– Better reach in inclusion activities 8

9. Contacts for the program
Mikko Levämäki, program manager
Teemu Ropponen, project manager
Laura Ahokas, project manager
Firstname.lastname@om.fi
Project blog: www.osallistumisymparisto.fi
Project FB: www.facebook.com/Osallistumisymparistohanke
Developer community FB: www.facebook.com/groups/
osallistumisymparisto/
9

10. The Finnish e-participation environment
Additional slides

11. But we are online already, right? Yes, but…
Services are ”fragmented”.
They’re known quite poorly.
Usage and inclusion activities range.

12. …int’l comparisons rank us low.
1. Etelä-Korea (2.) 12. Malesia 23. Kypros
2. Australia (5.) 13. Tanska (3.) 23. Ruotsi (9.)
3. Espanja 14. Saksa 25. Kroatia
4. Uusi-Seelanti (6.) 15. Ranska (4.) 26. Kolumbia
4. Iso-Britannia 15. Alankomaat 26. Irlanti
6. Japani (12.) 17. Belgia 28. Kirgisia
6. USA (1.) 18. Kazakstan 28. Mongolia
8. Kanada (11.) 19. Liettua 30. Suomi (45.)
9. Viro (8.) 20. Slovenia 30. Israel
9. Singapore (10.) 21. Itävalta 32. Kiina
10. Bahrain 21. Norja 32. Meksiko (7.)
… 157. Vanuatu
E-participation index (YK 2010, 2008)

13. Others are ahead - Iceland constitution renewal online

14. Our gov’t support to e-democracy?
Feb 4 , 2010 (previous) government ’decision
”Finland to be among the top 10 counties in international
e-democracy benchmarks”

15. Citizens
Companies Special
groups
NGO’s
Researchers
Problems
Knowledge
Media
Solutions
Politicians
Decisions
Public servants

16. Is e-democracy/Gov 2.0 hype?
Note:
In short term, effects of technology
tend to be overrated – but on the long
run, the effects are underrated.,
Model: Gartner

17. Oh no, more services to this bunch?
17
Greg Verdino: http://gregverdino.typepad.com/greg_verdinos_blog/2007/07/social-media-ho.html