Part III
T-Government and
Public Service Delivery
13 Collaborative Government
E-Enabled Interagency
Collaboration as a Means for
Government Process Redesign
Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
Global and national changes pose various challenges to service quality
and integration, productivity, innovativeness, and change management in
the public sector. Such challenges have increased politicians’ and public
managers’ interest in fi
finding ways of improving public organizations’ per-
formance. Discussions about administrative simplification and more radi-
cal government process redesign have a vital role in such an agenda. This
chapter discusses approaches to government process redesign, which may
be incremental, radical, or revolutionary, focusing respectively on the sim-
plifi
fication of administrative procedures, the redesign of service and gover-
nance processes, and the reassessment of the role and scope of government
in society. Redesign is approached from a supply-side perspective with a
focus on four aspects of interagency collaboration: framing, harmoniz-
ing, sharing, and acting. In terms of methods and tools, attention is paid
to the utilization of information and communication technologies. In the
empirical part of this chapter, selected cases of simplification and rede-
sign are presented to illustrate real-life developments and to demonstrate
their transformational potential. The conventional approach to redesign is
action-oriented interagency collaboration. Yet, this chapter also points to a
more radical redesign, which opens up visions for collaborative government
or joined-up government with streamlined and integrated service systems.
Such a change emphasizes the systemic nature of the service redesign and
innovation processes, which requires that special attention is paid to the
governance of the “systemization” process as a prerequisite of translating
public policies smoothly into cost-eff
ffective, integrated, and high value-add-
ing public services.
1 INTRODUCTION
The roles and working methods of governments have been changing con-
siderably since the 1980s in practically all developed countries. Many
170 Ari-Veikko
Anttiroiko
such changes can be derived from increased competition in both public
and private sector and demand from customers for better services (Ham-
mer & Champy, 1993, p. 17), which implies that public organizations
must pay special attention to service quality and integration, productivity
and innovativeness, and also change management. There seems to be a
universal tendency in the provision of public services toward streamlin-
ing administrative machinery and increasing partnerships and contracting
out. Public organizations are becoming coordinators in the multi-sectoral
governance fi
field (see, e.g., Felbinger & Holzer, 1999; Mälkiä et al., 2004;
Argyriades, 2002).
Intense pressure for effi
fficiency and responsiveness has increased politi-
cians’ and public managers’ interest in fi
finding ways of improving public
organizations’ performance. Discussions about administrative simplifica-
tion and more radical government process redesign have a vital role in such
an agenda (OECD, 2009).
This chapter discusses approaches to incremental and radical govern-
ment process redesign. The aim is to systematize this conceptual fi
field and
to map out strategic options and key tools for managing planned change.
Special emphasis is placed on the use of information and communication
technologies (ICTs) in supply-side-oriented redesign, in which the success
depends to a large extent on exchange of data and collaboration between
public service providers. In the empirical part of this chapter selected cases
of redesign are presented to illustrate real-life developments and to demon-
strate their transformational potential.
2 MANAGERIAL APPROACHES TO REDESIGN
There are various management concepts that refl
flect the need to simplify
administrative processes and to redesign governance and service processes.
Some of these concepts can be grouped under the label “incremental gov-
ernment redesign,” which means that their primary focus is on making
incremental changes to existing administrative and service structures and
processes. Examples of such approaches are administrative simplification,
Organization Development and Total Quality Management.
Administrative simplification is a primary managerial approach to
cut red tape originating from excessive unnecessary regulations and pro-
cedures that may be redundant, and thus may have a negative overall
impact on society (OECD, 2009). Organization Development (OD) is a
planned, organization-wide educational eff
ffort to improve an organiza-
tion’s eff
ffectiveness and viability and to better adapt to new technologies
and challenges. It has a close connection to human resource management
(HRM) (McLean, 2006). In the context of government process redesign
Total Quality Management (TQM) is usually seen as a paradigmatic
form of incremental redesign. Its roots are in quality management in
Collaborative Government 171
manufacturing with an emphasis on reducing the errors that may occur
during the manufacturing processes.
Previous approaches have been essentially incremental in changing the
ways of working of public organizations. Besides these, there is a family
of concepts that depict more radical rethinking of the role of public sector
organizations and the scope and mode of their actions. A generic concept
that refers to radical redesign is business process reengineering (Hammer
& Champy, 1993; Hammer, 1996; Motwani et al., 1998; Malhotra, 1998).
In the public sector it is occasionally referred to as government process
reengineering (Hughes, Scott, & Golden, 2007; da Cunha & Costa, 2004,
p. 14; Chaba, n/a; Linden, 1994). Another well-known conceptualization
of radical change in the public sector is reinventing government, which is
essentially about the introduction of entrepreneurial government which is
high-performing, business-like and enabling (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992,
p. 35; Osborne & Plastrik, 1997; Anttiroiko, Bailey, & Valkama, 2011,
p. 7). Another slightly similar yet more abstract concept is transforma-
tional government, which is used as a generic term to refer to a fundamen-
tal change in the role of government in society. (On e-transformation in
government see Mälkiä et al., 2004, and on transformational politics see
Woolpert, Slaton, & Schwerin, 1998).
The concepts that depict both incremental and radical redesign reflect
various degrees of change in government, as illustrated in Figure 13.1.
Figure 13.1 Approaches to government process redesign.
172 Ari-Veikko
Anttiroiko
The idea illustrated in Figure 13.1 can be summarized as a three-layered
model, indicating incremental, radical, and revolutionary changes: simplifying administrative procedures and practices, redesigning service and governance processes, and rethinking t
g he role and scope of government in
society (cf. Venkatraman, 1994).
3 COLLABORATION AS AN ENABLER OF CHANGE
The public sector has a long history of expanding their responsibilities,
personnel, and organizations relying on a supply-oriented “silo” approach,
which has created rather fragmentary service systems. It has been generally
recognized that collaboration is one answer to the problem of improving
effi
fficiency in the public sector, reducing service fragmentation, improving
public service quality, and changing organizational culture (Kaiser, 2011;
cf. NSW Government, 2010).
Diff eren
ff
t change processes create new relations between public agencies,
ranging from voluntary ad hoc c
c ollaboration to system-based redesign and
fi
finally to mergers as a part of large-scale reforms. Theoretically, we may dis-
tinguish three levels of collaboration associated with the level of government
process redesign: operational collaboration (improvement), strategic collabo-
ration (redesign), and structural or transformative collaboration (rethinking).
Collaboration has diff
fferent modes or forms, such as cooperation among
peers, coordination, mergers, integration, networks, and partnerships
(Kaiser, 2011). Such forms mainly refl
flect the organizational continuum of
collaboration, which is not particularly useful when considering the utiliza-
tion of e-enabled tools in a wide set of cases of collaboration of independent
public organizations. For the analysis of this chapter, an alternative classifi-
cation of the forms of collaboration is constructed on the basis of a review
of various cases of public service redesign, identifi
fication of the discernibly
collaborative nature of activities in these cases and fi
finally their grouping
under a manageable number of categories. The result of such an applied
heuristics is the typology of four distinguished aspects of collaboration:
1. Framing ba
g
sed on “principles” that guide collaborative reforms (pol-
icy, regulation, and institutional framework);
2. Harmonizing based on “standards” that serve to provide isomorphic
objects or processes aff
ffecting the relationships of public authorities
and service providers (service integration, standardization, back-of-
fi ce
fi rationalization);
3. Sharing ba
g
sed on joint use and dissemination of value objects among
public authorities or service providers (joint resources, databases, and
information); and
4. Acting based on coordinated “action” within a given group of actors
(collaboration, coordinated actions, and brokerage).
Collaborative Government 173
These categories match loosely with the radical nature of change depicted
in Figure 13.1, for framing is generally associated with a transformative change; harmonizing is a tool for strategic redesign operating at the
systemic level, sharing is paradigmatically associated with interagency
sharing and exchange relationships, and acting is generally an action-
oriented arrangement in incremental service design. However, such con-
nections are only indicative. One of the key points is the extent to which
the decision-making on services goes beyond organizational competence
and thus requires either formal arrangements between organizations or,
as in some cases, conditioning sector-wise or inter-sectoral regulation.
This is in line with the hypothesis that the more radical service innovation
or service redesign scheme in question, the more systemic nature it tends
to have (cf. Consoli, 2007).
4 E-GOVERNMENT AS A TOOL OF REDESIGN
What has changed in public sector reform agenda in recent decades is the
increased role given to information and communication technologies (ICTs)
in cutting red tape and in transforming public organizations (Fountain,
2001; Norris, 2003; Scholl, 2005; Andersen, 2006; Hinnant & Sawyer,
2007; Wauters & Lörincz, 2008). We may envision the future e-govern-
ment services being inter-linked within a joined-up government framework
to provide multi-channel access to seamless public services. To reach such
an ideal situation through government process redesign projects or reform
programs is hardly possible without the critical role given to ICTs.
ICTs off
ffer new opportunities for the reduction of administrative burdens
as they improve communication, information processes, interaction and
transactions. First, the capacity to deal with enormous amounts of data can
improve government’s capacity to utilize and share information. Second,
the capacity for information dissemination is multiplied exponentially with
the use of electronic means. Third, the electronic exchange of data is a pow-
erful tool to increase effi
fficiency in case handling and in performing govern-
ment functions. Finally, time and space limits can be eff ec
ff tively eliminated
through 24x7 access to online services. Nonetheless, the use of ICT should
be accompanied by a parallel review and reengineering of existing tradi-
tional administrative processes to avoid waste and ineffi
ci
ffi encies resulting
from the automation of already non-performing processes. (OECD, 2009).
This symbiotic relationship brings about the need to investigate how ICTs
may support redesign processes, and as its fl
flip side, how should govern-
ment process redesign be integrated with information systems development
(Weerakkody & Currie, 2003).
The most common tools used in the e-government area for simplification
and redesign are: (1) digitalization of administrative forms; (2) simplification
through reengineering and automation of back-offi
ffice processes; (3) systems
174 Ari-Veikko
Anttiroiko
for data reporting from business to government; (4) portals for information
and services; and (5) electronic data storage and exchange. (OECD, 2009).
In the next section we discuss the application of such tools as an integral
part of collaborative government process redesign initiatives.
5 CASES OF E-ENABLED INTERAGENCY
COLLABORATION
This section presents system and producer-centered cases of public service
simplifi
fication and redesign measures adopted in European countries. The
cases were selected to represent diff
fferent aspects of the Framing-Harmoniz-
ing-Sharing-Acting aspects of collaborative redesign, starting from policy
framework and ending with hands-on collaboration: (a) the case of the
Dutch regulatory reform program, (b) the case of eInvoice in Denmark, (c)
shared databases as used by Crossroads Bank of Belgium and by pre-com-
pleted tax return in Finland, and lastly (d) the cases of the Virtual Cu
stoms
Offi
ffice of Sweden and the TYVI Model of Finland.
5.1 Regulatory Reform Program of the Netherlands
Practically all developed countries started to consider administrative simpli-
fi c
fi ation decades ago. However, the most recent wave emerged in the 2000s
(OECD, 2003; 2007; Ziller, 2008). An excellent example of a national approach
to better regulation and administrative simplifi c
fi ation is the Dutch regulatory
reform program. Its origin is in the mid-1990s, when the Dutch government
as a part of a broad deregulation agenda set a goal to reduce administrative
burdens on enterprises by 10 percent. In 1998 it set up a temporary advisory
committee known as the Slechte Committee, which proposed several projects
intended to promote simplifica
fi tion. The committee based its work on re-use
of information already provided by enterprises to public authorities and the
use of IT. A major step forward was the establishment of the Dutch Advisory
Board on Administrative Burden (abbreviated to ACTAL) in 2001 as an inde-
pendent watchdog of the reform. (OECD, 2003; Djankov & Ladegaard, n/a).
This case indicates that successful framing requires strong political support,
clear organizational solutions with suffi
c
ffi ient mandates, clear—most prefera-
bly measurable—objectives, and the identifica
fi tion of benefi ts
fi that are tangible
and can be achieved within a reasonable timespan. Such a frame encourages
and sometimes imposes interagency collaboration and helps to achieve effi-
ffi
ciency gains through systemic innovations.
5.2 E-Invoice in Denmark
One of the applications in back-offi
ffice rationalization is e-invoice. A good
example of the introduction of e-invoice is the case of Denmark. In 2005
Collaborative Government 175
all public institutions in the country were required to accept invoices from
suppliers in electronic format only, which can be read directly by the public
sector’s accounting systems. This means that all public sector entities have
been required to convert all systems and administrative processes from
physical to digital processing of invoices, credit notes and other transac-
tions. This reform aff
ffects approximately 15 million invoices a year and
Public Sector Transformation Through E-Government Page 30
