See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281774408

An analysis of the Danish approach to eGovernment benefit realisation

Conference Paper · December 2014

CITATIONS READS

4 1,493

2 authors:

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen Mika Yasuoka

United Nations University (UNU) Technical University of Denmark
36 PUBLICATIONS   101 CITATIONS    42 PUBLICATIONS   141 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Give&Take - Designing a reciprocal exchange service for a good and engaged senior life View project

REACH2020 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen on 19 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 AN ANALYSIS OF THE DANISH APPROACH TO
EGOVERNMENT BENEFIT REALISATION

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen

Tallinn University of Technology, Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance
Ehitajate tee 5, 19086 Tallinn, Estonia

Mika Yasouka
IT University of Copenhagen
Rued Langgaards Vej 7, DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark

ABSTRACT

The successful use of Information Communication Technology (ICT) in public administration and for service
delivery has long been the focus of research, international benchmarking, and various case studies. Similarly, governance
and cooperation, and multi-stakeholder models used to implement national strategies for electronic government
(eGovernment) are attracting attention. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in July
2014, adopted a number of recommendations for public sector digitisation and eGovernment strategies. The
recommendations address the strategic direction of eGovernment, implementation, governance, and cooperation models.
The recommendations focus on the successful benefit realisation of ICT infrastructure and online services investments,
rather than a technological and supply-orientated approach. To achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness, a public-
sector governance model and multi-stakeholder cooperation are essential for the successful use and implementation of
information technology (IT).
In light of the OECD’s recommendations, this paper investigates the three most-important aspects of eGovernment
implementation in Denmark: the strategic focus on benefit realisation, the mandatory joint public IT project, programme
and business case models, and lastly a joint public governance and cooperation model.
The analysis shows that the joint public sector eGovernment strategy not only ensures that ICT projects build on
previously implemented projects and past experiences but also help authorities to refocus their attention to benefit
realisation. The Danish joint-governance IT project and programme and business case models are closely associated with
the strategic focus and help minimise the risk of project failure, particularly for IT projects exceeding Danish Kroner
(DKK) 10 million (circa € 1.35 million) – for which the models are mandatory. Interestingly, the consensus, participatory
and cooperative approaches taken to digitisation in the public sector are two of the most-important factors behind past
Danish successes in the field of eGovernment but could be strengthened even further.
In conclusion – and in line with the OECD recommendations – the Danish experience highlights that the technical
and supply side focus of eGovernment must be complemented by a strategic focus on public-sector governance and
cooperation. Similarly, cross-governmental governance and cooperation models will advance and accelerate successful
ICT use.

KEYWORDS
eGovernment, ICT, governance, cooperation, strategy, models, benefit realisation

1. INTRODUCTION
The successful use of information communication technology (ICT) in public administration and for
service delivery has, for several decades, been the focus of research, international benchmarking, and various
case studies. Similarly, a large body of work has been compiled on the role of cooperation and the type of
governance models that ensure the successful implementation of national strategies for electronic government
(eGovernment).
The 2014 European Union (EU) digital scoreboard (EU, 2014) and the United Nation’s (UN)
eGovernment Survey (UN, 2014) show the rapid rise in Internet use (e.g. 72% in the EU) and the provision
of high-speed broadband (e.g. 62% in the EU). Still, evaluation and analysis focus on the introduction of ICT
infrastructure and not on demand or actual use. In the past, the UN, EU, and Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) have focused on the availability of Internet and eServices, key technical
enablers such as electronic identification (eID), and various registries (EU, 2014). In their latest reports, the
focus has shifted and now highlights effectiveness (OECD, 2014), accountability (UN, 2014), and
transparency and user-centricity (EU, 2014) as critical enablers of eGovernment. Still, mere objectives and
the introduction of technology do not guarantee success or additional value creation. Thus, the challenge to
improve the use of the digital-service delivery channels and to increase public-sector efficiency and
effectiveness persist – as exemplified by countries like Japan where ICT infrastructure is well established, but
actual use and the efficiency gains have been limited, due partly to a lack of user-centric services and
fragmented organisational and project-governance structures (Meyerhoff Nielsen & Igari, 2012).
The technology and supply-side focus of most evaluations thus fail to provide an explanation for the
discrepancies between the availability (i.e. supply) and the use (i.e. demand) of online public services. An
example of this discrepancy is the fact that close to 80% of address changes in Denmark (DK) are made
online, while this is a scant 0.0002% in Japan (Meyerhoff Nielsen & Igari, 2012; Eurostat, 2014). Similarly,
statistical analysis fails to shed light on the underlying reasons why Danes use the Internet to interact with
public administration (85%) more often than their Dutch and Swedish counterparts (79% and 78%,
respectively)1 – although similar numbers of households in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden pay for
having access to the Internet (all in the 90+ percentile), and why their citizens have similar patterns of
Internet use (also in the 90+ percentile) and private sector services such as online banking (all, 82%) (EU,
2014). These examples highlight the limitations of current research and the need to unearth the underlying
reasons why countries with similar infrastructures and eService availability experience very different levels
of online interaction with the public sector.
In light of these challenges, the OECD on 15 July 2014 adopted a number of recommendations for public
sector digitisation and eGovernment strategies (OECD, 2014). The recommendations are grouped in three
themes and can be summarised as follows:

 Establish clear strategic objectives for eGovernment, including: addressing digital divides and
avoiding new digital exclusions, and encouraging a data-driven culture to enable increased
transparency, better service delivery, and participation.
 Ensure cohered technology use across policy areas and levels of government, including:
governance and organisational frameworks to effectively co-ordinate and integrate service
delivery and policy outcomes.
 Strengthen capacities and support to ensure the improvement of eGovernment implementation,
including: using IT project and business case models, monitoring progress and results; ensuring
that capacities, including regulatory and legal frameworks, are put into place not only to capture
new digital government opportunities but also to minimise risks in relation to benefit realisation,
security and privacy.

These recommendations address the strategic direction of eGovernment, implementation, governance, and
cooperation models. The OECD’s recommendations are anchored in the realisation that, in order to
successfully introduce ICT infrastructure and online services for improved public-sector efficiency and
effectiveness, more than just a technological and supply-oriented approach is required.
Thus, to put the OECD recommendations into a national focus and to highlight the national experiences
behind them, this paper will outline in section 2 the key aspects of the Danish eGovernment governance and
cooperation model. The Danish model will be analysed in section 3, highlighting its strengths and
weaknesses, before section 4 offers a number of concluding observations.

2. STRATEGY, PROJECT MODELS, GOVERNANCE, AND

COOPERATION
1
Danes are also more likely to obtain information from the public sector (83%) and complete service
transactions online (66%) than their Dutch (75% and 56%) and Swedish (75% and 46%) peers (EU, 2014).
 With varied degrees of success in OECD countries, the recommendations of the Council on Digital
Government Strategies aim to facilitate increased efficiency, effectiveness, and transparency in public-sector
service provision. The recommendations highlight the need for a strong mandate, leadership, governance, and
cooperation to ensure cross-governmental innovation, coordination, and implementation of eGovernment
strategies, programs, and projects. Similarly, the OECD highlights the need for tried and tested project and
business models (OECD, 2014).
In light of the OECD recommendations, what then are the experiences, strengths, and weaknesses of the
Danish eGovernment model – and, in particular, the strategic focus, IT project, programme and business case
models, and the national governance and cooperation model?

2.1 The role of the joint-governmental eGovernment strategy

As a plan for maximising the ability of management to achieve a set of organisational objectives (Heek,
2006), Danish eGovernment strategies have followed a similar trajectory as most countries around the world.
While the focus has shifted from defining and implementing relevant standards, infrastructure, and services
to benefit realisation (see Table 1), the key objectives of the Danish eGovernment strategies have been to
make Denmark a leading information and knowledge society, and to increase efficiency and productivity
while preserving the welfare-state model and associated values (Meyerhoff Nielsen, 2010).
The Danish eGovernment policies have been marked by steady progress, due largely to their success in
the reduction of administrative staff and optimisation of staff allocations. Particularly, the focus on benefit
realisation through mandatory self-service and the business case model, plus the strengthened cross-
governmental cooperation and management in IT projects, are noteworthy – as highlighted by OECD – not
least to ensure data exchange, a high degree of interoperability, and since 2012 benefit realisation.
Table 1. 14 years of Danish eGovernment Strategies (Danish Government, 2011)

2001-2003: Digital 2004-2006: Internal 2007-2010: Shared 2011-2015: The path to

collaboration
Allowing citizens to send e-
mail to the public sector and
authorities to adopt digital
channels of communication.
digitalisation and efficient
payments
Focus on secure e-mail between
authorities, joint government
standards and portals.
infrastructure and one
point of access
Mandatory use of shared
infrastructure, components
and standards, increased
cooperation, value added
services and efficiency.
future welfare
Focus on benefit realisation,
mandatory use of Digital
Post and selected eServices,
reuse of data, increased
cooperation.

Examples: Digital signatures.
Examples: eFaktura (eInvoice),
NemKonto (single bank account
for government use), Virk.dk
(business portal), Sundhed.dk
(health portal), digital document
and archive systems.
Examples: Borger.dk (the
citizen portal), NemID (digital
signature), NemLog-in (single,
sign-on), eIndkomst
(electronic income registry),
Digital Post, NemSMS (SMS
service component), public-
sector business case model.
Examples: Data distribution,
investment in IT and digital
teaching aids, tested welfare
technology, digital literacy,
campaigns.

2.2 Minimising risks and optimising benefits through IT projects and

programme and business case models for implementation
In 2012, McKinsey estimated that, of those public and private sector ICT projects exceeding € 10 million,
64% exceeded their original budgets and 78% were delayed. The five risk-reducing principles for the
management and implementation of Danish IT projects and programmes are, therefore, highly appropriate.
The principles are as follows:

1. Public sector organisations shall pursue ambitious solutions in relation to digitisation but are not
obliged to be ‘the first mover’ in the use of immature technologies unless there are special reasons
in doing so.
2. The reuse of already-purchased or developed solutions is recommended where possible.
 3. Only projects with clearly specified costs, benefits, and effects should be implemented.
4. Projects shall minimise scope and complexity and have a clear focus for business objectives.
5. Projects must be managed using shared methods and through the use of only qualified resources in
order to ensure a sufficient level of maturity in every project.

The cross-governmental IT project (section 2.2.1), IT programme (section 2.2.2), and business case
(section 2.2.3) models are developed and maintained by the Danish Agency for Digitisation (DIGST) and its
Inter-ministerial Project Office.
2.2.1 The cross-governmental IT-project model
The aim of the cross-governmental IT-project model is to ensure better and more-uniform planning,
management, and implementation of IT projects and must be applied to all projects exceeding DKK 10
million. The model is a line item on the Ministry of Finance budget and must be applied to all public-sector
IT projects. As a project management tool, it supports the daily management and successful implementation
of the project. The model is generic and must be aligned to the individual project size and scope in order to
meet the specific management need. The model includes four elements (see figure 1) as follows:

1. Division into phases: The five main phases of the model serve different purposes and are defined.
Each phase may be subdivided if required for expedient management of the project.
2. Principles for phase transitions: The transition from one phase to the next signifies a change in the
state of the project. The approvals and documentation requirements for each transition are clearly
defined by the model.
3. Products: The products of the model are the documents required for the daily management of the
project. These products are also used for decision making by the project’s steering committee.
4. Distribution of roles and responsibilities: The model includes guidelines for the roles and
responsibilities to be defined for each of the five project phases and where leadership may be placed
in the organisation.
Figure 1. Phases and products in the project model (DIGST, 2014a)

2.2.2 The cross-governmental programme model

The cross-governmental programme model aims to professionalise the implementation of governmental
IT programmes through a well-tested framework based on the international standard known as Managing
Successful Programmes (MSP) and must be applied to all projects exceeding DKK 60 million (c. € 8 million)
and where the IT constitutes a significant element of the programme. The Danish model is based on the UK’s
PRINCE2 model for programme leadership but has been adapted to address national experiences and
demands.
The cross-governmental programme model consists of four phases: identification of the programme,
specification of the programme, management of the programme’s waves, and closure of the programme.
Nine programme themes are addressed in all phases of the programme and, therefore, constitute a
superstructure to the phase model. While seven fundamental principles for good programme leadership
provide the framework for leadership, a number of mandatory and optional products (currently being
developed) support the phase model. The management of the various programme elements is subdivided into
two additional phases: to develop mandatory programme products and apply templates, and to establish a
mandatory governance fora. The model includes a mandatory risk assessment by the Danish Council for IT
Projects (DCITP). Biannual progress reports must be submitted to the DCITP, thus enabling a qualified
review and decision making in regard to carrying out a subsequent risk assessment or recommending an
external programme review.
Figure 2. Cross-governmental programme model (DIGST, 2014a)

2.2.3 The government business case model

The business case is an integral part of both the cross-governmental IT project model and the cross-
governmental programme model. The objective of the business case is to determine whether a given initiative
constitutes a good investment. The model provides a calculation of the overall financial and non-financial
consequences and the potential risks of investing in a particular project or a programme, and is based on an
analysis and statement of the change desired and how to achieve it.
As there is always an element of uncertainty when estimating the cost of a project or a given business
case, the model operates three-point estimations and probability distributions. Similarly, the model requires
that funds be set aside in a risk pool to be applied to the materialisation of predicted risks.
The business case model consists of the present situation and two future situations (see figure 3): one in
which the project or the programme is implemented (scenario 1), and the other in which it is not implemented
(scenario 0). Using the business case, the gains of the project or the programme are calculated by comparing
these situations.
Figure 2. Government business case (DIGST, 2014a)

The governmental business case model includes guidance on how to quality check a business case. In
addition, the Inter-ministerial Project Office offers to quality assess both business case and project initiation
documents developed as part of the IT project and programme models before the material is submitted to the
Danish Council for IT Projects for risk assessment.
2.1.4 The Danish Council for IT projects
The Danish Council for IT projects (DCITP) consists of 40 senior managers from the public and private
sectors (DIGST, 2014b), primarily from the private sector but also from semi-public and public IT-intensive
organisations. All members have experience with large-scale IT projects or projects for change and can
contribute solid and competent guidance to governmental IT projects. The role of the DCITP is to
professionalise the implementation of IT initiatives through the following: risk assessments of the risk
profiles of all governmental IT projects exceeding DKK 10 million and programmes above DKK 60 million,
recommendations about whether high-risk projects should be subjected to an external review, and monitoring
the progress of risk-assessed initiatives on an on-going basis through biannual progress reporting.
All governmental IT projects exceeding DKK 10 million and programmes exceeding DKK 60 million
must be risk assessed by the DCITP. Assessment is carried out by the DCITP in collaboration with
experienced IT project managers from the private and public sectors. Furthermore, all risk assessments lead
to specific recommendations to minimise risk and optimise project design and implementation.

2.3 The importance of a strong mandate and governance cross-governmental

cooperation
In Denmark, the national administrative division comprises three layers: the central government, five
regions, and 98 municipalities. A full 70 to 80% of service provision takes place at the local level, and public
health, including hospitals, is managed by the regions. The devolution of service provision requires both
horizontal and vertical integration between systems and the sharing of data, as well as cross-governmental
cooperation. For example, in regard to health care, policies are developed by the central government, while
the execution of policies in hospitals is carried out by regions, and primary and home healthcare are the
responsibility of municipalities. As shown, service gateways to citizens are easily divided, while the flow of
related healthcare data could not be treated in a similar way. Thus, interoperability, organisation,
identification, and the secure storage and exchange of data become paramount. For example, changes in
personal-information registration items such as residential address and family structure influence not only the
national level (e.g. registering tax declaration) but also the local level (e.g. changing family doctor). In order
to achieve effective and efficient governance and public service provision, it is critical to design a new work
process and information flow rather than using the existing framework.
Figure 3. National stakeholders and coordinating entities at each level of government (Meyerhoff Nielsen, 2013)

One of the noteworthy characteristics of the current Danish eGovernment strategy is its strategic focus on
benefit realisation and the strengthening of the cross-governmental governance and cooperation model. The
governance and cooperation model is anchored in the following:

 The steering committee for Joint Cross-Government Cooperation (STS, Styregruppen for
Tværoffentligt Samarbejde;
 The steering committee for the eGovernment Strategy (DSTG, Styregruppen for den
Fællesoffentlige Digitaliseringsstratgi); and
 The Danish Agency for Digitisation (DIGST, Digitaliseringsstyrelsen).
 The joint national-strategy action plan and thus key programmes and projects are initiated, financed,
coordinated, monitored, and approved by the two multi-stakeholder steering committees. In the next sections,
the key strategic and organisational aspects of the STS and DSTG will be outlined.
2.3.1 STS – The Steering Committee for Joint Cross-Government Cooperation
Of all the joint public-governance structures, the STS has attracted attention as one of the most-successful
governance and cooperation models for the implementation of eGovernment internationally. A person from
the Ministry of Finance chairs the STS – and may propose new initiatives – while secretarial and
administrative support is provided by DIGST.
In regard to eGovernment, the STS is the highest decision-making level of the Danish governance and
cooperation model (except for the elected government and parliament). Its members are high-level
representatives – usually director-generals – from central ministries and Danish Region and Local
Government Denmark (LGDK) (the latter two stakeholder organisations are mandated to represent the
interests of their respective members). The committee paves the way for major political decisions, including
the yearly economic negotiations between central and local government, new digital strategies, and the
associated initiatives. In other words, the STS provides direction, makes critical decisions during
implementation, and enforces mandates. As members of the STS are director-generals, they, ceteris paribus,
have greater administrative, budgetary, and decision-making influence within their respective organisations
and also in their ability to execute policies and advise politicians.
The purpose of the STS has been to establish a common framework and a shared understanding among
the three layers of Danish public administration. The STS facilitates a cross-governmental, jointly agreed-
upon strategy, with a shared decision-making forum, enforced through the annually agreed-upon national
budget. For example, the STS supervises approved the initial establishment of the cross-government IT
project and programme and business case models. The STS also has final approval of projects within a given
strategy period. The STS receives progress regular updates, management and progress reports for the
initiatives within the strategy in relation to scheduled implementation, its economy, risks and realisation of
gains. The STS also ensures high-level coordination of IT projects so that they can provide varied digital
services beyond organisational borders. Similarly, the STS help facilitate the cooperation among stakeholders
and guarantees that IT systems be designed with consistency along all processes in use, without neglecting
human-centred perspectives, by taking citizens’ and businesses’ needs into consideration.
Until the advent of the current eGovernment strategy, the STS met every six months, after which the
frequency of meetings was increased to every three months. Similarly, the role of the STS has evolved. The
change in its role is partly the result of the creation of DSTG and DIGST (see figure 5). To increase the
number of participating organisations and ensure more-frequent and closer coordination between key
stakeholders, the DSTG was established. While the mandate of the STS remains the same, the DSTG
provides a more “hands-on” management and implementation oversight. The creation of DSTG means that
physical meetings are no longer required for the STS, as proposals for strategic decisions, initiatives, and
budgets are submitted for approval by the STS secretariat (anchored in DIGST) only upon prior approval by
the DSTG. In addition, strong strategic, professional, and technical competences ensure that DIGST can
assume the daily responsibility to run eGovernment strategy and policies from concept to output – thus
creating a three-layered governance and cooperation model.
Figure 4. Cross-governmental governance and cooperation model, aka the institutional set-up (Meyerhoff Nielsen, 2013)

2.3.2 DSTG – The Steering Committee for the eGovernment Strategy

During the current strategy, logistical pragmatism has resulted in a more ad hoc approach to the STS
meetings. While the organizational set-up and the participating stakeholders are very similar, the STS retains
the overall mandate to approve national eGovernment strategies, the action plan, programmes, projects,
budgets, and approvals and even to allocate joint-eGovernment financing (see figure 5).
The DSTG provides the middle layer of the Danish governance and cooperation model. It receives regular
updates and progress reports on initiatives, which in their totality constitute the joint-governmental
eGovernment strategy and action plan. For example, the DSTG may establish joint-organizational projects or
programme committees but these require final approval by the STS. Similarly, the DSTG filters information
and proposes decisions for STS approval, but it cannot approve joint-governmental financing, which is the
prerogative of the STS. Similarly, all initiatives within the national strategy must be formally approved by
both DSTG and STS.
The DSTG is chaired by the director of the DIGST and members are managing directors from key
ministries, Danish Regions, and LGDK. The DSTG meets 10 to 12 times annually.
2.3.3 DIGST – Danish Agency for Digitisation
DIGST was founded in 2011 with the merger of the Digital Task Force, the Agency for Governmental
Management, and the bulk of the National IT and Telecom Agency. By merging strong, strategic professional
and technical competences within a single organisation, the key aim of the approximately 140 staff is to
speed up the digitisation processes required to modernise the Danish public sector and society.
While the DIGST is the third and lowest level of the Danish government and cooperation model, it is
charged with the responsibility for eGovernment strategy and policies from concept to output and outcomes.
In practice, the DIGST coordinates efforts and relevant actors to ensure the benefits of realisation of the
eGovernment strategy. Similarly, it is responsible for the tasks and responsibilities of the previous Digital
Task Force, including the secretariat role for the STS, and it coordinates the DSTG. Simultaneously, the
merger saw key, public-sector enterprises, architectural and interoperability standards, security standards,
infrastructure projects, and key enablers. These include the digital signature (NemID) and single-sign-on
(NemLog-in), NemKonto, NemSMS, Digital Post, the citizen portal www.borger.dk, the IT project,
programme and business models together coordinating role of the national eGovernment strategy being
housed within the same organisation with a stronger political mandate – i.e. driving a common vision and
ensuring cross-governmental implementation of the government's digital ambitions in the public sector.
In short, the most-critical tasks of the DIGST currently are to ensure the realisation of the overall
objectives and the target of achieving digitising 80% of all communication and service provisions (for
selected service areas) by 2015, thus ensuring DKK 5 billion (c. € 670 million) in annual cost savings. To
ensure the successful implementation of the joint-governmental strategy and its efficiency goals, DIGST
facilitate cross-governmental cooperation and thus lead the efforts to digitise the public sector.
A key responsibility is to ensure that stakeholders deliver on time, on budget, and as projected by the
individual business cases. To this effect, regular progress reports and benefit realisation are compiled for
follow-up by the DSTG, STS and responsible project and programme managers (and their organisation). IT
projects and programmes follow the joint-governmental models outlined in section 2.2, and other initiatives
follow the joint-governmental project model (inspired by Prince2) and must report on milestones,
deliverables, budget, and risks. All projects’ descriptions 2 , progress reports 3 and benefit realisation 4 are
published upon approval by the DSTG.

3. DISCUSSION
The joint governance IT project, programme and business case models are closely associated with the
strategic focus and have helped to minimise the risk of project failure. Underpinning the professionalisation
of project development, implementation and benefit realisation are noteworthy. The mandatory use of a
formal model that is flexible enough to address the unique features of a given project and organisation is
highly evaluated, complementing it with a business case to help ensure value creation. At the same time, the
models avoid the development of parallel implementations of similar models in various government
institutions.
In 2010, the Danish Government published a report showing that governmental IT projects experienced
difficulties and that there was a need for professionalising IT efforts. Lessons, good and bad, learned in other
projects came into play through the DCIPT and its members. The value is twofold: helping to minimise risk
in individual projects and highlighting potentially over- or underestimated risks while giving constructive
advice to deal with these.
Since its founding, the DCIPT has helped to create an overview of all on-going ICT initiatives in the
government sector, in particular IT projects and programmes exceeding DKK 10 million and DKK 60 million
respectively. Since 2011, the DCIPT has evaluated 40 IT projects and programmes; of these, nine were
deemed as being high-risk projects (DIGST, 2014a), one project was merged into an existing programme,
and five were terminated before completion (Statens IT-projektråd, 2013).
The systematic approach to evaluating risk and potential benefits has established thresholds for when IT
projects and programmes need to take action, be revised or ultimately abandoned. For instance, the DCITP
may recommend that high-risk projects be subjected to immediate external review, or further down the
project pipeline, that an initiative should be delayed, is becoming too costly, or faces huge challenges in
relation to the realisation of potential gains. To this effect, the DCITP may also decide to monitor an external
review closely, consider the conclusions of the review, and make recommendations for subsequent action. By
recommending external reviews for potentially high-risk initiatives, the DCITP makes a valuable
contribution and helps to revise or close down ICT initiatives at an early stage, thus reducing the number of
subsequent failures.
Some project managers have argued that the project initiation documents required are overly rigid, and
the business case model, in particular, has been criticised. To this effect, the DIGST in 2013 evaluated the

2
Descriptions of initiatives available on http://www.digst.dk/Digitaliseringsstrategi/Om-initiativerne
3
Current status of initiatives available on http://www.digst.dk/Digitaliseringsstrategi/Status-for-
digitaliseringsstrategien
4
Benefit realisation in terms of 80% digital communication target available on
http://www.digst.dk/Digitaliseringsstrategi/Status-for-digitaliseringsstrategien
models and made a number of adjustments to address these concerns. It may also be argued that the
mandatory submittal of biannual progress reports to the DCITP on expectations regarding schedule, project
economy, and realisation of gains constitutes an additional burden to the initiatives. While this management
cost has yet to be estimated, it must be weighed against the benefits that the initiatives’ senior management
members gain by constructively sparring with the assigned DCITP member about how to address the specific
challenges of the initiative. In addition, the overall progress report submitted by the DCITP to the Danish
Government sheds light on the potential economic and political cost of large-scale ICT failures, which in turn
helps focus attention on the professionalisation of the development, implementation, and benefit realisation
of public-sector ICT initiatives. This latter effect is reinforced by sharing good and bad practices as the
overview is publically available to IT vendors, consultants, and others who take an interest in the progress of
large-scale IT projects (DIGST, 2014c). Still, the delayed implementation is still an issue affecting the
majority of large Danish IT projects, and is likely to be highlighted in the soon to be published DCITP report
for the second half of 2014.
One criticism of the Danish model is that it applies only to projects exceeding DKK 10 million and
programmes larger than DKK 60 million. Experiences to date show that an increasing number of ICT-related
changes within the Danish public sector are implemented as programme-like initiatives (IT-projektrådet,
2013; DIGST, 2014a). To this effect, a lighter version of the IT-project model could be of great value – and
is in fact adapted for internal use in the DIGST for projects exceeding DKK 1 million (c. € 0.13 million)
(DIGST, 2013). There is, however, some uncertainty about the application of the programme concept in
cases where ICT is not a dominating element, for instance, an IT project exceeding DKK 5 million (c. € 0.67
million) naturally applies the cross-governmental IT-project model. However, if this project is part of a larger
programme, is the latter then required to follow the cross-governmental programme model – even if the IT
project is not a dominant part of the overall programme?
Centralised planning risks being unambitious, ignored, and misconceived and may result in negative
impacts in parts of public administration (Heeks, 2006). To this effect, the OECD 2010 evaluation of the
Danish approach to eGovernment found that the strategic focus was not outgoing and ambitious enough and
thus recommended an introduction of a clear eGovernment leading role with a defined mandate and
responsibility to improve Danish digitisation efforts. The STS mandate was seen as particularly unclear
(OECD, 2010). The 2011–2015 eGovernment strategy has seen the Danish governance and cooperation
model strengthened by the creation of the DIGST and the DSTG.
The introduction of the DSTG and the increased frequency of steering committee meetings is a positive
development. In practice, the high frequency of meetings and reporting can become a challenge to individual
projects and programmes. In fact, the strategic importance of STS has decreased, while the importance of the
DSTG has increased, in the last couple of years. In some instances, project managers may end up spending a
disproportionate amount of time providing management information to the DSTG at the expense of project
progress.
As shown, the Danish approach helps ensure that ICT projects build on previously implemented projects
and past experiences. It also helps authorities to refocus their attention on benefit realisation. Benefit
realisation has been strategically achieved, in part due to the creation of the DIGST and the introduction of
the DSTG. In Denmark, eGovernment is positioned as a tool for effective public-service delivery (i.e. cost
savings) and has established a mechanism to maintain such efficiency within and across organisational
borders. At the same time, strategic collaborative structures are implemented in the mechanism. Through the
introduced mechanism, traditional silos are starting to be eliminated – although very slowly – as coordination
and cooperation is both horizontal and vertical. Similarly, stakeholder participation and clear decision-
making processes help minimise the risk of failure caused by lack of cooperation, benefit realisation, or
effective management of project risks.
The governance and cooperation model could none-the-less be strengthened further. For one, there need
to be increased focus on reuse of public sector data across organisational barriers to increase government
efficiency, but equally important to improve the quality of service delivery. A user-centric look at service
design is needed to ensure that service deliver becomes personalised and proactive, which in turn require a
holistic view and approach in order to implement the required legislative and procedural changes, facilitate
and fund joint development of shared infrastructure to exchange data and facilitate service delivery which
requires the cooperation of multiple authorities and one or more levels of government.
4. CONCLUSION
In light of the OECD recommendations, this paper investigates the three most-important aspects of
eGovernment implementation in Denmark: the strategic focus on benefit realisation; the mandatory joint
public IT project, programme and business case models, and, lastly, a joint public-governance and
cooperation model. As seen in the strategic framework in Denmark, encouraging the development of ICT
projects based on previous experiences and as follow-ups to previously implemented initiatives helps
authorities to refocus their attention on risk minimisation and benefit realisation. In this regard, the cross-
governmental IT project, programme and business case models are essential and practical examples of how to
implement the OECD recommendations.
A key aspect of the Danish approach to eGovernment is the consensual, participatory, and cooperative
approach taken. In fact, it may be deemed one of the most-important fundamental factors behind past Danish
successes in the field of eGovernment. Based on the technical advantages implemented by earlier stages of
eGovernment initiatives in the 1990s and early 2000s, successful ICT initiatives have most often involved
key stakeholders from across organisational barriers and have enjoyed a clear strategic and political mandate.
This cross-governmental IT-project model has been applied widely – and, interestingly, the participatory and
collaborative approach taken by the DSTG and constructive feedback from for example the DCITP, is argued
to be one of the strongest drivers for the effective minimisation of project risk and great success in reaping
the expected benefits.
In conclusion, the analysis of the Danish approach to benefit realisation indicates that countries that focus
only on the technical and supply-side issues of eGovernment may benefit greatly from a more-strategic focus
on public-sector governance and cooperation. Similarly, joint governmental governance and cooperation
models will assist in the further advancement and acceleration of eGovernment implementations.
While the conclusions of this analysis underpin the rationale of the OECD recommendations, it also has
limitations. For one, the analysis focuses solely on the Danish approach. A wider, more-detailed comparative
analysis of other national models would be of value. Secondly, the paper does not unearth the background or
the manner in which the cross-governmental models, strategies, or cooperation have been initiated. Nor does
the analysis identify the fundamental factors that have enabled the collaborative vertical and horizontal
approach to eGovernment in Denmark. There is, in other words, a range of implications to be researched
further in the future, including comparative and in-depth studies of governance and cooperation models.
As few countries have successfully shifted from a technology and supply focus, to a whole-of-
government collaborative one, similarly, too few countries have a strategic and structured focus on
measurable risk minimisation and benefit realisation. Japan, for example, has recently realised the importance
of cooperation and knowledge-sharing amongst public-sector organisations and has announced a new
initiative focusing on a multi-stakeholder model for the revision of national legislation on personal
information – and this experience has potential for making an interesting case study to be compared to the
Danish model.

REFERENCES
Danish Government, 2002. The Danish e-Government Strategy 2000-2004 - Towards e-Government: Vision and
Strategy for the Public Sector in Denmark (2001-2004). Danish Government, Coperhagen, Denmark. Retrieved 21 July
2014 from: www.epractice.eu/files/media/media_362.pdf
Danish Government, 2004. The Danish e-Government Strategy 2004-2006. Danish Government, Copenhagen,
Denmark. Retrieved 21 July 2014 from: www.epractice.eu/files/media/media_275.pdf
Danish Government, 2007. The Danish e-Government Strategy (2007-2010): “Towards better digital
services, increased efficiency and stronger collaboration”. Danish Government, Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved 22
July 2014 from: www.modernisering.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/Projekter/digitaliseringsstrategi/Danish_E-
government_strategy_2007-2010.pdf
Danish Government, 2011. The Danish e-Government Strategy 2011-2015. Danish Government, Copenhagen,
Denmark. Retrieved 21 July 2014 from:
www.digst.dk/~/media/Files/Digitaliseringsstrategi/Engelsk_strategi_tilgaengelig.pdf
 DIGST, 2013. Ny brugervenlig udgave af it-projektmodel og business case. DIGST, Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrived
30 September 2014 from: www.digst.dk/Servicemenu/Nyheder/Nyhedsarkiv/Statens-projektmodel/Ny-version-af-
projektmodel-og-business-case
DIGST, 2014a. Statslige it-projekter og programmer. DIGST, Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrived 30
September 2014 from: www.digst.dk/Styring/Statslige-it-projekter-og-programmer
DIGST, 2914b. Vurderingskorpset er guld værd, når statslige it-projekter risikovurderes. DIGST, Copenhagen,
Denmark. Retrived 13 August 2014 from: http://www.digst.dk/Servicemenu/Nyheder/Nyhedsarkiv/Statens-
projektmodel/Vurderingskorpset-er-guld-vaerd
DIGST, 2014c. Sorte svaner – og hvordan vi undgår dem. DIGST, Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrived 13 August 2014
from: www.digst.dk/Servicemenu/Nyheder/Nyhedsarkiv/Statens-projektmodel/Sorte-svaner
European Commission, 2014. Delivering the European Advantage? ‘How European governments can and should
benefit from innovative public services’. European Commission DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology,
Brussels, Belgium.
Frelle-Petersen, L., 2014. Professionalisering af it-projekter er en udviklingsprocess. DIGST, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Retrived 13 August 2014 from: www.digst.dk/Servicemenu/Om-os/Direktionen/Direktoerens-klummer/August-2014
Heeks, R., 2006. Implementing and managing eGovernment: An international text. SAGE Publications Ltd., London,
United Kingdom.
Igari, N., 2012. How to successfully promote ICT usage: A comparative analysis of Denmark and Japan, In
Telematics and Informatics, Vol.31 No. 1, pp.115-125.
McKinsey (2013). McKinsey Oxford Class Forcasting for IT Project Studies. McKinsey, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Meyerhoff Nielsen, M., 2011. Danish e-Government Success Factors: Strategies and good practice examples.
Unpublished, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Meyerhoff Nielsen, M. & Igari, N., 2013. Speaking Danish in Japan – How Japan can learn from Danish best
practice. CeDEM12, Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government. Krems, Austria, 137-150.
Meyerhoff Nielsen, M. 2013. Danish eGovernment Successfactors. Unpublished presentation at EP eGovernment
Seminar October-November 2013. Maastricht School of Management, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
OECD, 2010. Recommendation for Denmark. OECD, Paris, France. Retrieved 22 July 2014 from:
http://modernisering.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/Projekter/OECD/DK_Egov_Review__Report_Core_messages
_-_03-06-2010.pdf
OECD, 2014. Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies 15 July 2014 - C(2014)88. OECD,
Paris, France. Retrived 21 July 2014 from:
http://acts.oecd.org/Instruments/ShowInstrumentView.aspx?InstrumentID=306&InstrumentPID=326&Lang=en&Book=
Statens IT-projektråd, 2013. Statens IT-projekter: Status 02/2013. Statens IT-projektråd, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Retrived 30 September 2014 from:
www.itprojektraad.dk/~/media/Files/Statusrapporteringen/Statusrapporter/Status%202%20halvaar%202013/Statusrapport
%202%20halvr%202013.ashx
United Nations, 2014. UN e-Government Survey 2004. United Nations, New York, USA. Retrived 27 July 2014
from: http://unpan3.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Reports/UN-E-Government-Survey-2014

View publication stats