Risks
38 The e-government programme is exposed to a wide range of risks. Some are the usual fiscal and performance risks associated with any organisational change programme of such scope. Others relate to running major IT projects. Our usual budgetary, project monitoring, and performance assessment regimes are satisfactory for managing these risks.
39 There is strategic risk associated with the quality of our E-government Strategy. This is mitigated by wide involvement of agencies in developing the strategy, the knowledge of other countries' e-government strategies incorporated into our own, and the involvement of the E-government Advisory Board in overseeing it.
40 There is a risk of people not using e-government, and some of the benefits of the programme not being realised. This risk will be mitigated by:
- agencies basing their e-government initiatives on what their clients want and are capable of, not just what agencies want to provide; and
- the strategy's dual focus on improved service delivery and back-office cost-effectiveness, which means that even if no services were delivered online we can still make gains in the quality of those services (e.g. through integration) and the efficiency of service delivery through other channels (e.g. through interoperability and better information management) that will justify the programme.
41 Another risk exists around striking the wrong balance between centralisation and decentralisation of e-government decision rights, and infrastructures. The strategy states that the best solutions most likely be will be found somewhere in the middle.
42 The next major risk is that agencies do not fully participate in the programme. While we have said that e-government is not optional for the Public Service, we must recognise that participation requires commitment of considerable resources. These demands can compete with the functions that agencies are specifically funded to undertake. Also, while wanting all-of-government involvement, we have been limited to encouraging the participation of wider State sector agencies, which is consequently very uneven.
43 There are two mitigations for this. Regarding the Public Service, Ministers must require their agencies to demonstrate how they are delivering on our e-government goals, and ensure that they are resourced to do so. Regarding other State sector agencies, I believe that these agencies should be participating in e-government on the same basis as the Public Service. Depending on the outcome of current work on the governance of Crown entities, I propose to report to Ministers on options for more fully involving the wider State sector in e-government.
44 Another risk is the fact that, as well as affecting government, people, and business, e-government will also affect the voluntary and community sector, and contracted service providers to government. Mitigation of this risk will again come through agencies. Where agencies work with these groups, they should encourage them to adopt e-government as and where appropriate.
45 Finally, there is an ongoing concern about equity. Although it is narrowing, we are still faced with a digital divide and general gap in abilities, skills, and attitudes between those who can and can't access and benefit from e-government. Aside from the work we are doing through our Connecting Communities strategyand through project PROBE, this risk can be mitigated by:
- not moving services online without understanding the capabilities of those who use them;
- not arbitrarily closing offline channels in favour of online ones;
- designing online services with maximum accessibility in mind; and
- not seeing e-government as the answer to all issues we face in delivering better service.
