Perfect-- 欺人前自欺，欺到教授就賺到啦！
Filed under: Author: 澤民-友直 友諒 友多聞
Action Memorandum
From: Tse-Ming Chang, (Mike tc2324)
To: Taiwan Prime Minister
Subject: The e-government policy and implement
Date: 2007, Nov. 10th
Recommended Actions
Taiwan’s government confronted the challenge of how to improve online citizen access to government services and the challenge of departments and local governments’ reluctance in collaboration. According to New Zealand’s experience, I recommend our government should set up a specific IC central agency with a board structure to push and monitor the e-government implement. This board initiation can balance and represent the interests of each ministry, satisfy the need of citizens for convenience, and reduce government’s budget.
Issues
Today, thanks to internet technology boom, cost of digital information from internet drastically decreases and citizens are more and more familiar with obtaining their necessaries through internet services. Taiwan government notices that and manages to provide a platform for different departments to communicate, and an access for citizens to approach government’s policies as well as services. Though government has overcome technological problems, it still faces the challenge of departments’ and local governments’ reluctance in collaboration since political environment favors decentralization and independence after former president Lee administration. However, as one industry executive Steve Griffin pointed out, trying to push through digital-era changes while retaining a highly fragmented government structure is unlikely to work. Thus, I strongly suggest government set up a central agency with a board structure to push e-government activities and monitor its efficiency. This central agency can reduce the cost of communication and asymmetric information among departments and effectively provide “carrots and sticks” to facilitate its policy.
With respect to e-government approach, research had identified four possible implementation options. They are “lead agency”, “joint venture structure”, “club or board structure”, and “user or intermediary.” In the first option departments receive direct funding to initiate their e-projects. It is effective but rigid, and prone to corruption. The second and the third options are similar with a little difference of having a board. I recommend the board structure because it can represent multi-interests and place responsibility, harmonized by full discussion among board members who are usually chiefs in respective departments. The final option involves delegation of responsibility for carrying out e-policy in respective department. It retains the decentralization spirit but bears the possibility of delay and unaccountability.
After the government sets up a central agency, it is crucial for its better efficiency to encourage a coordinated e-government effort. The key is to distinguish incentives and disincentives and ensure the former outweighed the latter. Incentives include board structure, direct funding, fair game rules, merit reward, and reappointment of chiefs. Incentives are reluctance to change, fear of losing power, familiarity with decentralization and uncertainty of hierarchy. In New Zealand’s case, its agency used direct funding and reappointment as their incentive. In addition, our central agency can advertise the e-government policy to the public and have a survey to demonstrate the need of e-government in order to urge departments and local governments. To reduce the disincentive, the e-government director Laurence Millar had pointed out a significant “sow-harvest” problem—one pays for sowing when everyone benefits from harvesting. Therefore, a fair rule and distinguishing merit reward are critical. I suggest the saved budget in the first fiscal year remains in that department and the officials receive rewards in proportion to the department’s efficiency and performance ranking, held by the third party or the public.
As to e-government’s policies, whether public sector introduces approaches from private sector is a hot issue. From New Zealand’s case, we saw pros and cons. The most obvious pros are decentralization, competitiveness and transparency. Traditional regime emphasizes centralized power to govern; in modern society, however, increasingly diverse affairs need to be achieved through different kinds of expertise and measures, which centralized power cannot response quickly and professionally. Therefore, “specialization” first appearing in private sector started to prevail over public sector in the 20th century. Rules of “Survival of the fittest” introduced from private sector also triggered desire for competitiveness among governments. Furthermore, decentralized power makes power of each department supervised by others and requests information flow among them. They all help promote government’s transparency. On the other hand, a decentralized government is easily subject to implementation stagnation if it faces interest conflicts among departments. Decentralized management also bears cost of asymmetric information and inefficient communication.
Options
In addition to a central agency with board structure, I recommend the central lead agency. We take advantage of high effectiveness of centralized management while risking disagreement over low representativeness and unfair interest distribution. The second option that had been proposed in Taiwan in1997 is the outsourcing approach. Similar to public relations area outsourced to PR companies, our government can outsource this e-business to private IC companies. The role of government is to provide direction and encouraging environment for companies and supervise whole processes. It stirs less but complicates accountability.
Implementation
First, we introduce a bill to set up a central agency with a board and a regular budget while simultaneously broadcasting the public desire for a joined-up e-service among governments to facilitate the Congress processes. The board members should be decided as soon as possible and hold meetings to reconcile individual interests. This agency can employ ICT experts or companies as consultants and outsource relevant tasks to them. In the medium range (the first fiscal year), this agency applies the e-policy to the central (Federal) government and take it as a trial since the central government can respond quickly if meeting problems. In the long range after the analysis of central government’s costs and effects, this agency can implement the e-policy in local governments. This agency should also keep an eye on maintaining and updating the e-government system based on the public’s feedback.
From: Tse-Ming Chang, (Mike tc2324)
To: Taiwan Prime Minister
Subject: The e-government policy and implement
Date: 2007, Nov. 10th
Recommended Actions
Taiwan’s government confronted the challenge of how to improve online citizen access to government services and the challenge of departments and local governments’ reluctance in collaboration. According to New Zealand’s experience, I recommend our government should set up a specific IC central agency with a board structure to push and monitor the e-government implement. This board initiation can balance and represent the interests of each ministry, satisfy the need of citizens for convenience, and reduce government’s budget.
Issues
Today, thanks to internet technology boom, cost of digital information from internet drastically decreases and citizens are more and more familiar with obtaining their necessaries through internet services. Taiwan government notices that and manages to provide a platform for different departments to communicate, and an access for citizens to approach government’s policies as well as services. Though government has overcome technological problems, it still faces the challenge of departments’ and local governments’ reluctance in collaboration since political environment favors decentralization and independence after former president Lee administration. However, as one industry executive Steve Griffin pointed out, trying to push through digital-era changes while retaining a highly fragmented government structure is unlikely to work. Thus, I strongly suggest government set up a central agency with a board structure to push e-government activities and monitor its efficiency. This central agency can reduce the cost of communication and asymmetric information among departments and effectively provide “carrots and sticks” to facilitate its policy.
With respect to e-government approach, research had identified four possible implementation options. They are “lead agency”, “joint venture structure”, “club or board structure”, and “user or intermediary.” In the first option departments receive direct funding to initiate their e-projects. It is effective but rigid, and prone to corruption. The second and the third options are similar with a little difference of having a board. I recommend the board structure because it can represent multi-interests and place responsibility, harmonized by full discussion among board members who are usually chiefs in respective departments. The final option involves delegation of responsibility for carrying out e-policy in respective department. It retains the decentralization spirit but bears the possibility of delay and unaccountability.
After the government sets up a central agency, it is crucial for its better efficiency to encourage a coordinated e-government effort. The key is to distinguish incentives and disincentives and ensure the former outweighed the latter. Incentives include board structure, direct funding, fair game rules, merit reward, and reappointment of chiefs. Incentives are reluctance to change, fear of losing power, familiarity with decentralization and uncertainty of hierarchy. In New Zealand’s case, its agency used direct funding and reappointment as their incentive. In addition, our central agency can advertise the e-government policy to the public and have a survey to demonstrate the need of e-government in order to urge departments and local governments. To reduce the disincentive, the e-government director Laurence Millar had pointed out a significant “sow-harvest” problem—one pays for sowing when everyone benefits from harvesting. Therefore, a fair rule and distinguishing merit reward are critical. I suggest the saved budget in the first fiscal year remains in that department and the officials receive rewards in proportion to the department’s efficiency and performance ranking, held by the third party or the public.
As to e-government’s policies, whether public sector introduces approaches from private sector is a hot issue. From New Zealand’s case, we saw pros and cons. The most obvious pros are decentralization, competitiveness and transparency. Traditional regime emphasizes centralized power to govern; in modern society, however, increasingly diverse affairs need to be achieved through different kinds of expertise and measures, which centralized power cannot response quickly and professionally. Therefore, “specialization” first appearing in private sector started to prevail over public sector in the 20th century. Rules of “Survival of the fittest” introduced from private sector also triggered desire for competitiveness among governments. Furthermore, decentralized power makes power of each department supervised by others and requests information flow among them. They all help promote government’s transparency. On the other hand, a decentralized government is easily subject to implementation stagnation if it faces interest conflicts among departments. Decentralized management also bears cost of asymmetric information and inefficient communication.
Options
In addition to a central agency with board structure, I recommend the central lead agency. We take advantage of high effectiveness of centralized management while risking disagreement over low representativeness and unfair interest distribution. The second option that had been proposed in Taiwan in1997 is the outsourcing approach. Similar to public relations area outsourced to PR companies, our government can outsource this e-business to private IC companies. The role of government is to provide direction and encouraging environment for companies and supervise whole processes. It stirs less but complicates accountability.
Implementation
First, we introduce a bill to set up a central agency with a board and a regular budget while simultaneously broadcasting the public desire for a joined-up e-service among governments to facilitate the Congress processes. The board members should be decided as soon as possible and hold meetings to reconcile individual interests. This agency can employ ICT experts or companies as consultants and outsource relevant tasks to them. In the medium range (the first fiscal year), this agency applies the e-policy to the central (Federal) government and take it as a trial since the central government can respond quickly if meeting problems. In the long range after the analysis of central government’s costs and effects, this agency can implement the e-policy in local governments. This agency should also keep an eye on maintaining and updating the e-government system based on the public’s feedback.
澤民-友直 友諒 友多聞
2007年11月12日 上午11:21