Noella Edelmann
email: noella.edelmann@donau-uni.ac.at

Mary Francoli
email: mary.francoli@carleton.ca

Digital Transformation in the Context of the Open Government Partnership

Keywords: Digital Transformation, Open Government Partnership, Qualitative Research 1

This paper explores the connection between membership in the Open Government Partnership (OGP) and digital transformation. It employs a qualitative research approach and document analysis to examine OGP IRM reports and government self-assessment reports, to get a sense of the nature of digital transformation commitments made within OGP national action plans. This includes a look at what the commitments are, why they are made, and their results. Ultimately, it is found that while few OGP members focus on achieving digital transformation results, most are not leveraging their membership to advance digital transformation. Moreover, those that do are not doing so in a way that addresses a clear policy or governance issue, rendering it difficult to comment on whether the commitments are effectively advancing open government. The mandatory assessment of OGP action plans helps, to some degree, to drive members to complete their commitments, and serves as a useful tool for advancing policies as they relate to open government.

Introduction

Today, we are witnessing important connections between digital technology and governance, particularly within the open government movement. Governments joining the Open Government Partnership (OGP), for example, all sign the Open Government Declaration in which they commit to, among other things, using digital technology to advance improved governance: "We commit to developing accessible and secure online spaces as platforms for delivering services, engaging the public, and sharing information and ideas." [START_REF] Francoli | Open Government Declaration[END_REF]. In this way, OGP membership, can be viewed, in part, as a platform for advancing digital transformation.

The goal of this paper is to understand how digital transformation is understood in the context of the OGP. It asks: [START_REF] Francoli | Open Government Declaration[END_REF] How is digital transformation understood in countries that have membership in OGP? And (2) how does membership in OGP facilitate the implementation of digital transformation strategies? To answer these questions, a qualitative research design based on document analysis was used to analyse OGP action plans and assessment documents according to a definition of digital transformation by Mergel et al [START_REF] Mergel | Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews[END_REF] in the public sector that considers several dimensions: the objects that are to be digitally transformed, the reasons to do so, the processes and the results to be achieved. This study shows that not only are few countries with OGP membership using their membership to digitally transform the public sector, it also reveals that they focus on digital transformation mainly in terms of the results to be achieved. This paper starts by looking at literature on digital transformation and open government. This is followed by a discussion on research design, results, analysis and discussion.

Literature Review

Digital technology has spurred organizations across all sectors to develop strategies to harness the benefits that digitalization brings to manufacturing, service delivery, customer relations, and human resource development. Strategies will usually involve the explicit transformation of key business operations to impact product development, internal and external workflow processes, organizational structures, but also company values and concepts. All digital transformation strategies have four central dimensions: the technologies used in an organisation, the attitudes towards them and their adoption, the expected and actual impact of digital technology strategies on value chains, changes in organizational structure by incorporating digital technologies and activities, and the financial aspects driving transformation [START_REF] Matt | Digital transformation strategies[END_REF]. Before developing a digital strategy, it is important to know what digital transformation is, Mergel et al [START_REF] Mergel | Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews[END_REF], for example define it as "a comprehensive organizational approach" that does not have a "measurable and defined end status, as well as a fixed budget. Instead, digital transformation is a continuous process that needs frequent adjustments of its processes, services, and products to external needs" (p. 10).

Similarly, governments and public administrations aim to transform internal workflow processes, modes of service delivery, and channels of communication with their stakeholders using digital technologies. The emergence and proliferation of digital tools and the digital transformation of public organizations has led to several initiatives, reforms and new principles, and policies. The Tallinn Declaration [START_REF]Tallinn Declaration on eGovernment[END_REF] is one example of a non-binding agreement encouraging governments to provide digital services that are seamless, secure, open, transparent and interoperable. Thus, government's use of information technology is to create public value by achieving organizational change, improving service delivery, understanding users' needs [START_REF] Luna-Reyes | Digital government transformation and internet portals: The co-evolution of technology, organizations, and institutions[END_REF] and to make changes to institutional structures and arrangements that may lead to a reduction of costs, the development of (better) policies, increasing efficiency and effectivity [START_REF] Weerakkody | Digitally-enabled service transformation in the public sector: the lure of institutional pressure and strategic response towards change[END_REF]. Digital tools can also be employed to sustain multiple or changing public values, support collaboration between the stakeholders, ensure public accountability by increasing transparency and openness [START_REF] Lindgren | Digital government transformation: a case illustrating public e-service development as part of public sector transformation[END_REF]. This sort of proactive and digital disclosure is at the heart of contemporary open government. Open, transparent, and accountable government represents the basis of an informed citizenry and advances in social media, data analytics, coding, citizen engagement approaches, open and big data, and citizens' demands all lead to an unprecedented open government that is increasingly ongoing, interactive and transparent [START_REF] Edelmann | Eastern Partnership eDemocracy -Politics in the Digital Age[END_REF]. Openness requires that governments establish a range of approaches, processes, infrastructure, and policies to ensure that citizens, civil society, and others have access to government information, data, and participatory mechanisms today and in future.

Open government is intimately linked to other concepts that are at the intersection of technology and governance, including e-government [START_REF] Jaeger | The endless wire: E-government as global phenomenon[END_REF][START_REF] Silcock | What is e-government[END_REF] and government 2.0 [START_REF] Tapscott | Foreword[END_REF]. However, open government is broader. It represents the capacity of new technologies and a fundamental shift in the culture and practice of governance that extends beyond the web 2.0 platform on which government 2.0 is based. As Don Tapscott states, it is a "redesign of how government operates; how and what the public sector provides and ultimately how governments interact and engage with their citizens" [11 p. Xvi]. This redesign does not mean a radical or sudden departure from previous modes of operation; rather, we might think of it as the maturation of e-government and government 2.0. Its emphasis is on sharing, the distribution of power and collaboration. It includes things such as peoples' right to access documents and government proceedings, meaningful participation of citizens and better communication between branches and levels of government [START_REF] Lathrop | Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice[END_REF].

One of the most notable drivers of open government for almost a decade has been the Open Government Partnership (OGP). Founded in 2011 by eight national governments, membership now includes 78 national governments and 20 local governments [START_REF]OGP Members[END_REF]. It brings together governments and civil society in an effort to develop and implement strategies to foster "accountable, responsive, and inclusive governance" [START_REF]About OGP[END_REF]. Members must sign the Open Government Declaration [START_REF] Francoli | Open Government Declaration[END_REF], which sets out a number of shared values and commitments, including a commitment to harness digital technology. In addition, government members are obligated to co-create, with civil society, national action plans (NAP) every two years. The plans outline a series of commitments to be implemented over the two-year life cycle of the NAP that will improve open government. In this way, NAPs can serve as one important platform for moving specific agendas or policies, such as digital transformation, forward. OGP membership also requires agreeing to have NAPs and progress toward completion assessed by an Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM). The IRM process, as it relates specifically to national members, has changed considerably since the start of OGP resulting in different types of reports.

While all members are assessed by IRM, many also followed OGP processes, which have also changed over time, and delivered their own self-assessment at the mid and end of terms milestones of their NAPs. As will be discussed below, all of the IRM and self-assessment documents are useful to understanding government priorities, and actions. In the case of this paper, and as will be discussed further in the research design section that follows, the NAP and these assessment documents allow us to see what governments are focusing on when it comes to digital transformation, as well as how it has been moved forward, if at all.

Research Design and Methodology

For this study, the researchers aim to understand how those countries that have membership in the OGP understand and implement digital transformation. A qualitative ap-proach was selected for this study as qualitative research promotes a deep understanding of a real-world complexity and can lead to an in-depth description and explanation of what is being investigated [START_REF] Bloomberg | Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation: A Roadmap From Beginning to End[END_REF]. This study is therefore an exploratory study and document analysis was used to gain the data needed to answer the research questions. Given that understanding is the primary goal, the researchers are central to both data collection and analysis. The results thus represent a rich description of the phenomena [START_REF] Geertz | The interpretation of cultures[END_REF] rather than an "objective" post-positivist answers.

In order to answer the research questions, documentary analysis was used to gather information from selected texts and to study the content according the relevant dimensions. To investigate the extent to which countries with OGP membership understand and implement digital transformation, the documents used for analysis were systematically selected. It is important to consider the documents selected for and to assess their authenticity in order to explore their content [START_REF] O'leary | The essential guide to doing your research project[END_REF]. The analysis of the documents is based on a process of "evaluating documents in such a way that empirical knowledge is produced and understanding is developed" [18 p.33].

Krippendorf [START_REF] Krippendorff | Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology[END_REF] suggests that documents or other text data such as government guidelines and directives, official documents, programs and policies and periodic reports can be analysed in a hermeneutic approach through a five-step process including:

(1) access to documents and data, (2) checking the validity of documents, (3) comprehending the documents, (4) analysing the data, and (5) applying the information to themes. Using these principles, the documents identified in the electronic database were screened and for validity and checked for comprehensibility, then analysed. After identifying the relevant commitments, the researchers were able to undertake documentary research by looking at the membership pages [START_REF]OGP Members[END_REF] for the four countries with relevant commitments. From each member's page, it was possible to locate relevant IRM reports, as well as any government self-assessments done related to the commitments in question.

Bowen recommends that a document review should lead to the identification of meaningful and relevant passages of text or other data rather than engaging in a numeric quantification [START_REF] Bowen | Document analysis as a qualitative research method[END_REF]. The researchers therefore decided to consider and analyse all the documents according to the coding structure developed in Mergel et al [START_REF] Mergel | Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews[END_REF]. They considered and analysed all the documents according to the codes of the following themes: what is the focus of digital transformation (the "object"), how will digital transformation occur (the "process"), why is needs to occur (the "reason") and what results are expected (the "results") [START_REF] Mergel | Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews[END_REF]. Thus, on the one hand, the coding leads to numeric results, at the same time, analysing the coded material allows the qualitative analysis of the results.

Document Analysis

The document began with the identification of the commitments made within OGP NAPs that relate to digital transformation. To do this, the researchers used the OGP Explorer, a database of 3856 commitments made within OGP NAPs from 2011 to 2018 [START_REF]OGP Explorer[END_REF]. Ultimately, only 7 of 3856 commitments contained a reference to digital transformation (data regarding the relevant commitments are valid as of March 22, 2020 when search was conducted). These included: 1 commitment from Australia, 4 from France, 1 from Italy, and 1 from Sweden. While this paper focuses on trends and attitudes toward digital transformation, more generally, and less on the specific of each commitment, it is useful to note the focus of each of the seven commitments. The full text of each commitment can be found in the relevant NAPs cited in Table 1:

Table 1. OGP Commitments Analysed
Country NAP Commitment Title Australia 2016-18 [START_REF]Australia's first Open Government National Action Plan 2016-2018[END_REF] Digitally transform the delivery of government services France 2018-20 [START_REF] Francaise | Pour une Action Publique Transparente et Collaborative: Plan d'Action National Pour la France 2018-2020[END_REF] Developing an open science ecosystem " " Increasing transparency in public procurement " " Organize an international GovTech summit in France " 2015-17 [START_REF]For a Transparent and Collaborative Government: France National Action Plan 2015-2017[END_REF] Grow a Culture of Openness Data Literacy and Digital Technologies Italy 2016-18 [START_REF]Government of Italy Ministro per la Semplificazione e la Pubblica Amministrazione[END_REF] Lecce Start up in the City Sweden 2016-18 [START_REF]Sweden's third national Action Plan for Open Government Partnership 2016-2018[END_REF] Putting citizens at the centre eGovernment of government administration reforms

The document selection process led to identification of 10 documents from 4 countries to be analysed. They represented either a government self-assessment (N=3) or an Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) assessment (N=7). It should be noted that the distribution of the available reports was not consistent across the four countries. Italy, for example, did not have a government self-assessment. Similarly, there was only one available IRM report for Australia, whereas France has four (remembering it has multiple commitments related to digital transformation), and Italy and Sweden each have two.

Government self-assessments are created by OGP member countries and provide varying levels of detail on progress made toward completion of commitments. Some have offered midterm and end of term reports, while others might offer one or the other, and others still will not undertake the assessment. These reports are useful as they can clarify the goal of the commitment, the rationale for including it in country's NAP, progress toward completion, along with mention of issues that might be helping or hindering completion.

While the IRM reports contain some of the same information, it originates from a different source that is supposed to be both neutral, and independent of government [START_REF]About the IRM[END_REF]. In general, the IRM reports on adherence to the OGP process, the quality of cocreation activities, the fit of NAP commitments to the open government context in the country being assessed (does the NAP help to solve some of the challenges to open government in the country), and completion levels of commitments. The IRM reports also make recommendations to government on how, and whether, to move forward with commitments. The reports themselves generate a lot of data and are useful for getting an overview of open government activities within individual member countries, and across OGP.

Results

All the available government self-assessments [START_REF]Australia's first Open Government National Action Plan 2016-2018[END_REF][START_REF] Francaise | Pour une Action Publique Transparente et Collaborative: Plan d'Action National Pour la France 2018-2020[END_REF][START_REF]For a Transparent and Collaborative Government: France National Action Plan 2015-2017[END_REF][START_REF]Government of Italy Ministro per la Semplificazione e la Pubblica Amministrazione[END_REF][START_REF]Sweden's third national Action Plan for Open Government Partnership 2016-2018[END_REF] and IRM reports [START_REF]Australia End of Term Self-Assessment 2016-2018[END_REF][START_REF] Stewart | Australia IRM Mid Term Report 2016-2018[END_REF][START_REF] Wickberg | France IRM Design Report 2018-2020[END_REF][START_REF] Segato | Italy IRM End of Term Report 2016-18[END_REF][START_REF]Sweden End of Term Self-Assessment Report 2016-18[END_REF][START_REF] Ostling | Sweden Mid Term IRM Report 2016-18[END_REF][START_REF] Wickberg | France IRM End of Term Report 2015-2017[END_REF] were coded by one researcher only according to the dimensions in Mergel et al [START_REF] Mergel | Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews[END_REF]: (1) the focus of digital transformation (the "object"), (2) how will digital transformation occur (the "process"), (3) reasons for its transformation (the "reasons"), and (4) results are expected (the "results") [START_REF] Mergel | Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews[END_REF]. Nvivo was used to upload, analyse and code the documents and to extract the results. 1The coding showed that the documents focus the results and to a lesser extent, processes and objects of digital transformation, whilst the reasons were hardly mentioned.

Government Self-Assessments

On the basis of the 4 dimensions coded, the government self-assessments [START_REF]Australia's first Open Government National Action Plan 2016-2018[END_REF][START_REF] Francaise | Pour une Action Publique Transparente et Collaborative: Plan d'Action National Pour la France 2018-2020[END_REF][START_REF]For a Transparent and Collaborative Government: France National Action Plan 2015-2017[END_REF][START_REF]Government of Italy Ministro per la Semplificazione e la Pubblica Amministrazione[END_REF][START_REF]Sweden's third national Action Plan for Open Government Partnership 2016-2018[END_REF] focus on "results" to be gained through digital transformation (72.73%) and to a lesser extent, the "process" of digital transformation (18.18%). The "object" that is to be digitally transformed is hardly mentioned, the reasons for requiring digital transformation not at all (0%).

Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM)

The main focus of all the IRM reports [START_REF]Australia End of Term Self-Assessment 2016-2018[END_REF][START_REF] Stewart | Australia IRM Mid Term Report 2016-2018[END_REF][START_REF] Wickberg | France IRM Design Report 2018-2020[END_REF][START_REF] Segato | Italy IRM End of Term Report 2016-18[END_REF][START_REF]Sweden End of Term Self-Assessment Report 2016-18[END_REF][START_REF] Ostling | Sweden Mid Term IRM Report 2016-18[END_REF][START_REF] Wickberg | France IRM End of Term Report 2015-2017[END_REF] was on the "results" (57%), whilst the "object" (21%) and "process" of digital transformation played smaller roles. The "reason" for digital transformation were close to 0. This breakdown is perhaps unsurprising given the one of the primary goals of the IRM reports is to provide an overview of completion and results.

Analysis

In the analysis, the 4 dimensions of digital transformation and the main focus of each country with OGP documents referring to digital transformation is analysed in greater depth. Whilst all countries focused on the results to be achieved, France also considers the process of digital transformation and Italy the objects to be transformed. The analysis is presented by country, in order to show to the similarities and differences between the only 4 countries with OGP membership which mention "digital transformation" in commitments contained in the OGP Explorer.

Australia

The GSA and the IRM documents analysed show that Australia focuses on the results or outcomes to be achieved (74%), more than the process (14%) or the outcomes of digital transformation (11%). The reasons were not considered.

Thus, the GSA focuses on achieving results such as better interactions: "make government services simpler, faster and cheaper. Better services will make it easier for the public to work and interact with Government" and by developing the necessary digital environment: "government agencies and departments now have a platform for reporting their service performance publicly, and a framework for measuring user satisfaction" [START_REF]Australia End of Term Self-Assessment 2016-2018[END_REF]. The Australian IRM mid-term report also focuses on results in terms of better interactions: "The Digital Service Standard applies to all new, redesigned or high volume transactional services, allowing individuals and business to transact with the government, including providing information, money or goods, or new or redesigned services providing information to the public" by using a digital environment ("Digital Marketplace") although there is some is some concern in the IRM "that it was not being widely promoted, particularly in sectors not traditionally involved with government software and hardware procurement" [START_REF] Stewart | Australia IRM Mid Term Report 2016-2018[END_REF]. The role of policies as an outcome is particularly important for both types of documents (25%) [START_REF]Australia's first Open Government National Action Plan 2016-2018[END_REF][START_REF]Australia End of Term Self-Assessment 2016-2018[END_REF][START_REF] Stewart | Australia IRM Mid Term Report 2016-2018[END_REF]. Both point out the necessity to prepare a digital transformation roadmap understood as a "Digital Transformation Map" and "Individual Sector Maps" [START_REF]Australia's first Open Government National Action Plan 2016-2018[END_REF]. This necessity is reflected in the Mid-Term IRM report as a "whole-of-government digital transformation roadmap" as well as "agency-level digital transformation roadmaps" and "sector-specific roadmaps," but also a "Digital Transformation Office" and the role of "the National Archives of Australia and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (...) to assist agencies in developing their digital delivery systems while developing common platforms and standard" [START_REF] Stewart | Australia IRM Mid Term Report 2016-2018[END_REF]. The "Agency or sector-specific roadmaps could be developed and continually reviewed by the DTA" are seen as being important as the provide "information to the public on the potential benefits of future developments" [START_REF] Stewart | Australia IRM Mid Term Report 2016-2018[END_REF]. The government self-assessment points out that the "Whole-of-Government Digital Transformation Map" was delivered in 2016, to be followed by the sector-wide strategies to follow [START_REF]Australia's first Open Government National Action Plan 2016-2018[END_REF].

France

The GSA [START_REF] Francaise | Pour une Action Publique Transparente et Collaborative: Plan d'Action National Pour la France 2018-2020[END_REF] and the IRM documents [START_REF] Wickberg | France IRM Design Report 2018-2020[END_REF][START_REF] Wickberg | France IRM End of Term Report 2015-2017[END_REF] show that the main focus is on the results of digital transformation (53%), to some extent the process (34%) and finally the object of digital transformation (10%). Only the 2015-17 IRM report [START_REF] Wickberg | France IRM End of Term Report 2015-2017[END_REF] considers the reasons, but only to a minor extent (2%). The government's ambition is not only to achieve a digital culture, such as to "grow a culture of openness, data literacy and digital technologies" [START_REF] Wickberg | France IRM End of Term Report 2015-2017[END_REF], but also to showcase the country as a leading digital nation, that is to "bring the GovTech ecosystem fully into the limelight by cementing France's position as a country of authority on the subject and by showcasing the success stories" and "to give France a position of influence in the tech field" [START_REF] Wickberg | France IRM Design Report 2018-2020[END_REF]. This is echoed in the processes required to achieve these results in open science commitment where "the ministry of France's efforts to facilitate open access to scientific research constitutes part of a global initiative" [START_REF] Wickberg | France IRM Design Report 2018-2020[END_REF]. The reports are not always optimistic and show that there are still several issues regarding the processes that need to be addressed in order to achieve these results: "an article (…) at Le Monde, claimed that even the political and social elite in France are overwhelmed by digital technology" and the "lack of public information regarding high-level activities concerning digital knowledge and training makes it difficult for the IRM researcher to gauge completion of this activity" [START_REF] Wickberg | France IRM End of Term Report 2015-2017[END_REF]. Not only the public, but the French government still needs to undertake certain efforts in order to achieve the results: "we want the open government mindset to catch on, we need not only proactive efforts on the part of Government itself, but also support for the stakeholders." [START_REF] Wickberg | France IRM Design Report 2018-2020[END_REF].

Italy

The results draw on a single IRM report [START_REF] Segato | Italy IRM End of Term Report 2016-18[END_REF] and focuses only on the objects to be digitally transformed (58.3%) and the results to be gained (41.6%).

In terms of the objects to be transformed, it is interesting to see that the documents addresses and encourages the private rather than the public sector: "rewarding innovative start-ups and SMEs which meet the technological requirements of administrations and help solve their problems" [START_REF] Segato | Italy IRM End of Term Report 2016-18[END_REF]. The results are also the outcome of the better relationships, more between the private and the public sector: "to better connect start-ups and public administrations." than between citizens and the public sector "While this commitment aimed to remove bureaucratic obstacles for companies and to gain from the expertise of start-ups and small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) to the technological needs of institutions, it was not clearly relevant to the OGP values of access to information, citizen's ability to participate in decision-making, or public accountability" [START_REF] Segato | Italy IRM End of Term Report 2016-18[END_REF].

Sweden

The Swedish reports [START_REF]Sweden End of Term Self-Assessment Report 2016-18[END_REF][START_REF] Ostling | Sweden Mid Term IRM Report 2016-18[END_REF] focus mainly on results to be gained (60.1%), than the object (27%) or the process (13%). The reasons are not considered. The government self-assessment notes that through digital transformation "transparency and participation must increase" and be able to "contribute to the target of an increasingly open government that supports innovation and participation" [START_REF]Sweden End of Term Self-Assessment Report 2016-18[END_REF].

The mid-term IRM report sees the involvement of as an important result that is to be achieved: The Digital First programme is debated with stakeholders, and the Swedish council is committed to getting advice once a year "from digital change leaders in civil society, and from businesses and citizens" [START_REF] Ostling | Sweden Mid Term IRM Report 2016-18[END_REF]. The government holds a public consultation about a "new government body coordinating digital transformation efforts" adding that the response gained shows" that the stakeholders consider this an important issue" [START_REF] Ostling | Sweden Mid Term IRM Report 2016-18[END_REF], but the "Ministry of Finance could make the next open council more result-oriented and involve potential developers, users, and the middle-management of the open of public agencies, as well as use more experimental hackathon methods (…) also clearly communicate to participants how the results of council will feed into the decision-making process" [START_REF] Ostling | Sweden Mid Term IRM Report 2016-18[END_REF]. The end of term IRM Report echoes many of the comments made in the mid-term report adding that "public agencies in Sweden are generally advanced in digital public services," but that there is "an increasing polarization among the less digitally mature and more digitally mature agencies. The same is true among municipalities. One key challenge is to improve digital management and coordination" [START_REF]Sweden End of Term Self-Assessment Report 2016-18[END_REF].

Discussion and Conclusions

In closing, we return to our original research questions: (1) How is digital transformation understood in countries that have membership in OGP? And (2) how does membership in OGP facilitate the implementation of digital transformation strategies?

In regard to the first question, it is fair to say that digital transformation has not been a priority for OGP members, at least not in the context of open government. In this regard, the conclusion is that OGP membership is not being leveraged as a tool to advance digital transformation. This is evidenced by the small number of commitments identified in this paper focusing on digital transformation (7 out of 3856). It could be that OGP members, including those discussed in this paper, have digital transformation initiatives that are being conducted outside of the scope OGP NAPs. Given the methodology used here, this would not be captured in the research conducted for this paper. This finding in itself is significant as it shows a sort of disconnect between open government and digital transformation in spite of the emphasis placed on digital technology within the Open Government Declaration signed by all OGP members. It signals a potential lost opportunity.

Within the few countries that do include commitments to digital transformation, the analysis offered in this paper shows that while they all focus on the results to be achieved, France also considers the process of digital transformation. In addition, Italy focuses on the objects to be transformed. This indicates that the most of the other dimensions of digital transformation are not considered in particular depth by the majority of countries.

The findings also hint at a potential problem in the writing of OGP commitments. As is demonstrated by this small sample, few commitments talk about what should be transformed or why. Most simply state a desired result to be achieved. In this sense, there is some evidence to indicate that there is a potential disconnect between commitments in NAPs and the open government challenges in OGP member countries. NAPs are not as strategic, problem, or policy oriented as they could be to move forward ambitious change.

In regard to the second research question, it appears that membership in OGP helps members to implement their commitments. Overall, high levels of completion were achieved across the countries studied. This could, in part, mean that governments are particularly motived to implement commitments when they know that their success will be assessed and reported on. Thought of in this way, we can see that the OGP NAPs can be a useful mechanism for advancing goals and strategies related to digital transformation. This suggests that perhaps the linkage between OGP and digital transformation could be stronger moving forward for governments which wish to advance digital transformation to transform public administration in order to adapt to the changing environment and address societal challenges. Although management changes are underway, some visions of what digital government may achieve seem over-optimistic as they hope that bureaucracy will be banished or that the "virtual state" will be the outcome [START_REF] Dunleavy | New public management is deadlong live digital-era governance[END_REF].

The researchers recognize that there are some limitations to the methodology used for this paper. The qualitative assessment used is built on documentary research including IRM reports and government self-assessments. There are gaps in the reports in some countries. This reflects a difficultly in conducting research across OGP membership. Not all countries are on the same action plan cycle, the IRM process and reports have changed over time, and not all governments produce self-assessments. While this can be problematic, this paper aimed to get a high-level view of what was going on with digital transformation in each country. As such missing reports does not have a major impact on the overall conclusions. The impact is further minimized when noting that the IRM researchers gather much of the information used in their reports through interactions with government.

A more significant limitation is that the methodology used here does not readily allow much insight into the context for digital transformation in each country. To better understand this future research could build upon this study to allow for broader documentary research, outside of the scope of OGP reporting, to get a more fulsome idea of progress made toward digital transformation in each of the countries studied here. Additionally, interviews with key government officials involved in implementing either OGP or digital transformation, would allow for a richer and more nuanced understanding of the trajectory of digital transformation, and how it could, or should, link to open government.

7.

Note: Due to space limitations the authors were not able to include the code book and full findings here, but will happily provide it via email to those interested.


Nitesh Bharosa
email: n.bharosa@tudelft.nl

Silvia Lips
email: silvia.lips@taltech.ee

Dirk Draheim
email: dirk.draheim@taltech.ee

Making e-Government Work: Learning from the Netherlands and Estonia

Keywords: E-government, data-exchange infrastructures, institutional design

Countries are struggling to develop data exchange infrastructures needed to reap the benefits of e-government. Understanding the development of infrastructures can only be achieved by combining insights from institutional, technical and process perspectives. This paper contributes by analysing data exchange infrastructures in the Netherlands and Estonia from an integral perspective. The institutional design framework of Koppenjan and Groenewegen is used to analyse the developments in both countries. The analysis shows that the starting points, cultures, path dependencies and institutional structure result in different governance models for data exchange infrastructures. Estonia has a singlecentrally governed -data-exchange infrastructure that is used by public and private parties for all kinds of data exchanges (including citizen-tobusiness and business-to-business). In contrast, the institutional structure in the Netherlands demands a strict demarcation between public and private infrastructures, resulting in several data exchange infrastructures. While there are examples of sharing infrastructure components across various levels of the Dutch government, public infrastructures cannot be used for business-to-business or citizen-to-business data exchange due to the potential for market distortion by government. Both the centrally governed Estonian model and the decentrally governed Dutch model have pros and cons on multiple levels.

Introduction

Across the globe, demands on public services are increasing at a fast pace, partly due to the widespread availability of new technologies and higher expectations from digitally-savvy citizens. Citizens expect personalized customer journeys at all levels of government, as they have become accustomed to smartphoneempowered lives [START_REF] Lemke | Stage models for moving from E-Government to Smart Government[END_REF]. New digital data exchange infrastructure are essential for broader service access as well as the provision of significant benefits to service users at a reduced cost. However, even large budgets are no guarantee for successful digital government transformations [START_REF] Wonglimpiyarat | Innovative policies to support technology and ICT development[END_REF][START_REF]OECD: Building organisational capacity for public sector innovation -background paper[END_REF]. From a purely technological perspective, all of this is hard to explain.

This paper argues that, in order to understand what contributes to the success of e-government, we also need to consider the institutional design as well as the design process of developing data-exchange infrastructure. Aiming to learn from successful examples, this paper conducts a comparative case study on two leading countries in e-government: the Netherlands and Estonia. Both the Netherlands and Estonia are in the group of high performers in the e-Government Development Index [START_REF]European Commission: Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI[END_REF], and both countries have widely adopted data exchange infrastructures [START_REF] Kalja | The first ten years of X-Road[END_REF][START_REF] Robles | Setting up Government 3.0 solutions based on open source software: The case of X-Road[END_REF], enabling for instance a pre-filled tax return form that takes minutes to electronically check and submit. For the sake of this paper, a data exchange infrastructure is defined as the whole of standards, technical components, services and governance framework in place for data exchange. These are by nature socio-technical constructs [START_REF] Tilson | Digital infrastructures: The missing IS research agenda[END_REF][START_REF] Thurnay | The potential of the Estonian e-governance infrastructure in supporting displaced Estonian residents[END_REF], which makes them hard to understand from a single point of view. Data exchange infrastructures are essential when it comes to the successful delivery of e-government services, since they facilitate process, application and data integration across the various government silos. Therefore, the maturity of data exchange infrastructure can be used as a proxy for e-government maturity.

While there is a growing body of knowledge on the technical design and the governance of data exchange infrastructures, we lack insights from a combined institutional, technical and process perspective. The goal of this paper is to analyse the development of data exchange infrastructures from such a combined design perspective. We conduct the comparative case study by adopting the theoretical framework for multi-facet design of socio-technical systems by Koppenjan and Groenewegen [START_REF] Koppenjan | Institutional design for complex technological systems[END_REF]. Koppenjan and Groenwegen state: "Institutions concern different levels of analysis like laws and regulations as well as contracts and organisations which regulate and coordinate the behaviour of actors in complex networks" [START_REF] Koppenjan | Institutional design for complex technological systems[END_REF]. Therefore, the framework is suitable for analysing complex socio-technical situations for policy making.

This paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 describes the research approach, which centres around a four day workshop in Estonia. Section 3 discusses the theoretical analysis framework of Koppenjan and Groenewegen that we use to compare data exchange infrastructure policies in the Netherlands and Estonia. Section 4 provides a high-level description of the selected cases the Netherlands and Estonia with respect to their e-government background. The findings of this paper are discussed in Sect. 5. Section 6 concludes the paper and provides recommendations for policy makers.

Research Approach

To analyse the development of data exchange infrastructures, we conduct a comparative case-study on the design of the data exchange infrastructures in the Netherlands and Estonia. The research draws on an international collaboration

Data collection methods

Workshop notes, role playing game, Mentimeter, collective agenda writing.

facilitated by Digicampus3 , a quadruple-helix-based innovation partnership for public service innovation in the Netherlands. One of the missions of Digicampus is to facilitate international collaboration on designing the next generation of public services. One of the vehicles for realizing this is an international collaboration agenda, focusing on current issues in e-government, learning from each other's e-government agendas and pinpointing topics that are suited for collaborative research and prototyping. The first concrete research activity as part of this agenda was a four-day workshop in Tallinn from November 18 to 21, 2019.

Table 1 provides an overview of this workshop.

The Theoretical Analysis Framework

Koppenjan and Groenwegen [START_REF] Koppenjan | Institutional design for complex technological systems[END_REF] introduce an analysis framework for a certain class of large-scale technological systems that do not consist merely out of technological assets, but involve institutions as part of their solutions. Institutions regulate behaviour and are essential components of socio-technical systems. Sociotechnical systems are characterized by their complexity due to the many dependencies between the institutional and technology parts shaped by change processes. Koppenjan and Groenwegen suggested to analyze such system as a technological design that is teamed together with an institutional design [START_REF] Goodin | The Theory of Institutional Design[END_REF], see Fig. 1 ("co-design perspective"). Moreover, they suggest to make the design of the design process (process design) explicit in the analysis of such system (the design process in Fig. 1 is simply the process that yields the technological design and the institutional design, the process design is actually a 'design process' design). For our purposes, it is important to understand all designs (technological design, institutional design and process design) as continuously recurring endeavours that evolve and improve over time. Now, technological design is about "demarcation, components, relations, processes" [START_REF] Koppenjan | Institutional design for complex technological systems[END_REF] of/in the technological system; institutional design is about "arrangements between actors that regulate their relations: tasks, responsibilities, allocation of costs, benefits and risks" [START_REF] Koppenjan | Institutional design for complex technological systems[END_REF]; process design is about "who participates in the design process; what are the conditions, rules, roles, items, steps, etc." [START_REF] Koppenjan | Institutional design for complex technological systems[END_REF].

Institutional Design Technological Design

Process Design

Design Process

Layer 4: Informal Institutional Environment Layer 3: Formal Institutional Environment Layer 2: Formal and Informal Institutional Arrangements Layer 1: Actors and Games relationship between technological, institutional and process design "co-design perspective" levels of institutional analysis "institutional analysis perspective" Fig. 1. A Institutional design model by Koppenjan and Groenewegen [START_REF] Koppenjan | Institutional design for complex technological systems[END_REF].

In order to adequately grasp institutional design, Koppenjan and Groenewegen introduce a second perspective that adapts Williamson's four-layer model of economics of institutions [START_REF] Williamson | Transaction cost economics: How it works; where it is headed[END_REF], see again Fig. 1 ("institutional analysis perspective"). Layer 4 is the layer of the "informal institutional environment of socio-technical systems", which is about "norms, values, orientation, codes (informal institutions, culture)" [START_REF] Koppenjan | Institutional design for complex technological systems[END_REF], see also [START_REF] Groenewegen | Who should control the firm? Insights from new and original institutional economics[END_REF], compare with [START_REF] Denzau | Shared mental models: ideologies and institutions[END_REF]. Layer 3 is the layer of the "formal institutional environment" [START_REF] Koppenjan | Institutional design for complex technological systems[END_REF], which is about "formal rules, laws and regulations, constitutions (formal institutions)" [START_REF] Koppenjan | Institutional design for complex technological systems[END_REF], see also [START_REF] Groenewegen | Transaction Cost Economics and Beyond[END_REF], compare with [START_REF] Olson | The Logic of Collective Action. Public Goods and the Theory of Groups[END_REF]. Layer 2 is the layer of the "formal and informal institutional arrangements" [START_REF] Koppenjan | Institutional design for complex technological systems[END_REF], which is about "gentleman agreements, covenants, contracts, alliances, joint-ventures, merges, etc." [START_REF] Koppenjan | Institutional design for complex technological systems[END_REF] and informal "rules, codes, norms, orientation, relations" [START_REF] Koppenjan | Institutional design for complex technological systems[END_REF], see also [START_REF] Kickert | Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector[END_REF], compare with [START_REF] Williamson | Transaction cost economics: the governance of contractual relations[END_REF]. Layer 1 is the layer of the "actors and games" [START_REF] Koppenjan | Institutional design for complex technological systems[END_REF], which is about "actors/agents and their interactions aimed at creating and influencing (infrastructural) provisions, services, outcomes" [START_REF] Koppenjan | Institutional design for complex technological systems[END_REF], compare with [START_REF] Coase | The Nature of the Firm[END_REF]. The systems that Koppenjan and Groenwegen address are large-scale systems: "energy networks, water management services [...], waste treatment, transport systems (rail, road, water, tube), industrial networks, information systems and telecommunication networks, city service" [START_REF] Koppenjan | Institutional design for complex technological systems[END_REF]. Information systems are among those systems, however, the model becomes actually relevant only if an information system is beyond the scope of usual enterprise architecture [START_REF] Zachman | A framework for information systems architecture[END_REF], i.e., involves an ultra-large-scale software sys-tem [START_REF] Northrop | Ultra-Large-Scale Systems: The Software Challenge of the Future[END_REF]. Therefore, e-government systems are typical instances of the system class characterized by the model of Koppenjan and Groenewegen [START_REF] Koppenjan | Institutional design for complex technological systems[END_REF], the model is a suitable candidate as an analysis framework for e-government systems, egovernment ecosystems and interoperability solutions alike. This is why we have chosen the model as the theoretical basis of our comparative case study. In our analysis, we exploit both the perspective of relationships between technological/institutional/process design (that we call "co-design perspective" for short) and the four-layered model of institutional design (that we call "institutional analysis perspective" for short).

4 Background in the Netherlands and Estonia

The Netherlands

The Netherlands consistently performs well in e-government rankings [START_REF]European Commission: Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI[END_REF]. The country has a high level of decentralized governance and public private collaboration in public service delivery. This decentralization results into various government agencies that use different infrastructures. For instance, the Tax administration uses a different data exchange infrastructure with the private sector and other government agencies (called Digipoort) [START_REF] Bharosa | Challenging the Chain -Governing the Automated Exchange and Processing of Business Information[END_REF] than the customs authority (called Single Window for Maritime and Aviation) [START_REF] Klievink | The collaborative realization of public values and business goals: Governance and infrastructure of public-private information platforms[END_REF]. Across different sectors such as health, energy and education, different data exchange infrastructures are used. Table 2 provides an (incomplete) overview of the main data exchange infrastructures in the Netherlands.

Table 2 is by no means exhaustive, but does highlight the variety in data exchange infrastructures. While some are only web-portal based, most infrastructures support application-to-application data exchange. Municipalities also have different infrastructures, which provides autonomy, but is not cheap to operate and maintain. On a municipal level, there is a growing tendency to combine forces and to develop and use a shared infrastructure. Inspired by the X-Road approach in Estonia, municipalities are currently piloting with the "common ground".

Estonia

Estonia is signee of the D9 (Digital Nine) charter, i.e., a member of the "Digital Nations" network, also known as D9 or "Leading Digital Governments". In media, on international conventions on digital transformation as well as in policy maker circles it is often perceived or presents itself as leader when it comes to egovernment; actually, stakeholder from many countries, as from the Netherlands, have visited Estonia with the aim to learn from their success. The perception of Estonia as a digital leader might be, in large parts, due to communication strategy [START_REF] Drechsler | Pathfinder: e-Estonia as the β-version[END_REF] and nation branding [START_REF] Kimmo | E-residency as a nation branding case[END_REF]; still: the technological, legal and organizational assets in Estonia have been designed with and for each other and evolved over time into a particularly stable e-government ecosystem. At the centre of the Estonian e-government ecosystem lies the interoperability framework X-Road [START_REF] Kalja | The first ten years of X-Road[END_REF][START_REF] Mcbride | On positive feedback loops in digital government architecture[END_REF]. Estonia created X-Road -an application network for exchanging data among agency systems so that all government services are effectively available in one spot. In addition to offering querying mechanisms across multiple databases and supporting the secure exchange of documents [START_REF] Draheim | The design of the Estonian governmental document exchange classification framework[END_REF], X-Road seamlessly integrates different government portals and applications. Also the private sector can also connect with X-Road to make queries and benefit from access to a secure data exchange layer [START_REF] Paide | On the systematic exploitation of the Estonian data exchange layer X-Road for strengthening public private partnerships[END_REF].

Findings

The main objective of the workshop in Estonia was to learn from each other's approaches to e-government design and look ahead which challenges could be dealt with in a collaborative manner. Table 3 outlines the comparison based on the layered institutional analysis of the institutional design model of Koppenjan and Groenewegen [START_REF] Koppenjan | Institutional design for complex technological systems[END_REF]. During the workshops , multiple user/citizen oriented contexts were used to compare the e-governments in Estonia and the Netherlands: using the life event approach [START_REF] Wimmer | A European perspective towards online one-stop government: the eGOV project[END_REF], user-centred scenarios were discussed in depth, specifically comparing the steps users need to take in order to achieve their goals. This provided rich case descriptions as substance for the institutional analysis frameworks. Next, Table 4 outlines the comparison based on the technologi-Table 4. Institutional comparison from the co-design perspective (Koppenjan and Groenewegen, [START_REF] Koppenjan | Institutional design for complex technological systems[END_REF]).

The Netherlands Estonia

Technological design

Multiple digital infrastructures (mix of state-owned and -sourced as a service from the market).

State-owned or -sourced infrastructures cannot be used for citizen-to-business or business-to-business data exchange.

Single, state-owned and -operated digital infrastructure (X-Road), which can be used for all kinds of e-services, including citizen-to-business and business-to-business data exchange.

Strong focus on economies of scale: the use of state eID, national registries and X-Road for both public and private services.

Process design

Fragmented and loosely coordinated agency and sector-specific resource allocation and decision-making. cal/institutional/process co-design perspective of the institutional design model of Koppenjan and Groenewegen [START_REF] Koppenjan | Institutional design for complex technological systems[END_REF]. The high-level technical design of the Dutch data exchange infrastructures is sketched in Fig. 2.

In accordance with Table 2, citizens work with multiple data exchange infrastructures in the Netherlands. The demarcation is clear for public services and private services. When consuming public services, citizens can use the state- issued eID called DigID (digid.nl/en). The 'MijnOverheid' portal and app provides data access to public agency messages (pdf files). This is a one-way data flow; for service consumption or data entry users need to go to the website/portal of the respective public agency. Here, they can use DigiD. Since law dictates that DigiD (as well as other public sector data exchange infrastructure components such as the 'MijnOverheid' portal and app, the citizen message box and the Digipoort) can only be used by public organizations, private organizations have to use their own infrastructure or use sector-specific infrastructures (see Table 2 for an overview). The high-level technical design of the Estonian data exchange infrastructure is sketched in Fig. 3. Estonia embraces an integrated design, which extends the technology. X-Road consists of technical, legal and organizational assets that are teamed together as described in the sequel. In a narrow sense, the data exchange infrastructure is nothing but the data exchange layer X-Road (dark grey in Fig. 2); in a broader sense, it encompasses also crosscutting services that are built on top of X-Road such as the document exchange center [START_REF] Draheim | The design of the Estonian governmental document exchange classification framework[END_REF]. The data exchange layer relies on a PKI (public key infrastructure) and a time stamping service. A PKI is itself a combination of technological assets (such as the certification server) and an institution, i.e., the CA (certification authority). Next, the X-Road consists of security servers, which are software components. Each organization (public agency or private company) that wants to exchange messages over X-Road must become an X-Road member first, by application and registration at the Estonian IT Authority RIA (Riigi Infossteemi Amet). Then, each X-Road member needs to install the security server. The basic task of the security server is to encrypt and decrypt the data exchange messages sent among the X-Road members. For this, the security server teams together with a signature device, which must be obtained from the CA by each X-Road member. Furthermore, the security server allows for access rights management: each X-Road member can determine itself, which other X-Road members can access its services. It is regulated that each X-Road member announces its information systems and services to RIA before it is allowed to launch them. This way, RIA has the chance to streamline the service offering, in particular, to enforce the the once-only principle [START_REF] Wimmer | Once only principle: Benefits, barriers & next steps[END_REF]. Similarly, timestamping by the installed security servers as well as timestamping service provision are subject to regulations. All citizens can see all communications about them. This creates transparency and ensures that mistakes or fraud can be detected immediately. The Estonian e-government ecosystem is a network consisting of different players with well-defined roles. As a fundamental task, the e-government ecosystem implements the Estonian eID [START_REF] Muldme | A survey on customer satisfaction in national Electronic ID user support[END_REF][START_REF] Tsap | Key success factors in introducing national e-Identification systems[END_REF], which provides also the basis for any system interoperability, compare again with Fig. 2. The Information System Authority (RIA) and the Estonian Police and Border Guard Board (PBGB) are the main authorities in the e-government ecosystem. RIA 4 operates on behalf of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications 5 . RIA coordinates the development and administration of the state's information system. It oversees the functioning of the Estonian PKI, organizes activities related to information security, handles security incidents that occur in Estonian computer networks, and serves as the technical eID competence centre.

Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

Estonia and the Netherlands had different starting points and used different paths in developing their e-government. The main differences in approaching e-government boil down in the following categories:

-Strong centralized government institutions in Estonia versus decentralized and market-oriented institutions in the Netherlands. -Institutional boundaries in the Netherlands between the use of state-owned digital infrastructures (or components) for public services (only allowed for citizen-to-government interactions) and semi/non-public services (not allowed for citizen-to-business and business-to-business interactions) versus no boundary in Estonia (single infrastructure, seamless use across public and private services). -Focus on experimenting and learning by doing in Estonia, whereas the Netherlands is risk-averse and leaves innovation to the market.

These differences make it difficult to copy each other best practices as the institutional settings are different, and due to the different data exchange infrastructures that are currently in place. Nevertheless, both countries can learn from each other's approaches. The capacity of reliable institutions to meet performance expectations, perceptions of competence and effective public service delivery for all, along with public accountability, should be among the leading concerns in developing e-government further. It is recommended that governments exploit the potential of digital technologies through coherent national policies that are closely aligned with the knowledge of user needs that is available at the respective public agencies. Being successful requires a whole-of-government approach across ministries and agencies and between levels, as well as partnerships with non-government actors. Such an approach needs to be supported by a high-level political will, an example of which is an effective cross-government institution with clearly earmarked financial resources and decision-making powers. This demands a shift from inward, disjointed and process-oriented organizational structures to highly collaborative frameworks for seamless delivery of services towards citizens and entrepreneurs. Maximizing the potential of digital technologies also demands appropriate data exchange infrastructures for interoperability and digital transactions across the public sector, dependent on common standards, data sharing, highly skilled staff, as well as knowledgeable organizational capacity.

Fig. 3 .

 3 Fig. 3. High level, integrated technical design of the Estonian data exchange infrastructure.

Table 1 .

 1 Overview of the workshop in Tallinn, Estonia.

	Aspect	Details
	Date	18-21 November 2019
	Location	Tallinn University of Technology
	Participants	The Netherlands: 14 participants (8 policy makers, 3
		researchers, 3 software providers) Estonia: 11 participants (4
		policy makers, 5 researchers, 2 software providers)
	Agenda (high level) Day 1: Presentations on the current e-government designs and
		future challenges in both countries.
		Day 2: Working sessions on the challenges surrounding digital
		identities and e-government.
		Day 3: Working sessions on the countries' data exchange
		infrastructures. Role playing game on self-sovereign identities in
		the future.
		Day 4: Reflection, updating the common collaboration agenda,
		prioritizing collaborative research questions.

Table 2 .

 2 Overview of various data exchange infrastructures in the Netherlands.

	Sector	Data Exchange Infrastructure
	Citizen-to-	MijnOverheid (mijn.overheid.nl, also available as an app) is the
	government	national citizen portal with access to the online citizen message
	interaction	box + rerouting to multiple agency specific portals (e.g. social
		services, unemployment services, tax, municipal portal). With
		the exception of pension funds, businesses cannot use this portal
		(or the app) for data exchange with citizens.
	Government to	Diginetwerk (logius.nl/diensten/diginetwerk) includes multiple
	government data	networks, including municipal data exchange, base registers
	exchange (G2G)	access and social services
	Financial reporting:	Digipoort (logius.nl/diensten/digipoort) is the government data
	B2G (business-to-	exchange gateway including multiple services (i.e.
	government) and	authentication, authorisation, validation and archiving). Since
	G2G	Digipoort may not be used for B2B data exchange, there is
		private sector counterpart (Bancaire Infrastructurele
		Voorziening) with similar functionalities.
	Trade & transport	Single Window for Maritime and Aviation (kvnr.nl/en/msw) for
		all communications intended for Customs and the Royal
		Netherlands Marechaussee / Seaport Police can be
		communicated electronically
	Public health	Landelijk Schakelpunt (vzvz.nl/over-het-lsp) for data exchange
	services	in the medical domain.
	Mortgages	Mortgages Data Network (HDN.nl) for data exchange in the
		mortgages domain.

Table 3 .

 3 Institutional analysis based on the Koppenjan and Groenewegen model[START_REF] Koppenjan | Institutional design for complex technological systems[END_REF].

	Layer	The Netherlands	Estonia
	Layer 4:	Government is trusted and consist	Government is trusted [28, 29] and
	Informal	of reliable institutions to meet	consist of reliable institutions to
	institutional	performance expectations. Strong	meet performance expectations.
	environment	boundaries between public	Open interaction between public
		agencies and the private sector,	agencies and the private sector.
		yet long tradition in
		public-private collaboration.
	Layer 3: Formal	Legislation focused on public	Exhaustive set of stable legal
	institutional	agency tasks (e.g. tax and	assets that are designed with
	environment	customs laws) as well as laws on	respect to (resp. co-designed
		interactions with public agencies.	with) the technological assets of
		No law on e-government in place	the e-government ecosystem.
		yet (although a draft)
	Layer 2: Formal	Decentralized steering of	Centralized steering of
	and informal	e-government. High level of	e-government.
	institutional	autonomy across various levels of	Whole-of-government approach to
	agreements	government. Moderate focus on	modernize service delivery in a
		economies of scale (e.g., the use of	joined-up manner. Strong focus
		Digipoort by four government	on economies of scale: the use of
		agencies, but not by banks for	state eID, national registries and
		business-to-business data	X-Road for both public and
		exchange), focus on	private services. Focus on creating
		administrative reduction by	transparency by showing all
		citizens and the public.	transactions.
	Layer 1: Actors	Innovation is largely left to the	Innovation by government for the
	and games	market, strong emphasis on	entire society. Central government
		innovation by the private sector	carries risks of innovation, strong
		through outsourcing and grants	emphasis on innovation and
		(e.g., startups). Large enterprises	service delivery by government
		are incentivized by the business	agencies. Experimentation by the
		potential when winning a	government is stimulated and in
		multi-year service delivery tender.	this way knowledge and
		Innovation in the private sector is	understanding of the public and
		stimulated, but government is	technology is created.
		risk-averse and no knowledge and
		capacity building at the
		government.

  High-level technical design of the Dutch data exchange infrastructures (please note that not all the different infrastructures outlined in Table2are displayed).

					Tax office
			One-way message flow
					Education
					office
		My gov
		portal My gov	(storage) Message box	exchange) (message Digipoort	Municipalities
	Citizen	App			Pension funds
		Single eID for public services		Other public
	Public domain			agencies….
	Private domain	One-or two-way message flow
		My portal or app	Sector specific data exchange infrastructure (see table 2)	Banks
		My portal or	Sector specific data exchange	Insurance
		app	infrastructure (see table 2)	companies
	Citizen
		My portal or app	Sector specific data exchange infrastructure (see table 2)	Other sectors
		Multiple eIDs for private services
	Fig. 2.

www.digicampus.tech

https://www.ria.ee/en/

https://www.mkm.ee/en