DIFU-Extranet
Integrated E-Government in a Federal State Structure? Challenges on the Way to Effective Administrative Procedures
Herbert Kubicek/Martin Wind
Integrated E-Government in a Federal State Structure? Challenges on the Way to Effective Administrative Procedures
1. The Small State Structure and its Economic Consequences
2. Steps towards the Harmonisation of Administrative Procedures within the Federal System
3. From Individual Cases to a General Provision
4. Fundamental Elements of Innovative Administration Policy for Integrated E-Government
Abstract:
As a result of the highly decentralised state structure and administrative system in Germany, completely different IT systems have arisen for identical tasks in the various administrations in Germany over the last few decades. Although every computer can be connected to the Internet today, automated data exchange regularly fails because of incompatibility between the different IT systems. Progress in IT integration has been rather slow, especially compared with other countries. Recently, this has especially been blamed on federalism and local community self-administration. This article starts by showing that there are examples of pragmatic harmonisation even in the German administrative system. On this basis, the standardisation of data interchange formats is assigned a key role in creating a greater degree of integration in German e-government.
In 1999, in the framework of the eEurope initiative, the Council of Ministers of the European Union agreed to assure general electronic access to fundamental public services by the end of 2003. Since then, the EU Commission has regularly assessed the progress of the implementation of e-government in Europe by reference to 20 selected administrative services. In October 2002, Germany was third from last in this assessment, and a year later the country had slipped to the last position but one (Cap Gemini Ernst & Young 2002; 2003).
Detailed studies confirm that Germany is lagging behind. For example, the business consulting company Accenture concluded that in 2003 Germany had fallen from 9th to 10th place (Accenture 2003). And a study on the state of back-office integration prepared for the European Commission failed to identify even one sophisticated technical and organisational integration project in Germany (brief coverage: Kubicek et al 2004; in greater detail: Millard et al 2004). In this study, which was carried out by the Danish Technological Institute and the Institute for Information Management in Bremen, 29 good practice examples were selected from over 1300 applications and described in detail.
The following selection shows that the reorganisation of the administrative system is far easier in other countries:
- In Italy, for example, the registers of vehicles have been converted into a central system in which the car dealers act as registration offices,
- In Austria, information from the residential register for every local community can be requested via a central portal,
- In Belgium, employers report the data for the social insurance contributions of their employees to a central clearing office,
- In Ireland, child allowance can be applied for in the hospital, and the application is then automatically forwarded to the registry office, the residential registration office and the child allowance office.
Germany's poor ranking and the country's obvious deficits in many areas of e-government are often attributed to the federal state constitution of Germany. The following text aims to investigate to what extent this analysis is justified, where exactly the problems lie and what therapy is appropriate in a differentiated diagnosis of the situation.
1. The Small State Structure and its Economic Consequences
Germany undoubtedly has the most decentralised state structure in the European Union. This is reflected in the federal structure of the "Federal Republic" and the self-administration principle in local communities. The German constitution stipulates that the competence for federal affairs and the fulfilment of federal state tasks fundamentally lies with the federal states. In addition, it specifies areas in which the national government has the sole right to impose legislation or framework legislation, or in which the federal states are only entitled to impose legislation as long as the national government does not exercise its right to do so (concurrent legislation). In many areas, the federal states are responsible for the implementation of national law, and in general they set up the necessary public authorities and administrative procedures. There are also many areas in which the local communities carry out tasks on behalf of the national government or their federal state. They can largely decide on their own how they organise the details of these tasks.
This high degree of decentralisation has created a highly differentiated administrative system. In Germany, for example, every rural district and every autonomous municipality has its own register of vehicles, and the residential registers are maintained in the individual local communities. Anyone who wants information from the residential register must therefore contact the local community in which the person sought is believed to live. If the person has moved, a new request must then be sent to the new local community, and the fee must be paid over again. Things are not much better in other areas. After the birth of a child, the parents must provide almost identical data to the registry office, the residential registration office, the child allowance and maternity benefit office - and they must obtain certificates and carry them from one office to the next.
Over the last few decades, this decentralised responsibility structure for organisational questions and administrative acts has created an equally complicated patchwork of IT systems in the administrations of Germany which is probably unique in the world. A large number of different products are used for identical tasks, and these products are usually incompatible with each other. A survey carried out by the Institute for Information Management Bremen in the regional e-government network Bremen-Lower Saxony showed that at least five different registration processes are used just in the north-west of Germany. Any combination of processes in the residential registration and registry office system is therefore faced with high obstacles to compatibility.
Earlier, nobody worried about this incompatibility because computers were mainly used to support the work of individual public authorities. Nobody saw problems in the fact that the systems in administration A were not compatible with those in administration B. If data needed to be transmitted, this was done by post. They were then entered manually into the respective system. Data media were only rarely exchanged, and other offices hardly ever made on-line queries. There were always working groups which aimed to develop concepts which would harmonise certain types of data and improve compatibility. Where pressure to achieve results was present or could be created - for example in areas such as security and the police - solutions were actually created. But in most other areas, the technical compatibility needed for data transmission was so complicated that no binding targets were set. This has fundamentally changed with the growth of the Internet.
Today, every computer in every administration can easily be connected to the Internet and can then exchange data with any other computer that is connected to the Internet by using consistent standards (known as "protocols"). But the Internet transmission standards only ensure that a file is correctly transmitted. They do not make any provision for the meaning of the data. But if automatic processing is to take place, consistent rules must also be defined for the data. In this respect, a distinction must be made between technical, syntactical and semantic interoperability (Commission of the European Communities/IDA 2003, p. 7). Technical interoperability relates to agreements on the way data can be technically transmitted via cables or through the air, how addresses are assigned by the individual computers involved and how the data streams are routed through the network. Syntactical interoperability relates to the formal structure of files, how the beginning and end of a record are defined and what distinctions are made between address and content fields. But semantic interoperability involves agreements on what is to be placed in the first and second data field, what keys and codes should be used for specific information etc. Integrated data processing without discontinuity of media is only possible if joint standards (i.e. detailed definitions) are maintained at all three levels of interoperability.
These specifications are now available. There are a number of standards for technical and syntactical interoperability. We already have the necessary descriptive languages and tools to achieve semantic interoperability, but we are still at a comparatively rudimentary level in the development work (cf. also Commission of the European Communities 2003, p. 22).
The technical options which are now available to achieve interoperability require a re-evaluation of the heterogeneous IT environment in the German administration. The solutions which were acceptable yesterday are seen today as an enormous waste of the ever-scarcer resources, because there are now far more inexpensive ways to fulfil the same tasks. From an economic point of view, it must be noted that hardly any of the many isolated applications which are used today cover their own costs. Up to now, it has not been the normal practice to calculate the exact unit costs of an administrative service and compare these costs with the revenue - and in many cases this is not yet possible. But it can be assumed with a high degree of certainty, for example, that a central register of vehicles would reduce costs compared with the many decentralised processes which exist today. By contrast, business companies have made considerable efforts over the last five years to merge accounting systems and other IT applications in order to benefit from degressive costs.
The possible savings result not only from the purchase and operating costs of the technical systems (hardware and software) but also, and to a far greater extent, the cost of labour for the multiple input and output of data and the transmission costs. This applies both to the work carried out within the administration and to the amount of effort which needs to be made by citizens and business companies as the customers of the administration - costs which must be taken into account if we consider the issue in the light of the national economy.
Even without detailed figures, it can safely be assumed that the heterogeneity of IT systems leads to considerable economic burdens for the administration and its customers. However, it seems that the public administration in Germany is still able to resist the pressure of change which results from an economic evaluation of the technological options. The federal state structure is generally considered to be the reason why the solutions which are already normal - or at least under development - in other countries are not possible in Germany.
Undoubtedly, it is easier for countries with a centralised administrative structure to equip their administrative processes with a consistent IT infrastructure and make this infrastructure accessible on-line. But if we compare the situation in France, the UK and Norway, we find that there are considerable differences even between these countries. The administrative and legal culture, and probably also the size of the country, are factors that affect the speed and intensity with which integrated e-government solutions are introduced.
The hypothesis that a federal state constitution is a fundamentally more difficult - or even insurmountable - obstacle to consistent, central or integrated solutions is refuted by Austria. In the EU benchmarking study mentioned above, the country improved from rank 11 in 2002 to rank 4 in 2003. In a separate evaluation of the processes which can be fully handled on-line, Austrian even comes in second place behind Denmark. In the study of back-office reorganisation, the centrally implemented solution to request a residential registration certificate was especially commended.
Of course, the position of the federal states and local communities in Austria is not as strong as it is in Germany. But it is nevertheless clear that a federal state structure does not fundamentally exclude the possibility of cooperation and integration. This is even underlined by examples within the German tradition of administrative organisation, such as the practical work on the design of administrative procedures and current developments in the residential registration system (cf. Chapter 2 below).
2. Steps towards the Harmonisation of Administrative Procedures within the Federal System
The national Act on Administrative Proceedings (VerwVerfG) does not only have a affect national public bodies, it is also designed as a model for the provisions of the federal states. The federal states were involved in the development of the Act, they are consulted on any changes and in return, in the Simultaneous Legislation Agreement of the Ministers of the Interior of the Federal States of February 1976, they undertook to implement the provisions of the Act on Administrative Proceedings (VerwVerfG) directly in their federal state laws (Stelkens et al 2001, introduction, marginal note 60). The aim of this arrangement was to ensure that administrative procedures in Germany would operate on consistent principles.
The harmonisation process is particularly advanced in the residential registration system. Up to now, when citizens moved home they had to deregister in one local community and then enter almost exactly the same data on a separate form in the new local community. This arrangement is economically and commercially highly unproductive. The citizens must go to the administrative offices twice. In each place, identical data are collected and entered into the respective processes, then the new local community must send a notification by post to the former local community so that the new place of residence can be registered there after deregistration.
This was fundamentally changed in the Federal Framework Registration Act (MRRG) in the version of April 2002. § 17 of the Federal Framework Registration Act (MRRG) makes it possible for the new local community to send an electronic report to the old community, so that no details will need to be sent by post in future. To avoid the need for the data of the new citizen to be entered manually into the registration system, the aim is therefore to achieve fully automatic data exchange in a technical link between the registration systems. However, the systems used in the individual local communities come from different suppliers and are usually incompatible with each other. But to achieve fully electronic communication between different registration authorities, it is not necessary to harmonise the diverse IT systems used for registration. The only step which is absolutely necessary is to define a technical standard for a data interchange format, and to make this format an agreed and binding requirement. The different IT processes can then be supplemented by an import/export interface which transposes the different data formats of the respective registration systems into a joint exchange format.
In the course of the Bremen MEDIA@Komm project the OSCI standard (Online Computer Services Interface) was developed in close cooperation with the cooperation committee for automatic data processing (KoopA), a body set up in 1970 to coordinate technical questions between the central government, the federal states and the local communities. OSCI contains conventions for secure data transport (OSCI part A) and definitions of data structures (OSCI part B). This data interchange format uses XML (Extensible Markup Language), a widespread data description language. On the basis of the existing conventions for the entry and transmission of registration data, a standardised message type (XMeld) has been created for the registration system.
To ensure consistency in the use of this standard, the national government could legally require its use. The basis for such a requirement would be § 20 (2) of the Federal Framework Registration Act (MRRG), which authorises the Federal Ministry of the Interior "to define, with the approval of the Federal Council, any legal ordinances to implement data transmission (…) which may be necessary between the federal states to update or correct the registers, and also to define the cause and purpose of transmissions, the data to be transmitted, their form and the details of the transmission process". The national government has already used this right by issuing the "Federal Ordinance on the Transmission of Registration Data between Public Authorities in different Federal States" (BMeldDÜV 1) (1) . § 1 (3) of the Federal Ordinance on the Transmission of Registration Data between Public Authorities in different Federal States (BMeldDÜV 1) stipulates that this data transmission must be based on the "data record for the register of inhabitants" (DSMeld). "DSMeld" was then also used as the basis for the development of the new standard "XMeld".
The new Federal Framework Registration Act (MRRG) involves yet another innovation. In § 11, it enables citizens who have moved to register themselves at their new address on-line with a verified electronic signature. As this is a framework act, the federal states must implement it and give expression to the framework defined by the national government in their own federal state registration statutes. Until the registration laws have been revised in all of the federal states, electronic registration may ben possible in some federal states while the traditional procedure is still used in other states.
These examples show that there are different forms of coordination between the central government and the federal states and variations in the extent to which different levels of the constitutional hierarchy are involved in creating the legislation. In coordinating the administrative procedure laws between the central government and the federal states, it was enough to agree on principles which do not directly affect specific areas of the administration and their technical systems. The economic and political costs of this type of coordination are lower than in the examples from the registration system.
But the local communities are directly affected by the provisions which require electronic signatures to be accepted in the registration system, or electronic registration files to be exchanged electronically. In connection with "DSMeld" there were already discussions on whether the central government had perhaps exceeded its competence here. In retrospect, Schmidt concludes: "The uniform national provisions for these details (…) obviously have practical advantages. But they also impinge significantly on areas which are fundamentally reserved for decentralised self-administration. Therefore there were serious misgivings in the federal states about the fact that such provisions were decreed by the central government. However, it was only decision by the central government in its form, because the content of the provision was actually the result of joint consultation between experts from the central government, the federal states and the local communities, so these misgivings were set aside. The success of the initiative shows that this was the right solution." (Schmidt 2002, p. 6)
This rather procedural argumentation can be supplemented by comparing the consequences of legislation created at different levels of the constitutional hierarchy for local communities. The concern here is not to balance the interests of the central government and the federal states, it is to compare the different consequences for the local communities. In this respect, there are considerable differences between the two stipulations of the Federal Framework Registration Act (MRRG). For the acceptance of electronic signatures it may be regrettable if this is implemented later in some federal states. But the stragglers do not detract from the benefit gained by the pioneers. This is different if the new local community is to be responsible for the deregistration of the old address. Fundamentally, citizens can move from any local community to any other community, so every local community must also be able to deregister citizens in every other community. If this can be done electronically in some communities, but must still be carried out on paper and by post in other places because the new place of residence has not yet made the change in its system, this means that two processes must be maintained at the same time, and the costs increase instead of reducing. The pioneers are then unable to make their investments pay because of the stragglers. In a balance of the conflicting interests, this dependence justifies the greater degree of central government involvement and compulsion.
The participants do not yet seem willing to draw the consequences from these considerations. To achieve the consistency which is needed for fully automatic data transmission, the central government is planning to revise the Federal Ordinance on the Transmission of Registration Data (BMeldDÜV 1). The current draft demands data transmission in compliance with OSCI and data exchange based on XMeld. The draft also envisages that reports should exclusively be sent electronically after 31 December 2006. In view of the fact that the central government, the federal states and the local communities were all involved in the development of these standards and have an equally great interest in harmonisation, the national government is unlikely to be accused of overstepping its competence in this case. The controversial issue is whether a binding deadline can be defined for implementation. The Federal Ministry of Justice has expressed its misgivings on this question. Technically, it should not be a major problem to equip the IT systems with the relevant interfaces by the end of 2006. Without a firm deadline, the parallel operation of two processes would need to be maintained until the last local community in Germany has changed to the new system. If a national law is not the right place to define a deadline for constitutional reasons, this could also be done in any other form - by an agreement of the Conference of Ministers of the Interior or some similar arrangement. In the past, solutions have always been found or created for such questions if there has been a will to reach an agreement.
3. From Individual Cases to a General Provision
The cases of coordination and integration described up to now have all arisen from specific situations and passed through completely different processes. For the future, general solutions are needed which will apply beyond the individual cases. To achieve such solutions, it will be helpful to remind ourselves of constellations which have led to success or failure in the past. In addition to the high practical interest in the processing of registration without discontinuity of media, there are also a number of other factors which favour an integrated technical solution:
- In the registration system there are clear areas of responsibility and a long tradition of harmonisation and coordination between the responsible authorities.
- The original stimulus to explore the new technical possibilities of the Internet came from the Bremen MEDIA@Komm project, which was sponsored by the Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour. In the course of this project, the aim was to develop a standard for the transmission of data for on-line administration services (OSCI) following the example of the home banking standard HBCI (Homebanking Computer Interface), which can be used irrespective of which bank is involved. To this end, a working group of representatives of various levels of the administration was set up, and it was funded as part of the project. Moreover, the work on the project was carefully monitored by politicians and administrators. This presented the innovators with an ideal opportunity.
- There was no need to develop fundamentally new solutions because there were already established solutions which could be developed further. The "DSMeld" system offered a sufficiently detailed and accepted data structure, and the Federal Ordinance on the Transmission of Registration Data (BMeldDÜV 1) provided a suitable legal framework which could be revised to create the necessary binding character of transactions.
- Finally, automatic deregistration was in fact a win-win situation. The investments to adapt the interface were modest, and the savings arose immediately.
- There was not any direct pressure to implement e-government in the registration system, but the possible savings from automatic reporting were so obvious that the Conference of Ministers of the Interior could not ignore the subject - and this gave the project the necessary political support.
In this case the administrative personnel gained support for their initiative from politicians, but there are many other cases of successful integration and harmonisation in which the process was reversed. Especially in the area of security, the Ministers of the Interior have often set goals for an extended or intensified exchange of data between different public authorities, and the necessary procedures then had to be developed in the administration.
It can therefore be concluded that the coordination procedures required by federalism and local community self-administration sometimes take some time to implement. But it is also apparent that technical integration is certainly possible, even in a decentrally organised administrative system. If there is a high level of shared interest in a harmonised solution, even constitutional misgivings concerning the distribution of competence between the central government and the federal states can be subordinated to the common goal.
Thus, the isolated solutions which make the implementation of integrated e-government solutions so difficult today are, in the last resort, the result of a lack of interest, a low level of attention and a low priority at the level of the political decision-makers. The fact that politicians consider the use of IT in the administration relatively unimportant is not new, nor should we find it surprising. But if the administration in Germany is to catch up with other countries, reduce costs and improve the quality of its service, it will be necessary to intensify cooperation within the administration even under the conditions of federalism and local self-administration - and to obtain political legitimation and political support for these activities. In view of the large number of outstanding integration processes, it would be more productive if just a few areas with defined participants and procedures could be selected in which harmonisation could be carried out competently and professionally - and then enforced and made compulsory with the necessary efficiency and commitment.
In the school sector, Germany's poor performance in the international PISA study has led to an intensification of cooperation between the federal states. The equally poor performance of Germany in the e-government benchmarking study by the EU Commission has not been given the same level of public attention, but it has nevertheless changed the attitudes and goals of the federal government. For a long time, the e-government activities of the federal government in "Bund Online 2005" were focused exclusively on processes of the national administration bodies, whereas most other countries have developed initiatives, plans of action and masterplans which also include local community services. An improvement of Germany's position in an international comparison, and an associated improvement of administrative efficiency and customer-friendliness, can only be achieved if there is more intensive cooperation between the central government, the federal states and the local communities. The ADV cooperation committee, which has already been mentioned, has acted for a long time as a forum for an exchange of experience between central government, the federal states and the local communities in questions related to the use of IT. It has already proposed several initiatives for harmonisation processes. The cooperation committee for automatic data processing (KoopA), with its OSCI activities, has entered the terrain of operational standardisation for the first time. At the same time, the central government, the federal states and the local communities have set up the initiative "Deutschland-Online". The initiative currently has numerous working groups made up of representatives from the central government, the federal states and the local communities which are working on the development of organisational and technical solutions for individual administrative areas and infrastructure elements. Current criticism of Deutschland-Online mainly focuses on a lack of transparency and resources. But it will also be necessary to support the commitment and the specialised work of the representatives in the individual working groups by providing practical political targets and implementation decisions. Otherwise, the legitimacy and the binding force of this work will remain questionable.
This political support will probably be relatively easy to attain for the standardisation of data interchange formats. After all, the aim here is not to harmonise or combine IT systems, it is merely to create a network on the basis of jointly agreed standards. The method adopted in the development of the OSCI, which was to integrate the work into resolutions of the responsible conference of ministers, therefore offers prospects of success. In the past, the consequences of a lack of political targets and the associated binding force had already been observed: a working party coordinated by the DIN institute developed a standard for the exchange of business and industrial data (XGewerbe) which departed from the organisational structure which is binding for OSCI. But XGewerbe is unlikely to become established in view of the competing activities of the Federal Office of Statistics and the statistical offices in the federal states. These bodies have developed a separate document type for the supply of raw statistical data (DatML/RAW) which they plan to use for the exchange of business and industrial data.
4. Fundamental Elements of Innovative Administration Policy for Integrated E-Government
The available analysis results indicate that a reduction in costs and an increase in service quality in e-government can especially be achieved by integrating technical processes and at the same time reorganising procedures. In many cases, standardising the exchange of data can make a significant contribution to this aim. Standardisation can relate to various elements and factors. It always has an administrative, technical and economic dimension and a dimension of political legitimation. The standards must not only be appropriate for the task and economically justifiable, they must also reduce uncertainties in the decentralised decision-making process. In practice, this means that the decision-makers in the local communities must be able to assume with confidence that they can fulfil the tasks better in the long term if they apply a certain standard. The standards which are developed by administrators and technical personnel must therefore be legitimised by bodies with sufficient authority. In innovation research we speak of the role of the process promoter and the power promoter, and it has been shown that successful innovations are characterised by good cooperation between the process and power promoters (Witte 1973, Hauschildt 1998).
In e-government, this could correspond to a closer cooperation between the Ministers of the Interior and the appropriate administrative committees. The working groups in Deutschland-Online could represent this administrative side of the partnership if they were suitably institutionalised.
To make an appropriate assessment, the objectives and tasks of such standardisation processes must first of all be exactly defined. Standardisation is not an end in itself, it is always a means to achieve certain goals. In the collection of good-practice examples for back-office reorganisation which has already been mentioned, a total of three integration models are identified with which costs can be reduced and the quality of service improved:
- If exactly the same tasks with the same type of data are fulfilled in different places on the regional principle with slightly different tools, it is logical to centralise the data, and the collection and updating of the data can either be centralised or left as the responsibility of the decentralised bodies. This can lead to major savings without encroaching on the sovereignty of the responsible local bodies. One example of many would be the centralisation of the many local registers of vehicles.
- Where the same data must be reported by many sources to many other bodies which fulfil completely different tasks or are in competition with each other, centralisation is often not possible. But multiple reports in different formats could be avoided by using a central clearing office, a procedure which has already been used in payment transactions for a long time: when making bank transfers to accounts at different banks, it is sufficient for the customer to send the transfer details to his own bank only, and the bank then passes the details on to a clearing office which in turn transmits the individual data records to the respective receiving banks.
- A third option for integrated administration is to define multi-level administrative processes (workflows) with certain sub-steps, and to standardise the data which must be transmitted between these steps. The technical details in the respective processing stages can differ as long as binding agreements are made and adhered to for the respective input and output data. Automatic processing of the incoming data has consequences for the organisation of the work because certain input tasks and the provision of information by phone are no longer applicable. But the areas of responsibility and the fundamental structural organisation can usually be preserved.
Centralisation and clearing offices involve greater changes in the existing organisational structures and procedures than merely standardising data interchange formats. This means that there is a far greater potential for conflict in the resulting structural reorganisation. For such far-reaching measures, it is important to make strategic use of favourable opportunities and "right moments".
The situation is different for the standardisation of data. Centralisation and standardisation are similar in their organisational function for the integration of processes, but their requirements and consequences are very different. Those who want to avoid the centralisation of tasks and data out of principle, for example in the interest of local community self-administration, are forced to advocate standardisation as a reaction to the growing pressure of costs. Here, a clear distinction must be made between the standardisation of complete processes and the standardisation of interfaces or data interchange formats. As we have seen with XMeld, this does not interfere with the organisational competence of local communities or detract from their central self-administration tasks.
Decisions about the centralisation of tasks and files and the establishment of clearing offices must be made at the political level. The conditions, consequences and interests differ in every area. Therefore, it does not appear appropriate to create a single universal structure for such decision-making processes. This is different for standardised data interchange formats. It is true that there are differences of detail between the requirements and consequences in areas such as the registration system, trade and industry, environmental inspections, environmental permits and social insurance contributions. But the principles are similar, and in view of the large number of persons involved, these decision-making processes must have a transparent structure. The legitimating importance of binding political decisions in the form of directly applicable statutes issued by the national government, or coordinated federal state ordinances based on an agreement between the federal states, has been seen in the consideration of the registration system.
In addition, the importance of a suitable organisational form for the success and the sustainability of standardisation processes is still underestimated (cf. also Kubicek/Wind 2003, p. 40). This was already noted in the business sector in relation to the harmonisation of exchange formats for orders and invoices. In the 1980s EDIFACT was developed - a data description language which was similar to today's XML. To enable automatic processing of the data to take place, it was not only necessary to develop data fields for orders and invoices which would take into account the specific requirements of different branches of trade and industry - in addition, consistent article number systems had to be agreed for the different groups of products. But there was not a suitable arena for this process. Up to that time, the individual business associations had fulfilled the standardisation tasks for their own lines of business. But there was not yet any harmonisation between the retail trade and the brand goods industry, installers and construction companies, motor manufacturers and suppliers from different branches of industry and trade. The article numbers for brand articles had to be printed by the manufacturers, and the computer systems in the retail trade had to be able to interpret and assign them. After years of discussion, the brand product manufacturers association and the retail associations jointly set up a central office for co-organisation. An analysis of similar efforts in other business sectors shows that the development and distribution of consistent order and invoice data formats has only really made progress where there were appropriate organisational units which were able to combine process competence with legitimation by the leadership of the respective associations (Ballnus 2000).
On the same principle, the Conference of Ministers of the Interior and the central associations of local communities could create a similar institution. This could give the necessary weight to the current work of Deutschland-Online and the standardisation of OSCI messages. The concern is not "only" to develop the standard in the first place and gain acceptance for it (although even that is difficult enough). After that has been achieved, it will be necessary to revise data interchange formats regularly and to update certain keys, meta data etc. In this connection, the influence of the local communities should again be strengthened, because they are the bodies which will need to implement most of the standards and use them in practice.
Moreover, the standardisation of the exchange of data is not restricted to processes between administrations. In the area of social insurance data, a clearing office has so far only been created with the statutory health insurance institutions, but the private health insurance companies, industrial indemnity associations and other organisations are not yet included. This is due to the lack of a joint forum with the necessary competence to enforce the arrangements. Any considerations directed towards the creation of a suitable organisation should make allowances for the possibility that its range of activities may need to be extended.
First of all, the creation of an effective organisation for standardisation in e-government requires the necessary political will. Here, the analysis goes round in circles. The political pressure arising from the international comparison is not yet great enough. Disappointment about the lack of savings in the on-line services that have so far been implemented leads to doubts about the economic efficiency of investments in this area. But that would be a false conclusion. Investments in citizen-oriented on-line services have not paid their way yet because they are focused on transactions with the customers of the administration, but these customers do not yet have the necessary facilities to use these services, or the benefit of the services offered is not yet great enough to actually use the new possibilities which are offered. And there are still great deficits in back-office integration. Investment in on-line services will only really lead to economic benefits when these deficits have been overcome by the standardisation of data interchange formats. It would certainly be worthwhile to have this complex - and the savings missed because of the failure to exploit the existing integration potential - examined in greater detail in a survey by an auditing watchdog committee, a business consulting company or an academic or scientific institution.
Perhaps this could help to overcome the obstacles which still hinder the progress of e-government. Then e-government in Germany could catch up with the progress that has been made in countries with a centrally organised state constitution.
Notes
(1) In addition to this ordinance (BMeldDÜV 1) there is also the "Federal Ordinance on the Transmission of Registration Data from the Registration Authorities to Public Authorities or other Public Bodies of the Federal Government" (BMeldDÜV 2), but that is not relevant to the context discussed here. (back)
References
Accenture (2003), E-Government 2003. Ergebnisse einer internationalen Vergleichsstudie, Kronberg i.T. (back)
Ballnus, R. (2000), Erfolg mit EDI und E-Commerce. Handlungsempfehlungen für die Abstimmung und Organisation interorganisationaler Netzwerke, Marburg. (back)
Cap Gemini Ernst & Young (2003), Webbasierte Untersuchung des elektronischen Service-Angebots der Öffentlichen Hand. Ergebnisse der vierten Erhebung: Oktober 2003, Berlin. (back)
Cap Gemini Ernst & Young (2002), Webbasierte Untersuchung des elektronischen Service-Angebots der Öffentlichen Hand. Ergebnisse der dritten Erhebung: Oktober 2002, Berlin. (back)
Commission of the European Communities/The Norwegian Ministry of Trade and Industry/The Brønnøysund Register Centre (2004), Workshop on Semantic Interoperability. 22nd and 23rd June 2004. Background Paper. Version 0.5, Brønnøysund. (back)
Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (2003), Die Rolle elektronischer Behördendienste (E-Government) für die Zukunft Europas. COM(2003) 567 endgültig, Brüssel . (back)
Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften/IDA (Interchange of Data between Administrations) (2003), Europa verbinden: Die Bedeutung der Interoperabilität für elektronische Behördendienste (eGovernment-Dienste). Arbeitspapier der Kommissionsdienststellen, Brüssel (http://europa.eu.int/ida/en/document/2036/571) [Aktuallisierter Link: http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Doce046.pdf?id=1676, 26.01.2011]. (back)
Hauschildt, J. (1998), Promotoren - Projektmanager der Innovation?, in: Frank, N./von Braun, C. F. (Hrsg.), Innovationsforschung und Technologiemanagement, Berlin u.a., S. 175-189. (back)
Kubicek, H./Cimander, R./Westholm, H. (2004), Von Europa lernen, in: Moderne Verwaltung, Heft 1, S. 14-19. (back)
Kubicek, H./Wind, M. (2003), E-Government in den Kommunen. Studie für die Enquetekommission "Zukunft der Städte in NRW" des Landtags Nordrhein-Westfalen, Bremen (http://www.landtag.nrw.de/portal/WWW/GB_I/I.1/EK/EKALT/13_EK1/EKZukunftStadteNRW_KubicecEtAl_EGovernment_2003.pdf). (back)
Millard, J., u.a. (2004), Reorganisation of Government Back Offices for Better Electronic Public Services - European Good Practices (Back-office reorganisation). Final Report to the European Commission, Brüssel (http://europa.eu.int/information_society/programmes/egov_rd/doc/back_office_reorganisation_volume1_mainreport.pdf). [Aktuallisierter Link: http://www.ifib.de/publikationsdateien/Back_Office_Reorganisation_Volume2_Materials_for_Evaluation_and_Analyses.pdf, 26.01.2011] (back)
Schmidt, W. (2002), Regionale Selbstverwaltung und Zusammenarbeit in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und ihr Einfluss auf die Einwohnerregistrierung. Beitrag zur National Conference on Improving Public Services in Citizens Administration, 20.-22. Mai 2002 in Jakarta, Conference Paper No. 15. (http://www.gtzsfgg.or.id/cas/docs/natcon/others/schmidt_de.pdf). (back)
Stelkens, U./Bonk, H.J./Sachs, M. (2001), Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz, 6. Auflage, München. (back)
Witte, E. (1973), Organisation für Innovationsentscheidungen. Das Promotorenmodell, Göttingen. (back)