Leadership requirements for e-government innovations: focusing on South Korean experiences

1. Leadership requirements for e-government innovations: focusing on South Korean experiences Young-Min YOON Department of Information Sociology Hanyang University, South Korea

2. 1. Contents • Quick summary of arguments • Theoretical framework • Models of e-government • Leadership Requirements for e-Government • Roles of creative leadership for effective reengineering and planning • Key questions and challenges to the creative leadership of e-government • Analysis of e-government projects in South Korea • Discussion • Conclusion

3. I. Major arguments drawn from Korean experiences • Leadership demand for e-government project varies according to level of innovations. • E-government continues to be developed towards the highest level of innovations and thereby different leadership skill is required to make it successful. • As its level becomes higher, its BPR/ISP, in particular, requires more sophisticated and creative leadership.

4. II. Theoretical Framework 1. Models of e-government • Consulting firms and UN were forerunners in developing e-government models. • Perhaps the most well-known model of e-government is UN five-stage model. UN publishes annual report on e-government of its member countries. For the purpose of evaluation and comparison, it applies five-stage model of e-government. It may well serve the purpose of ranking member states regarding e-government progress. It is, however, little theoretical. • Stage 1: emerging; Stage 2: enhanced; Stage 3: interactive • Stage 4: transactional; Stage 5: seamless • Another widely-circulated model is Gartner’s four phases of e-government model (2000). • Stage 1: Web presence; state 2: Interaction, • stage 3: transaction; stage 4: Transformation

5. Deloitte Consulting offered a more sophisticated six-stage model (2000) • Stage 1: Information publishing/dissemination; Stage 2: “official” two-way transactions; Stage 3: Multi-purpose portals; Stage 4: Portal Personalization; Stage 5: Clustering of common services; Stage 6: Full integration and enterprise transformation • According to the complicatedness of technicality applied • Ebrahim, Z, Irani, Z, and Al-Shawi, S (2003) • Stage 1: Information; Stage 2: Interaction • Stage 3: Transaction; Stage 4: Integration • According to the nature of achievement by e-government • Bhatnagar, Subhash (2004) • Stage 1: Web Presence; Stage 2: Limited Interaction • Stage 3: Transaction; Stage 4: Transformation (good governance: participatory, transparent & accountable) • According to the nature of achievement by e-government

6. Behn, Robert D. (2007) • Level 1: E-Gov Information, Level 2: E-Gov Automation • Level 3: E-Gov Reengineering, Level 4: P-Gov Innovation • By the nature of innovation pursued • Yoon, Young-Min (2008) • Level 1: Administrative Innovation (departments of a ministry share data and consolidate their information systems to give more convenient services to citizens and businesses) • Level 2: Governmental Innovation (cross-agency, inter-ministry collaboration) • Level 3: State Innovation (collaboration may encompass three branches of the state, public-owned firms, or government-invested agencies) • Level 4: Societal Innovation (even citizens and private institutions involve in collaboration) • By the scale of innovation pursued. • There are not many e-government projects in the categories of state and societal innovation in any country.

7. However, recently more and more countries pursue good governance or e-democracy and attempt the higher levels of innovation. In the 21st century, e-governance or e-democracy became a global trend in the e-government sector. • It is assumed that integration is the most challenging part of e-government enterprise politically as well as technologically. Difficulty of integration depends on its scale more than anything else. • In a sense, integration is what e-government is all about. Every e-government project includes some sort of integration. That is why e-government is a sector of SI (System Integration) industry. Furthermore, sociologically, integration is one of the most interesting issues regarding e-government. • The merit of this model is that it may effectively disclose challenges which an e-government project faces.

8. Levels of e-Government Innovation

9. 2. Leadership Requirements for e-Government • Many scholars and practitioners emphasize the existence of strong leadership as a critical success factor for e-government. • Subhash Bhatnagar (2004) emphasizes that strong project leadership and coordinated efforts across departments are necessary to evolve to the higher stages of e-government. “This requires significant institutional reforms in the way government conducts internal business and a change in the behavior of civil servants and managers (91).”

10. Richard Heeks (2006): ‘e-government champion’ is the most critical success factor. “focus on politics, vision, business issues and change”. “big picture, change management, and interpersonal skills”(272) • “those seeking to lead e-government forward in the remainder of the 21st century are better served studying the works of Machiavelli and Sun Tzu than in reading the latest IT magazines and textbooks (272).” • Jane E. Fountain (2007): “the commitment and skill of key individuals, or champions, remain important throughout the duration of collaborate efforts (67).” • I would argue that the kind of leadership skills required for e-government work are different according to level of e-government. • More than any other factors, creative leadership in the planning stage of an initiative might help to prevent the costly failure.

11. Leadership Requirements for e-Government

12. After ideation, e-government initiative typically goes through so-called BPR/ISP, Business Process Reengineering and Information Strategic Planning, which means that existing business process should be critically analyzed and accordingly be redesigned, and a strategy of how to apply state-of-the-art information technology to the new concept of business or business process should be developed. In short, creative leadership is required for the BPR/ISP.

13. 3. Roles of creative leadership for effective reengineering and planning

14. 4. Key questions and challenges to the creative leadership of e-government • Definition of Situation • Clear and persuasive answers to the questions such as • What are drawbacks of the present structure, management, and services of the government? How serious are they? • Why should a particular project be implemented? • What is future image that the government seeks after with the project? • Is the project feasible not only from the technical aspect but also from the organizational, social, or political aspects? • Are there capability and resources available for the project? If not, is there a solid plan to acquire them? • What kind of obstacles are anticipated for the project and how can those be overcome?

15. Consensus building • Consensus should be built so as to answer following questions positively. • Is the chief executive attracted to the project? • Are there groups who strongly support the project both within and outside the agency? • Do major stakeholders approve it? • Do opinion leaders support the project? • Is there social consensus on the necessity of innovation through e-government in a particular field?

16. Winning Trust • Is technology reliable which is applied to the project? • Is the reliability well proven? • Will the new system far outperform the present one? • Does an agency implementing the project win confidence of stakeholders? • Does it respect positions of other agencies which are affected by the project? • Is it politically impartial? • Does it have capability to complete the project successfully? • “The entrepreneurship and skill of the project leader proved critical to building trust (Fountain, 2007: 87).”

17. Hammering out technical agreements • Technical agreements should be made on the issues such as • Which agency should be in charge of developing or operating the system? • What should be concrete scale and range of the project? • How long should development and introduction of the system take? • What kind of steps should development and introduction of the system take? • Which model of the system should be chosen? • What kind of change should be brought to existing business process?

18. III. Analysis of e-government projects in Korea 1) Administrative innovation • E-government as administration innovation started in South Korea in late 1980s and still continues. Most of e-government initiatives of this type were successful. The most challenging aspect of this type of innovations is technological. Technical capacity and physical infrastructure should be available. In addition, level of corruption must be relatively low and administration must be sufficiently reliable so as to achieve the innovation. Corruption often frustrates any attempts of this level of e-government innovation in developing countries. • Informatization of Vehicle Administration (1987~1990)(S) • Computerization of Resident Registration (1987~1991)(S) • Computerization of Real Estate Management (1987~1991)(S) • Computerization of Economic Statistics (1987~1991)(S)

19. KIPO(Korea Intellectual Property Office) net (1999)(S) • One-stop Service for Export & Import Cargo (PORT-MIS) (1999)(S) • Computerization of Registry Service (2002)(S) • School LAN and Internet Access (2002)(S) • Home Tax Service via Internet (2002)(S) • E-Audit System (2007)(TS) • E-Diplomacy System (2007)(S) • Expansionof Online Administrative Information Disclosure (2007)(TS)

20. 2) Governmental innovation • The next level of e-government (government innovations) began in mid-1990s. The most challenging initiative was undoubtedly Construction of High-Speed IT Infrastructure, which started in 1995 and was completed almost four year earlier than planned. Highly centralized political power was helpful to accomplish it since it provided power of coordination which was desperately required for the project. Some of this type innovations took several years and were not successful in the end. Ministerial conflicts could not be easily settled even with such a strong power. • Construction of High-Speed IT Infrastructure (1995~2001)(S) • Computerization of Passport Issuance (1995)(S) • EDI Import-Export Declaration System (1999)(S) • E-Customs Service (UNI-PASS) (2006)(S) • Personnel Policy Support System (2002)(S) • Online Civil Service (G4C) (2002)(TS) • Enhanced Online Citizen Service (2007) • Government Procurement Service (2002)(S) • Korea Online E-procurement System (KONEPS)

21. Informatization in Local Governments (cities and Districts) (2002)(S) • Electronic Document Distribution System (2007)(S) • National Financial Information System (2003)(TS) • Digital Budget & Accounting System (2007) • Administrative Information Sharing System (2007)(S) • Establishment of Information Security System(TS) • Online Business Support Service (G4B) (2007)(TS) • Online Foreigner Support Service (2006)(T) • Government Task Management System (2007)(TS) • National Computing & Information Resources Administration System (2001 ~ 2007)(S) • E-government Enterprise Architecture (2006)(T) • Government Business Reference Model (BRM) Development (2007)(TS)

22. 3) State innovation • The democratic state consists of three branches (administrative, legislative and judicial). Separation of the three powers is one of the key elements of democratic government. They are accustomed to ‘check and balance’ rather than ‘collaboration’. • It also encompasses state-owned or publically held firms and agencies. In particular, coordination is rarely feasible among the three powers in Korea. Only three cases are found in this category of e-government initiatives. • Social Insurance Integration System (2002)(S) • E-assembly (2007)(TS) • Integrated Criminal Legal System (2007)(T)

23. 4) Societal innovation • For this type of e-government initiatives, centralized coordination or one-sided persuasion will hardly work. Voluntary collaboration or participation from private sector or individual citizens is required. A ‘creative leadership’ helps to implement this category of e-government initiatives to a certain extent. • Diffusion of e-Signature (2002)(S) • National Education Information System (2003)(T  S) • Information Network Village (INVIL) (2002 ~ 2007)(TS) • Online Citizen Participation Service (2005)(TS) • Consolidated National Logistic Information System (2007)(TS) • Introduction of e-Voting and E-election (T) • Consolidated National Welfare Information System (2007)(TS)

24. Performance of e-government policy in South Koreabetween 1987 and 2007 • - This does not cover all the e-government initiatives during the period but includes most large projects. • Overall success rate was 60%. Success rate for administrative and governmental levels of e-government was relatively high while that for state and societal levels was quite low. • Bold e-government initiatives were attempted in the later period.

25. Causes of the failures suggested • The fundamental reason for the low success rate of the higher-level initiatives might be Korea’s short experience of democracy. Fifteen or twenty years of democracy is too short for a society to build up sufficient trust in politics or public administration. • But the short experience of democracy cannot explain all the cost Korea had paid for the failure. • I would say that if Korean government took more careful approach, it could save fruitless efforts and tax money. • E-government initiatives of state or societal innovation are qualitatively different from those of administrative or governmental innovation. However, e-government champions and practitioners ignored the difference in Korea.

26. It might be said that they must have been intoxicated by success. They became bold and less careful. When more careful approach was needed, they became less careful. Success often becomes mother of failure. That was the case in the e-government sector under Ro Mu-Hyun’s administration. • The lack of creative leadership explains why most projects of higher-level innovation were not successful (see table below).

27. Analysis of higher-level e-government projects

29. VI. discussion • E-government practitioners of other countries often envy strong and visionary leadership of e-government in South Korea. • In fact, it helped to achieve many successes so far. But the fact is little known that the so called strong and visionary leadership was one of major causes of untold failures. • Korea displayed high rate of failure for the innovation of good governance or e-democracy. • It is difficult for any country which has highly centralized government to resist temptation to use forceful order from the top to implement the challenging projects. • That is undoubtedly easy way to initiate e-government project, but it does guarantee success of the project.

30. In fact, strong leadership often became a cause of failure instead of success. For two reasons: • An essential feature of good governance or e-democracy is participation. One cannot create a participatory governance by force. • Consensus, agreement, and engagement should be not only goal of the project, but also key features of the project itself. If not, it is doomed to failure. • Any e-government project relying on political leadership can hardly survive regime change. • All the state or societal innovations are fundamentally political. No one can erase its political nature. However, it does not mean that one cannot dilute partisan character of the project. • Administrative neutrality or political neutrality should be widely recognized. If not, trust can hardly be won. That is a sort of legitimacy struggle.

31. V. conclusion • As e-government advances, it enters unprecedented area and becomes a game of art which requires creativity as well as political vision and will. • Existence of ‘e-government champion’ or ‘strong leadership’ has been often pointed out as a critical success factor for e-government project. • This presentation agrees that e-government projects require champions, but argues that it needs creative rather than strong e-government champion for higher level of e-government innovations. Good governance or e-democracy might be totally different from e-government. That will be a valuable lesson from the failures in the Far East.

32. Gracias for listening! Young-Min Yoon