First Choice, Free Choice or No Choice -  Kinh tế quốc tế | Trường Đại học Kinh tế, Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội

lOMoARcPSD|44744371

lectronic Government and Electronic Participation

H.J. Scholl et al. (Eds.)

© 2016 The authors and IOS Press.

This article is published online with Open Access by IOS Press and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0). doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-670-5-135

First ChoiCe, Free ChoiCe or No ChoiCe

Differences in Secure Digital Post in the Scandinavian Countries

Arild JANSEN a 1), JeSper B. BERGER b), Göran GOLDKUHL c) a UniverSity of OSlo, arildj@juS.uio.no,

b Ærø Kommune, jbb@aeroekommune.dk

c Linkøping UniverSity, goran.goldkuhl@liu.Se

135

AbStract. As part of their egovernment plans, many countries aim at digitizing their communication With its

citizens and the business sector. The effects of e-government depend on particular policy and design decisions. The aim of this paper is to compare the enactment of particular policies in supposedly similar

contexts. The comparative case constitutes digital communication betWeen public sector and citizens in the Scandinavian countries. From a grounded approach, We have described the policy, design and effects elements of the three case settings. Our study indicates that apparently similar solutions in comparable contexts may be

enacted in rather different Ways and have quite different effects. The three countries operate on a scale of coercion from mandatory (Denmark), over nudging (NorWay) to voluntary (SWeden).

KeyWords: e-government, digital communication, policy, design, effect

1. Introduction

Digitizatiofl of coMMuflicatiofl betWeefl public adMifliStratiofl afld citizeflS SeeMS to

be a global trefld ifl SocietieS’ developMefltS. PerSoflal MeetiflgS afld ordiflary Mail are replaced by digital chaflflelS for coMMuflicatiofl. There are great challeflgeS ifl deSigfliflg

afld iMpleMefltiflg digital coMMuflicatiofl, oftefl labelled aS “digital by default” or

“digital firSt choice” [14,22]. The aMbitioflS are that citizeflS afld buSifleSSeS Should chooSe digital MeaflS firSt. It MuSt hoWever be queStiofled if “digital firSt choice” alWayS

iS a real choice. What iS the effect of differeflt flatioflal StrategieS for iMpleMefltiflg

digital coMMuflicatiofl? We Waflt to addreSS theSe queStioflS through a coMparative Study of StrategieS afld architecture for digital poSt ifl the three Scafldiflaviafl coufltrieS.

DeflMark, NorWay afld SWedefl have rather SiMilar political SySteMS, it iS lot of

cooperatiofl betWeefl theM, afld they are actively participatiflg ifl the Europeafl IflforMatiofl Society projectS. We Would expect that their ICT policieS reSeMble a lot.

HoWever, there are a fluMber of differeflceS, related to their Specific hiStory afld diStiflct

traditioflS. ThiS iS alSo reflected ifl their differeflt digitizatiofl StrategieS [See 14, 19, 22]. Although the overall goalS ifl all three coufltrieS are SiMilar ifl that digital

coMMuflicatiofl Should be the preferred chaflflel, each coufltry haS defifled rather differeflt digital chaflflel StrategieS.

• 1. Research framework “From policy to design and effects”

Our reSearch fraMeWork departS froM a SiMple Model for e-goverflMeflt reSearch coflSiStiflg of three flotioflS: policy, deSigfl afld effectS [10]. Cefltral ifl the Model iS

1 Corresponding Author

136 A. Jansen et al. / First Choice, Free Choice or No Choice

deSigfl proceSS afld deSigfled productS of e-goverflMeflt artefactS. DeSigfl iS ifl thiS

cofltext coflSidered to be a proceSS of policy iMpleMefltatiofl, folloWiflg a diStiflct Strategy, Where the policy backgroufld iS Seefl aS eSSefltial cofltext to the deSigfl proceSS.

The third eleMeflt; the effectS are the Specific reSultS (of e.g. uSe) of afld correSpofldiflg coflSequeflceS for actorS iflvolved. The aflalySiS ifl thiS paper Will focuS ofl three levelS:

1. The flatioflal policy level, iflcludiflg idefltifyiflg goal, legal afld orgaflizatioflal MeaSureS, but liMited to What iS relevaflt for the Specific caSeS.
2. The deSigfl level, Meafliflg hoW digital chaflflel Strategy iS iMpleMeflted aS e- goverflMeflt architecture afld the Supportiflg iflforMatiofl iflfraStructure, iflcludiflg

aflalyziflg techflical afld orgaflizatioflal characteriSticS, buSifleSS Model, etc.

1. The effect level, coMpriSiflg citizeflS’ afld public iflStitutioflS’ reSpoflSeS to the policy afld iMpleMefltatiofl through their adoptiofl, uSe afld the coflSequeflceS.

TheSe three projectS are aflalyzed ifl our Study: “Digital Post”ⁱ ifl DeflMark, “Sikker

Digital Post” (EflgliSh: Secure Digital PoSt)ⁱⁱ ifl NorWay afld “Mina meddelanden” (EflgliSh: My MeSSageS)ⁱⁱⁱ ifl SWedefl. Other SolutioflS exiSt; hoWever, theSe projectS coflStitute the Major flatioflal iflitiativeS. Our reSearch fraMeWork iS depicted ifl figure 1.

Overall SoCietal ConditionS

POLICY

General poliCy framework (valueS & regulationS)

SpeCifiC digital poSt poliCy (valueS & regulationS)

DESIGN

EFFECTS

USe & adoption

ConSequenCeS for individualS, organiSationS &

SoCiety

ArChiteCture for digital poSt

InStitutional arrangementS for digital poSt

Figure 1. Basic conceptualization of study domain

ExiSting egov SolutionS aS enablerS & barrierS

Our reSearch iS ofl the Whole baSed ofl a qualitative approach, iflcludiflg aflalySiS of

policy docuMefltS, StrategieS afld project deScriptioflS aS Well aS relevaflt reviSioflS ifl laWS afld regulatioflS, etc. We have adopted a Sort of “grouflded” approach aS flo Specific

theorieS or propoSitioflS guided the aflalySiS [6]. HoWever, We have uSed a Set of factorS related to policy afld deSigfl aS ShoW ifl Table 2 & 3 beloW ifl coMpariflg our three caSeS.

1. Policy
   1. Denmark

The policy paperS that regulate digital coMMuflicatiofl With public Sector ifl DeflMark coMpriSe: 1) the flatioflal e-goverflMeflt Strategy, 2) legal regulatioflS afld

3) legal agreeMefltS betWeefl the DafliSh goverflMeflt afld Subordiflate public iflStitutioflS.

The DafliSh flatioflal e-goverflMeflt Strategy 2011-2015: The digital path to future welfare [22], uflderpiflS a fleW e-goverflMeflt paradigM. Accordiflg to Jæger afld Löfgrefl

1. DafliSh e-goverflMeflt haS developed Siflce the 1990ieS froM “DafliSh valueS” like deMocracy, citizeflS’ IT rightS, traflSpareflcy, buttofl-up experiMefltal approacheS, citizeflS’ eMpoWerMeflt afld Social iflcluSiofl, to More cefltrally cofltrolled e-goverflMeflt,

A. Jansen et al. / First Choice, Free Choice or No Choice 137

priMarily to iflcreaSe public Sector efficieflcy. The curreflt 2011-2015 Strategy carrieS the

Slogafl that “thoSe that cafl, MuSt [be digital]” afld it iS clearly Stated that “it Will be Mafldatory to uSe digital SolutioflS ifl Writtefl coMMuflicatiofl With public Sector” [22, p.

5] for both buSifleSSeS (froM 2013) afld citizeflS (froM 2014). The coercive Strategy iS a reSult of lack of taflgible beflefitS froM forMer e-goverflMeflt StrategieS.

• 1. Norway

NorWay iS a rather Sector-orieflted afld decefltralized, but uflitary State Where the

MuflicipalitieS have autofloMy Withifl the flatioflal legal fraMeWork. Ofle iMplicatiofl iS that NorWegiafl reforM proceSSeS Might be More SegMeflted afld Sector-orieflted thafl ifl

other coufltrieS. The MifliSter for Moderflizatiofl, Which coordiflateS public Sector

reforMS, lauflched a fleW digitizatiofl prograM ifl 2016, focuSiflg ofl efficieflcy afld uSer- orieflted ServiceS, but alSo ofl iflflovatiofl ifl private Sector, cofltifluiflg forMer StrategieS.

The fleW prograM iS Streflgthefliflg “Digital aS firSt optiofl” aS afl overall priflciple,

Meafliflg that “Digital coMMuflicatiofl iS to be the gefleral rule for cofltact With the public Sector. Paper-baSed SolutioflS Will Still be afl optiofl, but coMMuflicatiofl Will be

digital by default” [14]. All citizeflS afld buSifleSSeS Will receive Mail froM the public Sector aS certified digital Mail, uSiflg Secure eID for autheflticatiofl.

• 1. Sweden

The iflitiative for digital poSt ifl SWedefl did flot coMe froM a political-MifliSterial

level. It WaS a public authority iflitiative aroufld 2009: The SWediSh Tax Ageflcy, Which had exteflSive coMMuflicatiofl With tax payerS ofl tax declaratioflS afld other taxatiofl

iSSueS. The coSt reductiofl for SWitchiflg to digital poSt WaS eStiMated to be high.

ThiS iflitiative WaS diScuSSed Withifl afl authority coMMittee for “buSifleSS Set up afld operatiofl”, coflSiStiflg of Several public authoritieS. TheSe authoritieS had becoMe

reSpoflSible oWflerS of the SWediSh flatioflal buSifleSS liflk portal verkSaMt.Se, Which WaS lauflched 2009. There WaS afl ifltereSt (froM the Ageflcy for EcofloMic afld Regioflal

GroWth afld the SWediSh CoMpaflieS RegiStratiofl Office) to have digital poSt aS afl

ifltegrated part of thiS buSifleSS liflk portal, but the Tax Ageflcy had a Stroflg iflcefltive ifl gettiflg ofle digital Solutiofl that covered both citizeflS afld buSifleSSeS. IflStead, a Separate

digital Solutiofl WaS choSefl called “Mifla Meddelafldefl” (My MeSSageS). The developMeflt of thiS joifled-up digital coMMuflicatiofl Service haS beefl iflflueflced by differeflt policy StateMefltS ofl e-goverflMeflt developMeflt ifl SWedefl.

1. Digital architecture
   1. Principles for digital post architectures – certified mail systems

Ifl 1999, the Stafldardizatiofl Sector of the Iflterflatioflal TelecoMMuflicatiofl Ufliofl publiShed the recoMMefldatiofl X.400, Which defifleS the gefleric SySteM architecture of

MeSSage Hafldliflg ServiceS, MHS [20]. ThiS architectural Model haS beefl adopted With Miflor chaflgeS by Mafly Mailiflg SySteMS today, iflcludiflg MoSt CMS (Certified Mail

SySteMS). It iflcludeS a gefleric iflfraStructure: Mail TraflSfer SySteM (MTS) that

cofltaiflS MeSSage TraflSfer AgefltS (MTA) afld cafl coflflect With USer AgefltS (UA); furtherMore MeSSage StoreS (MS) afld AcceSS UflitS (AU), Which cafl be deviSeS that

coflvert digital MaSSageS to phySical Mail. The fuflctioflal Model of the gefleric X.400 MHS iS illuStrated ifl figure 2 beloW.

138 A. Jansen et al. / First Choice, Free Choice or No Choice

• 1. Denmark

All public iflstitutiofls cafl register as seflder afld recipieflt. All persofls age 15+ are autoMatically registered as recipieflts based ofl their uflique persofl ID (CPR). Citizefls

cafl apply for exeMptiofl. Citizefls cafl register phofle flo. afld e-Mail for flotificatiofl.

Public iflstitutiofls sefld Messages froM various applicatiofl systeMs (UAs). The citizefl cafl iflitiate Messages through the UA, which the MTA delivers as a secure e-Mail or via

a web service to the public iflstitutiofl. There is ofle authorized MTS-provider.

Figure 2. Systems architecture of the generic X.400 MHS, called CMS (from Tauber [20] )

The citizefl UA coflsist of the flatioflal eID, the citizefl portal (Borger.dk) afld the Digital Post froflt-efld systeM. The recipieflt has the respoflsibility to provide access to a

device that cafl rufl the flatioflal portals, Iflterflet access afld afl active eID to be able to

coMMuflicate with public iflstitutiofls, afld to be able to receive Messages that May have legal or ecofloMic coflsequeflces. The goverflMeflt Made it Mafldatory for public

iflstitutiofls to offer Digital Post as a coMMuflicatiofl chaflflel for citizefls already ifl 2010. Digital Post was lauflched ifl 2010, but by the tiMe the Law was passed ifl 2012, alMost flo busiflesses had registered afld less thafl ofle of five citizefls.

• 1. Norway

The Norwegiafl CMS is based ofl a siMplified afld asyMMetric versiofl of the gefleric MHS Model. The citizefls that accept to use a digital coMMuflicatiofl chaflflel are offered

the optiofl to choose betweefl two Mail boxes: Digipost by Postefl Norge afld e-Boks by

e-Boks AS. The ifltefltiofl is that they shall receive Mail froM public ageflcies ifl the saMe Mailbox as froM private seflders. Receipt afld storiflg of digital Mail froM public

ageflcies are free of charge for the citizefls, as are the use of ID-portal to log ofl.

A citizefl May however iflteract with public ageflcies ifl differeflt ways. The Most typical sceflario is whefl a citizefls coMplete a “digital forM” available froM a public

ageflcy, florMally by usiflg a secure logifl/autheflticatiofl service provided by the flatioflal eID. If the citizefl is registered ifl the exeMptiofl register, a paper-based Message shall be

seflt. All public iflstitutiofls have to register as seflder ifl CMS. All persofls age 15+ cafl register as recipieflts based ofl their uflique persofl ID, but they do flot have to.

• 1. Sweden

Public iflstitutiofls that qualify cafl register as seflder ifl My Messages. Busiflesses

(legal efltities) afld citizefls cafl register, based ofl their uflique busifless/citizefl ID as recipieflts. Recipieflts Must register a phofle flo. afld e-Mail for flotificatiofls. Public

iflstitutiofls sefld Messages froM various applicatiofl systeMs (UAs) to MTA. These

Messages cafl be dispatched froM these applicatiofl systeMs (e.g. case hafldliflg systeMs), usiflg differeflt techfliques, iflto the Message traflsfer systeM. The Tax Ageflcy

is respoflsible for this architecture afld the provisiofl of the Maifl iflfrastructural coMpofleflts). There are procedures of orgaflizatioflal, cofltractual afld techflical

A. Jansen et al. / First Choice, Free Choice or No Choice 139

affiliatiofl. The Specific type of MeSSage fleedS alSo to be regiStered. Natioflal ageflcieS

afld MuflicipalitieS cafl be affiliated to thiS MeSSage traflSfer Service. There iS ofle Mail- box (“Mifl MyfldighetSpoSt” adMifliStered by the Tax Ageflcy) that hafldleS oflly

MeSSageS froM the public Sector. BeSideS thiS Mail-box, there exiSt at the MoMeflt tWo

coMMercial digital Mail-boxeS that are certified to diStribute MeSSageS froM the public Sector. A citizefl cafl chooSe to receive MeSSageS froM the public Sector digitally or by

ordiflary Mail. The digital choice MuSt be afl active choice. If flo Such choice iS

regiStered, the default optiofl iS ordiflary Mail. The citizefl cafl alSo chooSe Which Mail- box operator to uSe for digital poSt; i.e. the public digital Mail-box or ofle of the

coMMercial ofleS. It iS alSo poSSible to chooSe flot to receive MeSSageS froM SoMe diSpatchiflg public ageflcieS; i.e. deSelectiflg SoMe public ageflcy froM digital poSt

1. Adoption and effectS
   1. Denmark

The fluMber of regiStered citizeflS afld yearly MeSSageS are ShoWfl ifl table 1, ShoWiflg clearly hoW Mafldatory e-goverflMeflt booStS adoptiofl afld uSe. Afl evaluatiofl

of the Digital PoSt buSifleSS caSe for 2013 afld foufld that public iflStitutioflS had realized

leSS Digital PoSt, thuS leSS poStal coSt reductiofl thafl expected, See Berger afld AflderSefl [4]. Siflce the State budget WaS reduced beforehafld, the authorS eStiMated that public

iflStitutioflS had had a direct deficit of More thafl 100 Milliofl DKK. The buSifleSS caSe WaS alSo evaluated for 2014 for local goverflMefltS afld ShoWed agaifl a direct deficit of

38 Milliofl DKK (79 Milliofl DKK ifl 2013). ESpecially SMall buSifleSS oWflerS Were

fruStrated about the iMpleMefltatiofl proceSS, the coMplexity of the Solutiofl, afld that they had to pay to be Supported aloflg With the lack of Support reSourceS. Civil ServafltS

experieflced iflcreaSed Workload With Digital PoSt due to itS coMplexity, lack of

iflteroperability afld the iflcreaSed deMafld for aSSiStaflce froM eSpecially vulflerable citizeflS [1]. Civil ServafltS report that citizeflS loSe Welfare rightS afld beflefitS becauSe

they are flot able to acceSS Digital PoSt. Elderly afld vulflerable citizeflS, that depefld ofl

public beflefitS, May alSo Suffer froM techflo aflxiety [e.g. 11]. Social WorkerS Stated that forciflg citizeflS to be digital Worked agaiflSt their treatMeflt of the clieflt.

The public iflStitutiofl that hafldleS child Support Started Sefldiflg coflfirMatiofl letterS

ifl 2013 to Siflgle parefltS ifl Digital PoSt. More thafl 300 Siflgle parefltS did flot See the Digital PoSt, SubSequefltly they loSt child Support. The Couflcil of Appeal ruled, ofl

behalf of Several coMplaifltS, that the deciSiofl Should be reverSed [21]. The turbuleflce of iMpleMefltiflg Digital PoSt Were criticiSed ifl DafliSh Media [12].

• 1. Norway

SoMe State ageflcieS have offered a SiMple digital poSt Service to citizeflS, baSed ofl

uflcoordiflated afld rather uflSecure SolutioflS. The Tax directorate haS uSed the digital Mail Service offered by Altiflfl Siflce 2005 to iflforM citizeflS about the aSSeSSMeflt of

taxeS. Ifl 2015, 93 % of all tax payer received digital flotice froM through Altiflfl.

DIFI put itS firSt verSiofl iflto operatiofl fall 2014 afld haS the overall reSpoflSible for operatiflg the Solutiofl. Ifl Muflicipal Sector, a coMMofl digital Mail Service haS beefl

offered Siflce 2013, baSed ofl a Solutiofl developed by Bergefl Muflicipality ifl 2011. The Cofltact afld reServatiofl regiSter afld DigipoSt Were put iflto operatiofl late 2014, While

E-BokS WaS available Spriflg 2015. By April 2016, 21% are uSerS of CMS, While 2.3 % are regiStered for exeMptiofl. HoWever, about 90.5 are regiStered ifl the CRR, afld Will

140 A. Jansen et al. / First Choice, Free Choice or No Choice

receive “uflSecured” digital MeSSageS, but flot fleceSSarily by SDP. Other State ageflcieS uSe their oWfl Mailbox SySteM for uflSecure Mail. Table 1 beloW ShoW SoMe data ofl the adoptiofl of Digital poSt ifl the three coufltrieS.

Table 1. E-government policy attributes for the Scandinavian countries

• 1. Sweden

The exiSteflce of the digital iflfraStructure of My MeSSageS iS Mafldatory. The Tax Ageflcy iS the Siflgle, obliged provider of thiS iflfraStructure. The uSe of it iS, hoWever

flot Mafldatory for either public orgaflizatioflS or citizeflS/buSifleSSeS. The deployMeflt of

thiS digital poSt Solutiofl ifl SWedefl haS thuS beefl highly depefldeflt ofl the ifltereStS by public orgaflizatioflS, citizeflS afld buSifleSSeS. HoWever, the fluMberS of Sefldiflg afld

receiviflg uSerS are progreSSiflg fairly SloWly. By Dec. 2015, there Were oflly 9 flatioflal authoritieS that uSe My MeSSageS. Ifl 2014 a deployMeflt proceSS Started for the MuflicipalitieS. At the MoMeflt there are oflly feW MuflicipalitieS that uSe My MeSSageS.

1. Comparative analySiS

The digitizatiofl approach of the three Scafldiflaviafl coufltrieS haS provefl to be rather diSSiMilar, Which iS clearly depicted ifl the three SlogaflS for the e-goverflMeflt StrategieS:

DK: “Those than can must”; NO: Digital as first choice; SE: As simple as possible for civil servants and citizens.

BeloW, We coMpare the three differeflt approacheS related to policy, deSigfl afld effect.

• 1. Policy

The DafliSh, NorWegiafl afld SWediSh e-goverflMeflt policieS cafl be placed ofl a

cofltifluuM froM Mafldatory to volufltary. DeflMark exertS a Mafldatory Strategy, cefltrally cofltrolled by the MifliStry of Fiflaflce ifl a Much cloSed Maflfler, priMarily

Seekiflg cefltral goverflMeflt coSt reductioflS by legal MeaflS toWardS citizeflS.

NorWay, other the other hafld exertS a Softer Strategy; digital coMMuflicatiofl iS the default optiofl, but citizeflS cafl Still chooSe to coMMuflicate by phySical Mail. Ifl SWedefl, the citizeflS May chooSe freely Whether the Will receive digital Mail or flot.

A. Jansen et al. / First Choice, Free Choice or No Choice 141

Table 2. E-government policy attributes for the Scandinavian countries.

The public iflStitutiofl haS the reSpoflSibility to eflSure that the digital MeSSage haS beefl coMMuflicated afld every public iflStitutiofl iS obliged to coMply With the digital

coMMuflicatiofl Strategy. Evefl Softer, the SWediSh approach haS beefl developed bottoM-up through the fleedS of public iflStitutioflS to reduce coStS coMMuflicatiflg With

citizeflS. ThiS Strategy haS beefl that digital coMMuflicatiofl Should be volufltary afld SiMple to uSe for both public iflStitutioflS afld citizeflS.

While citizeflS caflflot deMafld digital coMMuflicatiofl ifl DeflMark or SWedefl, NorWay haS a More citizefl-cefltric approach, Where citizeflS actually cafl deMafld digital

coMMuflicatiofl if thiS iS Supported by the ifldividual ageflcieS. DeflMark haS choSefl a rapid iMpleMefltatiofl period, aiMiflg at digitiziflg 80% of public coMMuflicatiofl Withifl

3 yearS. Further, DeflMark haS reduced cefltral (State) fufldiflg of public iflStitutioflS

accordiflg to aflticipated coSt reductioflS prior to the iMpleMefltatiofl period. NorWay haS choSefl a Softer iMpleMefltatiofl Strategy: coMply or explaifl Why flot; WhereaS digital coMMuflicatiofl ifl SWedefl evolveS dyflaMically accordiflg to fleedS afld opportuflitieS.

• 1. Design

The deSigfl choiceS May alSo be partly grouflded ifl the overall approacheS of the

three coufltrieS, depicted ifl the three SlogaflS above. While exeMptiofl for citizeflS cafl oflly be graflted ifl the DafliSh caSe if citizeflS actively Meet at toWfl hall afld declare that

they do flot poSSeSS a coMputer, NorWegiafl citizeflS cafl be exeMpt oflly be oMittiflg to

regiSter their eMail addreSS. Cofltrary, the SWediSh citizeflS that Waflt to coMMuflicate digitally actively fleed to regiSter. For the buSifleSSeS Sector, ifl both DeflMark afld

NorWay, buSifleSSeS are obliged to coMMuflicate digitally Without poSSibility of beiflg

exeMpt. A receflt DafliSh iflveStigatiofl of uSer-friefldlifleSS of buSifleSS-orieflted digital SolutioflS revealed that big coMpaflieS fifld DafliSh Digital PoSt (e-BokS) too reStricted

for iflStaflce due to lack of iflterflal operatioflS of MeSSageS afld lack of role-baSed uSer

profileS; WhereaS ofle-perSofl coMpaflieS fifld the Solutiofl to coMplex [25]. The NorWegiafl GoverflMeflt haS folloWed a More traflSpareflt approach, Specifyiflg the

requireMefltS ifl the legal docuMefltS. The private coMpafly e-BokS A/S (that operated

the DafliSh MTS) WaS authorized ifl NorWay, but had to adjuSt the DafliSh verSiofl of the Solutiofl to be able to coMply With NorWegiafl requireMefltS [15]. The SWediSh Solutiofl lackS requireMefltS’ traflSpareflcy Siflce the developMeflt WaS afl ifl-houSe project.

142 A. Jansen et al. / First Choice, Free Choice or No Choice

Table 3. E-government design attributes for the Scandinavian countries

• 1. Effects

The three coufltrieS have progreSSed differefltly ifl the iMpleMefltatiofl proceSSeS. Heflce, a coMpariSofl of effectS caflflot be Made directly. The adoptiofl ifl DeflMark

developed SloWly the firSt yearS, aS ShoWfl ifl table 1. The Majority of public iflStitutioflS Were regiStered ifl 2010, hoWever the fluMber of Seflt MeSSageS Were loW iflitially, but

have iflcreaSed ifl the tWo laSt yearS. The NorWegiafl developMeflt reSeMbleS SoMeWhat

the firSt yearS of the DafliSh iMpleMefltatiofl proceSS, See alSo table 1. HoWever, there haS beefl iflitiated a public caMpaigfl to accelerate the adoptiofl rate. SiMilarly, SWedefl

haS a fairly SloW pace of uptake due to volufltarifleSS.

The direct ecofloMic beflefitS of the DafliSh Digital PoSt project haS flot beefl officially evaluated, but Siflce the GoverflMeflt haS reduced the State fufldiflg of public

iflStitutioflS froM beforehafld, the project haS reduced public coStS froM 2013 to 2015 by More thafl 800 Milliofl DKK. Afl evaluatiofl ifl 2013 foufld a direct deficit of More thafl

100 Milliofl DKK due to public iflStitutioflS flot beiflg able to Sefld aS Mafly digital poStS aS aflticipated. The NorWegiafl or SWediSh projectS do flot have thiS autoMatic reductiofl of State fufldiflg afld beflefitS froM the digitizatiofl project haS flot beefl eStiMated.

A recogflized probleM ifl the DafliSh caSe iS that citizeflS afld buSifleSSeS do flot acceSS their digital coMMuflicatiofl. For iflStaflce, the Share of flofl-held Mafldatory

vehicle iflSpectioflS WaS raiSed by 50% Whefl DafliSh Police Started uSiflg digital coMMuflicatiofl afld plate-reMoval of vehicleS doubled [17]. Civil ServafltS report that

citizeflS perceive both poSitive afld flegative coflSequeflceS, afld that SoMe civil ServafltS

fifld the digital Service to citizeflS So poor that they refraifl froM uSiflg it [5]. Evefl ifl 2014 civil ServafltS perceive afl iflcreaSed Work load due to digital coMMuflicatiofl.

6 ConcluSionS

The cofltiflual Shift to digital coMMuflicatiofl ifl SocietieS iS appareflt ifl the three Scafldiflaviafl coufltrieS. Digital poSt SolutioflS have beefl iMpleMeflted to puSh

coMMuflicatiofl betWeefl public iflStitutioflS afld citizeflS/buSifleSS to Such digital chaflflelS. There are SiMilaritieS betWeefl the three coufltrieS, but aS haS beefl ShoWfl ifl

thiS paper, there are alSo Sigflificaflt differeflceS. All three coufltrieS are drivefl by the

idea of a “digital firSt choice”, Which MeaflS that citizeflS Should priMarily uSe digital MeaflS for their coMMuflicatiofl With the public Sector. But Whefl Such a “choice” iS

Made Mafldatory, aS ifl DeflMark, there iS actually flo choice. Ifl NorWay, there are policy afld iflfraStructural arraflgeMefltS to Make the uSe of digital poSt aS a firSt, but Still real choice. Ifl SWedefl, there are oflly flofl-coercive policy declaratioflS about digital

A. Jansen et al. / First Choice, Free Choice or No Choice 143

firSt choice. Afl iflfraStructure for digital poSt haS beefl rolled out, but the Strategy iS to let public iflStructioflS afld exterflal uSerS to chooSe freely hoW to coMMuflicate. To chooSe digital poSt ifl SWedefl MuSt be afl active choice.

ReferenceS

1. Berger, J.B. Mandatory e-government has arrived: The silent protest from staff calls for the committed scholar – resistance must never be futile! in The 25th Australasian Conference on Information Systems. 2014. Auckland, NeW Zealand.
2. Berger, J.B., E-government harm: An assessment of the Danish coercive Digital Post strategy. 2015, Roskilde University.
3. Berger, J.B. and K.N. Andersen, Digital communication with the public sector: Main results from the

study on response and response times in municipalities, counties, State agencies and State departments (Danish). 2013, Aalborg University.

1. Berger, J.B. and K.N. Andersen, More than 100 milion gone with the mail (Danish), C. Burchardt, Editor.

2014: Roskile University.

1. Berger, J.B., M. Hertzum, and T. Schreiber, Does local government staff perceive digital communication with citizens as improved service? "Governtment Information Quarterly, in press".
2. Corbin, J. and A. Strauss, Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Washington DC, 2008. 20083.
3. Fribo, A., Serious critique of digital post: Public institutions can make changes in your in-box (Danish),

in Version2. 2013 : https://WWW.version2.dk/artikel/professor-daarligt-design-underminerer-tilliden-til- digital-post-55137.

1. Fribo, A., The Ombudsman investigates whether Digital Post violates the law - for the second time in four

months (Danish), in Version2. 2014. https://WWW.version2.dk/artikel/ombudsmanden-undersoeger-om- digital-post-er-i-strid-med-loven-anden-gang-paa-fire-maaneder

1. Goldkuhl, G. From policy to design and effects: A framework for e-government research. in 9th Scandinavian Workshop on E-Government, 9-10 February 2012 Copenhagen, Denmark. 2012.
2. Guldagger, M., Single father: Overseen digital post costed me DKK 2800 (Danish), in Politiken. 2013.
3. Henriksen, H.Z., Scrutinizing Open Government Data to Understand Patterns in eGovernment Uptake, in

Electronic Government. 2015, Springer. p. 144-155.

1. Jæger, B. and K. Löfgren, The history of the future: Changes in Danish e-government strategies 1994- 2010. Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, 2010. 15(4): p. 253-269.
2. Kommunal- og moderniseringsdepartementet, Digitaliseringsrundskrivet (Norwegian). 2015, see https://WWW.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/digitaliseringsrundskrivet/id2462793/.
3. Lundström, E., Danish e-Boks is delayed in Norway: Not good enough to the Norwegians, Version2 2014 https://WWW.version2.dk/artikel/dansk-e-boks-forsinket-i-norge-ikke-god-nok-til-nordmaendene-75361.
4. Møllerhøj, J., Experts: Tax Agency should use Digital Post to mitigate phising (Danish. Version2. 2014.
5. Sandal, J.S., Car owners do not chech Digital Post for mandatory vehicle inspections (Danish), in

Version2.2015 https://WWW.version2.dk/artikel/bilejere-tjekker-ikke-digital-post-synsindkaldelser-463536

1. SFS, Regulation on State authorities' application of digitization (Swedish). 2003.
2. Statens Offentliga Utredningar, As simple as possible for as many as possible - e-government from strategy to action (Swedish), SDU, Editor. 2010.
3. Tauber, A., A survey of certified mail systems provided on the Internet. Computers & Security, 2011.

30(6): p. 464-485.

1. The Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work. It was wrong to cancel child payment (Danish). principle decisions 2014 At: http://ast.dk/nyheder/nyheder/ankestyrelsen-forkert-at-stoppe-bornetilskud.
2. The Danish Government, Danish Counties, and Local Government Denmark, The Digital Path to Future Welfare 2011: The Danish Ministry of Finance.

25. The Danish National Audit Agency, Report to the Public Accounts Committee on the usability of public digital self-service for companies (Danish). 2015.

i See http://WWW.digst.dk/Loesninger-og-infrastruktur/Digital-Post

ii See http://WWW.norge.no/nb/velg-digital-postkasse,

iiiSee http://WWW.minameddelanden.se/,http://WWW.minameddelanden.se/mm/digitalpostfranmyndigheter.html