Accenture's fifth annual global e-government study

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2004 key findings Five key findings emerged from our research: • eGovernment advances are diminishing. • eGovernment leaders are reaping tangible savings. • Promoting take-up is taking hold, but the challenge remains. • The integration challenge is changing. • Personalization is emerging. The sections that follow expand on each of these major findings. eGovernment advances are diminishing This year we see clear evidence that with few exceptions eGovernment advances are diminishing. The average maturity increase across all countries in 2004 was 5.6 percent, in comparison to an average of 7.4 percent in 2003 and 11.5 percent in 2002. Former leaders that have made little progress for the past few years now find themselves shoulder to shoulder with countries that once were far behind. In fact, this year the difference in maturity for a large group of countries has dwindled to such a small amount that we have introduced joint rankings to reflect more accurately their juxtaposition. We see this as further evidence of the plateau trend we introduced in last year’s report, eGovernment Leadership: Engaging the Customer. 1 Then we proposed that countries progress through a series of plateaus on their way to full eGovernment maturity. We saw a pattern in which countries would introduce an innovation, make rapid progress and gradually level off as the amount of impact that could come from an unchanged strategy began to diminish. To jump to a new level of maturity, countries had to reassess their priorities and craft a new action plan. Few countries this year showed they had made a true jump in maturity. 1 For a copy of eGovernment Leadership: Engaging the Customer, visit www.accenture.com/xd/xd.aspit=enweb&xd=newsroom\epresskit\ e<strong>government</strong>\egov_epress.xml 6
For the fourth year in a row, the top three maturity spots were taken by Canada first, followed by Singapore and the United States in a joint secondplace ranking (see Figure 1). Following the three leaders, we see a large cluster of countries within the range of 50 percent to 60 percent overall maturity. Within this group, many of the countries are approximately on equal footing in terms of overall maturity. Australia, Finland, Denmark and Sweden share a fourth-place ranking; the United Figure 1: 2004 overall maturity scores Y2004 OM Score Canada 80 Singapore 67 United States 67 Australia 58 Denmark 58 Finland 58 Sweden 58 France 57 Netherlands 55 United Kingdom 55 Belgium 51 Ireland 51 Japan 51 Germany 50 Norway 49 Spain 49 Malaysia 46 Italy 40 Mexico 37 Portugal 31 Brazil 27 South Africa 18 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 7
Page 1 and 2: The Government Executive Series eGo
Page 3 and 4: Table of contents Foreword.........
Page 5 and 6: Executive summary This is the fifth
Page 7: These challenges will have to be ma
Page 11 and 12: Kingdom and the Netherlands share n
Page 13 and 14: The countries in the mid-range of m
Page 15 and 16: eGovernment for service transformat
Page 17 and 18: eports that electronic filing of re
Page 19 and 20: e-services; advertisements on radio
Page 21 and 22: Building integration from decentral
Page 23 and 24: out with the same level of technica
Page 25 and 26: The citizens’ view Most of govern
Page 27 and 28: preference for Internet contact, su
Page 29: them money. (As detailed in the “
Page 32 and 33: The citizens’ view However, conce
Page 34 and 35: The citizens’ view Overall, users
Page 36 and 37: The citizens’ view Future priorit
Page 39 and 40: Driving value through eGovernment A
Page 41 and 42: The Accenture Public Sector Value M
Page 44 and 45: Innovative practices in eGovernment
Page 58:
Innovative practices in eGovernment
Page 61:
Accenture believes that service tra
Page 64 and 65:
Australia 2004 Rank: 4 (joint) 2003
Page 66 and 67:
Belgium 2004 Rank: 11 (joint) 2003
Page 68 and 69:
Brazil 2004 Rank: 21 2003 Rank: 21
Page 70 and 71:
Canada 2004 Rank: 1 2003 Rank: 1 20
Page 72 and 73:
Denmark 2004 Rank: 4 (joint) 2003 R
Page 74 and 75:
Finland 2004 Rank: 4 (joint) 2003 R
Page 76 and 77:
France 2004 Rank: 8 2003 Rank: 12 2
Page 78 and 79:
Germany 2004: 14 2003 Rank: 10 2002
Page 80 and 81:
Ireland 2004 Rank: 11 (joint) 2003
Page 82 and 83:
Italy 2004 Rank: 18 2003 Rank: 17 2
Page 84 and 85:
Japan 2004 Rank: 11 (joint) 2003 Ra
Page 86 and 87:
Malaysia 2004 Rank: 17 2003 Rank: 1
Page 88 and 89:
Mexico 2004 Rank: 19 2003 Rank: 19
Page 90 and 91:
The Netherlands 2004 Rank: 9 (joint
Page 92 and 93:
Norway 2004 Rank: 15 (joint) 2003 R
Page 94 and 95:
Portugal 2004 Rank: 20 2003 Rank: 2
Page 96 and 97:
Singapore 2004 Rank: 2 (joint) 2003
Page 98 and 99:
South Africa 2004 Rank: 22 2003 Ran
Page 100 and 101:
Spain 2004 Rank: 15 (joint) 2003 Ra
Page 102 and 103:
Sweden 2004 Rank: 4 (joint) 2003 Ra
Page 104 and 105:
The United Kingdom 2004 Rank: 9 (jo
Page 106 and 107:
The United States 2004 Rank: 2 (joi
Page 108 and 109:
Appendix—research methodologies Q
Page 110 and 111:
Appendix—research methodologies O
Page 112:
About Accenture Accenture is a glob
show all

Accenture's fifth annual global e-government study

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?