Translations of this page:

Shared Agenda IS for autonomous activities

The specific role of local government, where each local government unit is autonomous in its self-governing activities, has a decisive influence on any sharing in IT. The variety of sizes of municipalities (from counties to the smallest municipalities) has an impact on the size of their departments dealing with ICT. The smallest municipalities that have ICT departments are the municipalities of extended jurisdiction (MECs). In the administrative district of an ORP, the number of entities to which shared services or data are provided is large enough for sharing to be effective, and at the same time the number allows for effective management. The existence of an ICT unit is crucial for the provision of any sharing (services, data). Currently, a number of ORPs already provide such services in their administrative area.

OVS that need to build IT support for self-government agendas and have the necessary facilities (infrastructure, capacity, knowledge) for this, typically ORPs (especially statutory cities and former district cities) or regions, can provide support in small municipalities (type 1 and 2) in their administrative area. This is subject to the conditions set by the changes in legislation that will have to occur for the full implementation of this concept. The same form of sharing is possible between these levels of government in the case of the file service and operational systems, unless small municipalities take advantage of the possibility of sharing central services, if available.

The NAP recommends that municipalities use the administrative districts of the ORP as the basic element for a particular subset of shared services, based on the following assumptions:

  • ORPs are the smallest entities that develop an architectural plan.
  • The administrative district of the ORP is clearly given and all entities that will be affected by sharing in the administrative district are known.
  • The provision of services and data is determined by standards (e.g., for file services).
  • This model is already in place in a number of ORPs.

For other shared services (e.g. long-term storage of documents in electronic digital filing cabinets), the technology centres of the counties can be used, as:

  • They have an established infrastructure
  • They have IT capacity and competence

For other shared services, for example for application services of economic systems or filing services, it will be possible to use SaaS services of eGovernment Cloud in the foreseeable future of 3 years (2022) because:

  • The processes and IT needs in these areas of local government are highly standardised and repeatable, making them well suited for cloud solutions
  • These functions and their support remain the full responsibility of the municipalities and therefore they need a multi-tenant solution

We recommend that counties set up and provide services for municipalities, such as an information filing system.

Publish county center services to the county network and then through the county connector to CMS.

Small municipalities, typically all municipalities of the first and second type, operating less than 10 access devices, are exempted from the obligation to provide computerization of their public administration services and their share of eGovernment on their own.

Enter your comment: