Digital government and service delivery: An examination of performance and prospects.

Roy, Jeffrey

Introduction

Since the emergence of electronic or digital government two decades ago, the delivery of public services online has been a centrepiece in efforts to leverage the Internet and improve the performance of the public sector. Prodded by comparisons to banks and online retailers, governments at all levels have been enticed by the dramatically lower costs of a transaction online versus one involving mail, a telephone call centre, or in-person service facility. Yet such comparators have also masked a much more complicated story in Canada and elsewhere featuring a complex public segmentation externally and the internal technological and governance challenges of re-organizing and offering services in more virtual and integrated formats (Roy 2006; 2008; Borins et al. 2007; Kernaghan 2013).

The advent of mobility further complicates this landscape since the term can be interpreted in one of two (partially related) manners: first, as a newer online channel via mobile devices that accentuates the search for efficiency as information inquiries and transactions gravitate to such platforms where apps are beginning to rival portals as the main gateway to government services (here again not unlike the evolution of banking and retail); or secondly, as a wider paradigm shift associated with the advent of Gov 2.0 where mobility denotes new forms of public participation and collective engagement in shaping both service design and service evaluation (Roy 2013). Consistent with this second stream, the refashioning of service delivery within an "open government" context reflects this more outward orientation where innovation and collaboration rival efficiency as guiding principles and objectives (Roy 2014a; 2016; Gaseo 2014; Francoli and Clarke 2014).

Drawing upon three inter-related typologies of public sector governance (traditional public administration, new public management, and public value management), this article examines the evolution of a partially digitized sector service architecture, its mixed performance to date and the shifting challenges that lie ahead. Following this introduction, section two presents these three typologies and how they illuminate the emergence of electronic service delivery in Canada. Building on the outward and participative of mobility offered above, the third section of this article probes its more recent emergence within a "Gov 2.0" context and how provincial and federal governments have begun to respond: the inter-relationship between service delivery and open government is a key focus in this regard. Section four then considers the interplay of these various dynamics for the public sector more holistically across jurisdictional boundaries: in a federal environment, to what degree have inter-governmental relations shaped service performance and to what extent do such relations matter going forward? Section five provides some future research directions stemming from this discussion and analysis, followed by a brief conclusion.

Digital service: three governance typologies

The evolution of the service dimension to digital government reflects a set of organizational, technological and cultural cross-currents within the public sector that stem from various layers of digital government reforms in recent years on the one hand, and the traditional foundations of public sector governance on the other hand. These cross-currents can be summarized as tensions between mobility and machinery, the latter reference to the hierarchical and bureaucratic-centric paradigm underpinning traditional public administration (Roy 2013).

Working outside of the confines of digital government--but nonetheless in a complementary manner, Stoker (2006) presents three co-existing typologies of public sector governance that depict these tensions and their implications: traditional public administration (TPA), new public management (NPM), and public value management (PVM). All three typologies are central to the understanding of digital government's service reforms (Dutil et al. 2010; Roy 2013).

Traditional public administration is based upon hierarchical structures and clear delineations of authority between elected officials and public servants (the latter implementing the decisions of the former). Within such an environment, the public is a passive observer, indirectly partaking in governance via electoral mechanisms of representational democracy that enable elected officials to act. There is otherwise little direct involvement of the citizen as government determinations of the public interest are made largely in a centralized manner, within the confines of the executive branch, ideally held to account by the legislative branch (Roy 2008; Aucoin, Jarvis, and Turnbull 2011). Control is the underlying ethos of this form of execution of power and authority (Stoker 2006). With respect to service delivery, the public sector is a monopolistic provider, with standardization and rules determined by bureaucratic oversight in manners that provide little to no autonomy to public managers to account for the specificities of recipients.

New public management has instead emphasized competition as a lever to lessen this over-arching control that--according to proponents, can often lead to bureaucratic bloating and stifled innovation and creativity. Within the contours of NPM decentralized authority is thus preferred in order to enable responsive to "customers" in efforts to improve performance, particularly performance measures of cost and efficiency. Similarly, the outsourcing to industry of various aspects of backend infrastructure and frontline service delivery is highly welcomed in a NPM-stylized world, as are reforms designed to instil more of a business ethos in the workings of the state (Roy 2013; Nam 2014; Rose, Persson, and Heeager 2015). In terms of service delivery, then, the public is viewed through a customer prism and as such, market principles such as responsiveness and convenience imply some freedom and autonomy to public managers to focus more on outcomes measured with a greater consideration of performance rather than process.

By contrast, seeking to move beyond bureaucratic rigidity on the one hand--and the market and competitive doctrine of new public management on the other hand, British theorists have instead turned to public value management (PVM) as a governance prism better suited to more complexity, collaboration, and consultation both within and outside of government. In contrast to TPA and NPM, Stoker describes the discursive and networked essence of PVM:

Unlike the creation of value in the private sector, public value has no bottom line, so in the 'Government world' the creation of public value needs to be assessed through the collective democratic processes and dialogue between citizens, politicians and managers about what is provided at what cost.... The ability of public managers to anchor, or broker, a conversation between citizens and politicians in order to ensure efficient, appropriate and innovatory public service provision is taking place in a more complicated delivery environment (Stoker 2006: 6).

Inspired by such a logic, digital government scholars and enthusiasts have sought a shift in mindset away from an industrial production model of service delivery toward a more participatory and collaborative eco-system of direct citizen involvement (Reddick and Aikins 2012; Harrison et al. 2012; Gasco 2014; Nam 2014). The Government of Singapore similarly invokes the "co-creation of public value between governments and citizens," exemplifying the convergence of Gov 2.0 and public value around both digital and participatory reforms (World Economic Forum 2011). In contrast to TPA and NPM, PVM calls upon public servants "to play an active role in steering networks of deliberation and delivery and maintain the overall capacity of the system" (Stoker 2006: 5). Creativity and collaborative engagement thus rival standardization and market efficiency as guiding principles for designing service delivery.

Yet the three typologies reviewed above can also be viewed as cumulative and interdependent within a modern public sector context that has and continues to be shaped by various waves of political and organizational reforms (table one of Stoker's article provides a useful summary of contrasts across the three typologies). For instance, while embracing NPM through private-public comparisons and industry-inspired technology solutions, the World Economic Forum (WEF) also seeks to supplement NPM with public value management--further defining public value creation as four major and potentially measurable outcomes: first, quality public services are delivered; secondly, socially desirable outcomes are achieved; thirdly, citizens are satisfied with the services and outcomes; and fourthly, trust in government is created and/or increased (ibid.). The latter indicator, trust in government, enjoins PVM and Gov 2.0 within an open and participatory logic consistent emphasizing new forms of public engagement and more networked-based governance systems (Maier-Rabler and Huber 2011; Lee and Kwak 2011; Harrison et al. 2012; Lips 2012; Clarke 2013; Roy 2013; 2014b; 2016; Mergel 2014; Gaseo 2014; Al-Hujran et al. 2015).

In a more applied sense, these emerging and more participatory and also data-driven contours of service innovation are effectively showcased in a recent OECD report, the title of which is illustrative: Rebooting Public Service Delivery: How Can Open Government Data Help to Drive Innovation? (OECD 2015). With respect to open data and its potential for service innovation, for example, the report explains that:

Opening up government data provides indeed the opportunity to involve innovators from inside and outside governments to create innovative ways to tackle old and new problems. This has the potential to increase government efficiency and effectiveness, as well as to innovate the delivery of services and the internal public sector operations. Additionally, the use of new technology and data analytics within the public sector, and the integration of analysis in policy making and in the design of public services, can boost more integrated and innovative service delivery (executive summary).

The ties between open government and mobile service delivery are explored more fully below, drawing from some Canadian examples as well. First, however, it is necessary to examine the evolution of online service delivery for core governmental transactions--and how such online channels have been predominantly shaped by traditional public administration and new public management.

The origins and gravitational inertia of electronic service in Canada

In Canada, the evolution of digital government and electronic service delivery has taken place in a manner largely shaped (until quite recently) by the space in between TPA and NPM. An early example is Service New Brunswick (SNB), a model that paved the way for the creation of Service Canada federally: SNB's autonomy as a provincial crown corporation facilitated a more business-like approach and the formation of unique public-private partnerships (Dutil et al. 2010; Roy 2013). Similarly, arguably the most successful federal agency processing online services--the Canada Revenue Agency, had been previously transformed from a traditional department into an operationally autonomous agency precisely to add a dose of NPM-inspired flexibility and innovation that would prove effective in championing online tax services (ibid.).

Nonetheless, new public management would also encounter important limitations and blockages as e-government took hold, due to pressures for interoperability and more cross-governmental coordination that lead to centralizing tendencies. Yet despite such pressures, Service Canada languished and was never able to fully achieve separate governance status in a manner consistent with either Service New Brunswick provincially or Canada Revenue Agency federally (ibid.). Thus, Service Canada became the service integrator for all or most federal services in name only, but without the legislative or organizational capacities to act meaningfully in such a manner. The contradictory impacts led to a significant underperformance of Service Canada as an enabler of online delivery (Auditor General of Canada 2013), and a largely stunted digitizing agenda for the federal government's service architecture and back-office infrastructure (Roy 2013). Similar findings characterize the country's largest provincial government of Ontario where--despite the more formal creation of a centralized departmental structure responsible for government-wide service functions (Service Ontario), the uptake of electronic services has been gradual and well short of the entity's own performance targets in this regard (Auditor General of Ontario 2013).

Despite such difficulties, this customer driven logic of service delivery remains an important focal point for government strategists, scholars, and the various private consultancies and vendors that inform the digitization of the public sector service eco-system (Rose, Persson, and Heeager 2015). Whereas the governance structures of the service entities are often embedded in horizontal and vertical tensions rooted in TPA, those deploying a more NPM-inspired lens instead focus on the technical design and performance of the service channels themselves (Osman et al. 2014; Nam 2014). Other scholars argue that within this e-government context shaped predominantly by TPA and NPM pressures, bureaucratic structures remain essential to the state apparatus and should not be viewed as fund am en tally at odds with the deployment of new digital technologies (Cordelia and Tempini 2015).

Spurred by the creation of Government Digital Service, a unit of the Cabinet Office, the UK's digital by default effort is an example of notable effort to further service efforts within such paradigms, centralizing government leadership and competencies organizationally in order to refurbish delivery channels technologically. Central to this effort, aimed at an improved customer experience, is the embracement and deployment of mobile-friendly service channels to complement existing online capacities.

Shaped once again by TPA and NPM pressures, the outcomes sought and emphasized are efficiency savings for government, and greater convenience and integration for the public. Consistent with such pressures and the aforementioned Canadian experiences, such savings are nonetheless contested as their realization has become embroiled in various transition costs and the ongoing necessity of multi-channel maintenance that most all governments face (Roy 2014b; Rose, Persson, and Heeager 2015).

Such pressures and opportunities also underscore the need for a broad rethinking of service design and delivery, as well as creating new space between NPM and PVM. As articulated by these British scholars writing in collaboration with the UK Government's Chief Technology Officer:

Bringing existing services online is an easy place to start, but it is only a first step. Existing services may need to be radically altered, and completely new services become possible to meet changing citizen expectations. Many new pressures will emerge as government begins to better understand the services citizens need and want in the digital age. This represents the largest challenge, requiring new skills and capabilities in how public services are designed, operated and maintained (Brown, Fishenden, and Thompson 2014).

In recognition of this reframing, Accenture has shifted its global comparative rankings scheme (arguably a global flagship example of NPM-inspired service reforms in the nascent electronic government era) away from more traditional and linear customer service metrics towards efforts to capture these broadened contours:

Public services need to increasingly involve citizens in the service design--engaging them through online platforms (both to educate and to gain citizen inputs) and for expanding their options. Our Citizen Satisfaction Survey results showed that all governments need to proactively seek and secure citizen involvement. Even in Germany, which has the lowest score in this category, 64 percent of surveyed citizens believe that people should be more involved in shaping how public services are designed and delivered (Accenture 2014: 22).

Consistent with PVM, therefore, such evidence suggests that in a Web 2.0 era shaped by social media and other direct forms of engagement (such as apps and third party review sites) between companies and customers, the public is at the very least anticipating such a voice in shaping public services as well. The advent of openness as an ethos, moreover, in technological as well as governance systems, invariably reinforces such participative notions (as highlighted by the OECD report in the background section above and in the exploration of open government and public engagement below).

Openness and engagement in public value creation

One modest example of a shift toward some elements of PVM is the Province of British Columbia where a public consultation launched by Service BC (the lead service provider akin to Service Canada and Service Ontario) is indicative of such an outward approach toward engagement and service reform. (1) The Government of British Columbia formed a citizen's "user panel" to examine options and directions for the new Citizen's Service Card. (2) In late 2013, the Province also undertook a wider public dialogue with the citizenry on the future ramifications of electronic service delivery, leading to a number of detailed recommendations to the Government and a Ministerial response in kind.

The context for such an exercise is the continual evolution of identity management to facilitate electronic--and increasingly in many jurisdictions, mobile credentials for online services. Outside of Canada, there is an important correlation between the level of openness and public and stakeholder engagement and the introduction and adoption of mobile credentials for identity management and service delivery platforms shared across industry and government (Roy 2014b). While BC's ambitions were more modest and centred on the existing card technology (that is, a digital chip inserted onto a physical card), such openness and engagement are arguably important enablers of collective learning and the deliberative networks amongst managers and citizens that Stoker portrays as central to the governance logic of PVM. Indeed, the Service BC exercise was viewed by the Province as an important enabler of providing more integrated and enjoined services via electronic means (the new Services card thus replaces and combines the previously separate health card and driver's licenses, though for now citizens may also opt to maintain two separate cards).

Dialogue is thus an imperative in the evolving evolution of service architectures and relationships, especially in light of the mixed results thus far in terms of online service and the varying levels of acceptance more generally to embracing digital channels (Accenture 2014; Roy 2013). Accordingly, if a digital by default strategy of the sort we see in the UK is to be envisioned in BC or other Canadian jurisdictions, public outreach and engagement are important enablers of the collective learning and acceptance required for such a shift.

At the same time, however, as exemplified by the Accenture passage above, PVM is also an essential prism for newer forms of public participation in service innovation, as well as in open government more broadly. Arguably stemming from President Obama's 2009 Inaugural Directive on Openness that enshrined the three principles of transparency, participation and collaboration into the digital government lexicon, such efforts may be viewed as closely aligned with the spirit of more outward and participative governance networks as depicted by PVM. Beyond more efficient and convenient forms of service delivery, the envelope for service innovation is enhanced through new forms of public and stakeholder participation (Lee and Kwak 2011; Francoli and Clarke 2014; Gasco 2014). It is not unrelated here that the Province of BC was the first in Canada to formulate a Gov 2.0 strategy emphasizing this wider prism of citizen involvement.

The provision of open data is an example, where new service relationships and platforms are devised in externalized networks of participative engagement driven by information holdings previously viewed by public sector authorities as proprietary and protected assets (Roy 2014c; 2016). Building upon efforts in various US locales, the movement began locally in Canada as well, with many municipalities following Edmonton's lead in creating open government frameworks including apps competitions to spur both open data usage and apps development in ways that create public value (ibid.). Many Provinces, including BC, have since fallen suit.

In an example illustrating at least the potential for enjoining traditional online service strategies and open government, Service Alberta has led that Province's Open Government effort via a newly created senior management position, the Chief Open Government Advisor. His efforts have been based upon the three inter-related principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration, the participative dimension explicitly embracing the codesign of policies and services with the citizenry in a manner consistent with the preceding Singapore example and likeminded scholarly efforts seeking "ubiquitous engagement" as the ultimate objective of open government efforts (Lee and Kwak 2011).

Spurred by such models domestically on the one hand, and by the emergence of an international network of countries committed to open government principles on the other hand, the Government of Canada released its own Open Government Action Plan in 2012, having since updated it to include a series of initiatives and objectives for the timeframe of 2014-2016. (3) The action plan is based upon three inter-related dimensions: information, data, and dialogue. Whereas "information" centres mainly upon transparency about government operations and research, "data" is most closely associated with online technologies and open data platforms in line with the strategies of many Canadian municipalities. Finally, "dialogue" is based upon the engagement of citizens in democratic governance, thereby illuminating at least the potential for inter-linkages between open government, public participation and service innovation (Lee and Kwak 2011; Roy 2016).

Yet how does dialogue--central to PVM, shape service delivery, especially in a digital and mobile world where service is fashioned first and foremost as a "customer" experience? Much arguably depends on the type of service experience being sought by or imposed upon the citizen. A thorough discussion of service categories as they pertain to digital government's evolution is provided by Dunleavy (2010). To illustrate the importance of service differentiation to the relevance and importance of dialogue, we contrast three somewhat distinct categories of service experiences: informational, transactional and developmental.

Three types of service provision

The provision of information, for example, on government programs and services can be improved through user-driven dialogues leading to improvements in government portal design and performance, much as apps competition which have new become commonplace across all government levels can gather and showcase information in new ways. Indeed, perhaps the most promising source of efficiency savings, illustrating how PVM and NPM can also be intertwined, stemming from the introduction of mobile service channels over the short and medium term is the ability for the public to seek information on their own, not only empowering but also more efficient as reduced call centre volumes and physical service inquiries result (Roy 2014b). The growing usage of mobile apps by public authorities is indicative of this trend with a predominantly informational purpose thus far, but with some aspirations emerging for transactional and developmental service usages as well (Ganapati 2015).

In terms of transactional services, there is evidence that Canada is lagging behind other jurisdictions in the availability of public service transactions online in a mobile friendly manner: that is, services processes via mobile devices rather than a traditional personal computer (Accenture 2014; Roy 2014b). The aforementioned Service BC experience is indicative of how public dialogue can contribute to wider public acceptance and understanding of mobile platforms for public services--as we see across retail and financial sectors (though it once again bears noting that the 2013 Service BC exercise did was essentially pre-mobile in its focus and orientation). Clearly, a wider national dialogue on payment systems and mobile credentials would be called for if governments are to embrace more mobile solutions going forward, a theme returned to further below in terms of evolving inter-governmental dynamics.

In a separate manner displaying synergies between NPM and PVM, the creation of digital labs by service providers in both the private and public sectors is further evidence of efforts to incorporate the user experience more fundamentally into processes for innovation and thus the co-creation of public value (recent and current examples from the financial, retail and government sectors include the Bank of Nova Scotia--and its new "digital factory" in Toronto, Canadian Tire in Waterloo, Ontario, and the Province of New Brunswick in a collaborative effort with a number of local technology companies). Here again, the creation of mobile apps is one related aspect, as both a platform for electronic services that a growing cadre of citizens now seek to complete via mobile devices as opposed to personal computers, as well as more collaborative and innovative forms of service design linking mobile channels with social media as a basis for crowd-sourcing greater customer-citizen involvement (Roy 2014b; 2016; Nam 2014; Ganapati 2015).

Lastly, with respect to developmental services ranging from training and development to social assistance programs of various sorts, it is arguably here where there lies the greatest potential for linking service innovation to digitization and mobility. The Danish Government, for example, provides one prospective window on what it defines as the "digital path toward future welfare"--an integrative and holistic strategy explicitly linking digital and mobile government to wider social and economic developmental efforts and objectives (cataloguing such measures from 2011-2015 (4)). Denmark's unique degree of digital inclusion stems in part from an aggressive roll-out of digitized administration and mandatory online interactions with citizens (mandatory in electronic form as of 2015) and companies (mandatory since the beginning of 2013).

The suppression of paper-based transacting creates transitional challenges that the Danish Government, for example, has sought to recognize and address:

This major step towards eGovernment will require considerable changes to the way public authorities work, and a certain degree of acclimatization from citizens. However, the transition will take place gradually, as user-friendly eGovernment solutions are introduced in more and more areas. Help will be available for citizens who find it hard to use the new solutions (ibid.).

Even in the relative digital ubiquity of Denmark, such help requires recognizing and addressing many barriers that stand in the way of achieving full digital inclusion (Jaeger 2012). A better understanding of the skill deficiencies and varying motives of those presently displaced from online processes can thus enable an appropriate mix of incentives both positive and negative, the critical twofold finding from Denmark being that: digital inclusion necessitates political attention and specific policy actions linking together traditional e-government strategies with education and social and developmental assistance; and accordingly, the digital divide is unlikely to eradicate itself naturally through technological and mobile evolution (Roy 2014b).

The advent of mobility and Gov 2.0--and the specific efforts being developed by jurisdictions such as Singapore, Great Britain and Denmark, would suggest that digital inclusion is increasingly recognized as a challenge meriting recognition and action. A closely related point is that the maintenance of a multi-channel service apparatus may not only be increasingly costly, but also detrimental to social cohesion and wider socio-economic developmental capacities going forward. Finally, one can postulate that any proposed reforms to the existing apparatus of social development and assistance be understood and examined within an integrative prism of traditional government supports and programs and the digital and participatory contours of Gov 2.0 and mobility.

New government--new mindset?

As previously discussed, the prior Conservative Government's record on service delivery and innovation features tepidness on the part of Service Canada with respect to online service offerings--and the creation of an Open Government architecture that emphasized open data and limited forms of apps-centric innovation to make usage of such data. The Conservatives, moreover, faced constant criticism for a lack of information openness, and made no significant effort to pursue the principle of dialogue in an expanded and meaningful way beyond its inclusion and recognition as a central dimension of its Open Government Framework.

The Liberals, by contrast, made information openness a hallmark of their campaign and it permeates many of the Ministerial Letters published by the new Government following the election. With respect to the delivery of core government services, the following directive is the first assigned to the new President of the Treasury Board:

Establish new performance standards, in collaboration with the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, who is responsible for Service Canada, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the Minister of Democratic Institutions, and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, and set up a mechanism to conduct rigorous assessments of the performance of key government services and report findings publicly. As well, develop a new service strategy that aims to create a single online window for all government services with new performance standards. (5)

What is perhaps most notable about its passage is its reliance on language and direction that harps back to a previous era of Liberal Government launching e-government and online service in the late 1990s. The last line suggests the potential for a newly empowered Service Canada, though it bears noting that Treasury Board is the implied leader of what is nonetheless envisioned to be a collaborative effort of the various Ministries assigned to the effort. Yet "a single online window for all government services" may increasingly be out of step with more contemporary governance realities--including mobile platforms and applications and new opportunities afforded by mobility to bundle public and private services in new ways as many leading European jurisdictions ranging from Scandinavian countries to Estonia and others are attempting to do (Roy 2014a). Accordingly, a service portal may be misaligned with a more evolving service ecosystem comprising public, private and non-profit actors and corresponding partnership arrangements (as well as inter-jurisdictional arrangements within the public sector, a separate topic addressed more fully below).

Through the lens of PVM and from a more optimistic vantage point, the shared assignation of the same directive for a new service strategy across multiple Ministers, including the Minister of Democratic Institutions, perhaps suggests some new space and energies eventually being afforded to the dialogue or discursive dimensions of the pursuit of both open government and service improvement in tandem. Yet overall the traditional presentation of service improvement coupled with an overall lack of architectural change for government-wide digital innovation suggests that at least initially, digital government and its service dimension shall continue to evolve primarily within the confines of TPA and NPM. If this characterization holds, by implication the most likely framing and pursuit of more mobile government will be a continuance of the status quo: namely, apps deployed for mainly informational provisions with some eventual extension into some types of transactional services, but a more limited exploration of mobility's potential impacts of service innovation for developmental services and for new and more outward and collaborative forms of service design. This latter characterization carries wider ramifications for the inter-jurisdictional governance of public sector service delivery.

Political federalism versus federalizing service

The first significant e-government strategy put forth by the federal government in the late 1990's, Government Online (under the Connecting Canadians rubric) included a specific pledge to provide services both online and integrated across all government levels within a time-span of roughly five years. Such a pledge became largely vacuous, however, in the absence of any meaningful governance mechanism to enjoin provinces and the federal government in any such collaborative effort. Moreover, with the significant challenges of creating online channels and Service Canada as an aspiring (and ultimately modest) service integrator, and the subsequent realignment of government spending priorities in the face of 9-11, there is little evidence that such inter-jurisdictional collaboration ever became a serious priority during this first phase of online service delivery (Roy 2006; Langford and Roy 2008).

Since that time, there has been a significant amount of largely informal cooperation across federal, provincial and even municipal governments via the Joint Councils (the Public Sector Service Delivery Council and the Chief Information Officer's Council, two voluntary bodes comprising government officials from all government levels). The Councils have even spurred several concrete initiatives, perhaps most notably the creation and funding of the Institute for Citizen-Centred Service (ICCSS), the Council's Secretariat and the organization responsible for the design and conduct of the flagship surveys, Citizen's First, and Service to Business (an annual and detailed measurement tool of public satisfaction with government service providers). Additionally, a few pilot initiatives have been created to both share and coordinate information online and in some limited instances, begin to integrate transactional processes for such life events as the birth of a newborn child (where the application process for a federally-issues social insurance number and a provincial birth certificate are streamlined into a single process facilitated either online or via an electronic kiosk in a hospital).

The example of BizPaL (www.bizpal.ca) is illustrative of both the potential and the present reality of such inter-jurisdictional cooperation. Lauded several years ago as an integrated portal for new business creation (in any signatory community, a person can potentially ascertain the licensing requirements of creating a new business for all government levels), the site has since languished as a largely static and linear model of a website devoid of any of the Gov 2.0 interactive potential and functionality discussed in the preceding section. Apart from a business registration number application process now shared across the federal Canada Revenue Agency and many Provinces, most regulatory and licensing processes remain independent within their specified jurisdiction. The BizPaL website, furthermore, underscores its own limitations by disclaiming that it cannot ensure that its information provision is entirely up-to-date and accurate. Beyond BizPaL, moreover, most all forms of government assistance and incentives ranging from training and development to regional incentives and innovation programs continue to remain fragmented across jurisdictions both in terms of their execution as well as their presentation online via largely separate online apparatuses.

For both services to individuals and services to businesses, then, such are the realities of federalism and the fragmentation of identity management across provincial and federal governments (that is, social insurance numbers and passports federally as separate from birth registration, driver's licenses and health cards administered provincially). While each government level has sought to upgrade their own identity credentials (a new microchip on federal passports and an effort by the federal government to facilitate the usage of banking credentials on government sites, as well as the BC Service's Card example), despite several studies undertaken by the Joint Councils over the past decade examining the need and requirements of a national system, there has been no meaningful effort to move toward a more integrated framework. This observation is not surprising considering the previous Conservative Government's cautious stance toward federal-provincial relations, and their general aversion to government overtly seeking personal information as underlined by examples such as the long form census and the gun registry among others.

On the one hand, there is a case to be made that such fragmentation is not especially detrimental, merely reflecting different governmental responsibilities and processes that a reasonably well-informed citizen should be able to understand. Much like an individual interacts with several private sector service providers--most often with separate identity management requirements for each type of encounter or transaction, such is the case in the public realm. Yet on the other hand, as we have seen governments have not fared especially well in achieving their own milestones for online service, and the private sector is, in many instances, becoming a good deal more portable and user-friendly in providing a seamless experience across online platforms, social media platforms, and mobile devices. The advent of mobile payment solutions is a case in point: countries accelerating their usage of mobile services are typically doing so via platforms and solutions shared across the public and private sectors, especially amongst governments, financial institutions and mobile phone providers (Roy 2014b; Chant 2015).

Paper payments and physical payments

Two specific elements of the Canadian environment are also noteworthy for their potential detrimental impacts on public sector digital service innovation going forward: the relative enshrinement of paper-based payment systems in Canada and the plethora of physical government service facilities that continue to operate, most especially in urban centres.

The first issue--paper-based payment systems, has been well examined as of late by the CD Howe Institute which points to not only inefficiencies but a lack of systemic adaptation to newer innovations that may lessen not only overall growth prospects for the economy but also social cohesion and human development as society grows increasingly segmented between those embracing digital processes and those unable or unwilling to do so (Chant 2015). Such reliance on paper is closely intertwined with the gravitational inertia of in-person service centres that still play a large role in the multi-government, multi-channel service apparatus (along with an engrained usage of telephony). Thus, online channels have not been especially championed or incentivized (as discussed above) with governments arguably, in some instances, victims of their own relative success. If a person can expect reasonably efficient service via the familiarity of a government service centre, with no additional cost and reasonable waiting times (often posted online to facilitate informed scheduling), the attractiveness of going online for what is likely to be an infrequent transaction (such as renewing a driver's license every few years) is dramatically reduced (especially for those in post-millennial generations).

Such challenges and costs are compounded across government levels where the co-location of different government service entities remains much more exceptional than the norm (and typically such co-location implies separate front-counter experiences rather than a truly seamless experience). A typical mid-size Canadian city such as Halifax, for example, is home to various Service Canada offices, along with separate locations for Access Nova Scotia and Halifax Municipal centres. Additionally, there are numerous Canada Post outlets (Australia Post, by contrast, is the front-counter delivery agent for state government services there), a Passport Canada office as well as a myriad of financial service centres ranging from traditional banks to new intermediaries located within retailers such as grocery stores and Canadian Tire.

The case of Veteran's Affairs is a particularly instructive example of the risks for governments seeking consolidation and efficiency, as the previous federal government faced significant resistance and criticism for attempting to close various offices serving limited clienteles, often in smaller and rural communities, and subsume such services within the confines of Service Canada. Without diverging too far down this path, it is nonetheless worth observing that the manner by which the government acted was typically traditional public administration in its top-down and technocratic manner, with minimal consultation with the impacted constituencies. Had the Government instead sought to embrace a more public value management orientation (consistent with the spirit of the Service BC public consultation process for example, it seems reasonable to presume that it might had found a basis for compromise, accommodation and adaptive innovation going forward.

From a European vantage point, Osimo contrasts centralized bureaucratic responses of nation-states with more shared forms of experimentation and adaptation facilitated by a philosophy of "horizontal subsidiarity": "One of the great advantages of Web 2.0 is that it lowers the cost of errors, as very little investment is needed to launch a collaboration..." (Osimo 2008: 47). As one modest step in such directions, the German e-government strategy (2010-2015), for example, states quite clearly that "the constructive collaboration of stakeholders in industry, municipalities, the federal states and central government and also many citizens' initiatives make a major contribution to rolling out broadband networks." Moreover, building on a shared "internetwork" across federal and state governments completed in 2012, the German strategy commits to "seamless, multi-tier administration."

While a detailed examination of European governance lies outside of the contours of this article, the essential point is the absence of any such renewal to the federalist mechanisms of this country. Such challenges continue to pervade present service innovation efforts, as with the example of service innovation labs that have begun to populate provincial and federal governments (a key function of such labs being to spur service improvement through novel forms of public engagement and collective innovation). While a single, national lab for the entire public sector is unlikely to prove either feasible or optimal (as it would invariably be shaped by the traditionalism of TPA), what would be of potentially huge benefit is a collaborative interface across such initiatives to facilitate learning and spur shared pilot initiatives. A similar logic applies to the mainly disjointed set of open data portals that populate the public sector at present, though here it does bear noting that public servants working within open government teams have made strides in collaborating on shared technological infrastructures, facilitated by the widening accessibility of open source tools and solutions.

This latter example--combined with the aforementioned Joint Councils provide a tentative basis of what's required to spur service improvement and innovation across jurisdictional boundaries. Yet in the absence of more formalized governance mechanisms--requiring political as well as administrative elements, traditionalism will remain prevalent, resulting in light forms of informal cooperation rather than deepened collaboration. It once again bears noting that the highly traditional language of the new federal government's Ministerial mandate letters, with respect to service reforms, makes no mention of an inter-jurisdictional dimension to such efforts.

A renewed research agenda

Since the inception of e-government (or digital government) nearly twenty years ago, progress toward more online service delivery has been both uneven and contested in many countries both developed and developing. This bumpy and uncertain path stems not only from the internal complexities of introducing new technologies and aligning them with new and often shared or horizontal governance models, but also an increasingly segmented society across those embracing online solutions and now mobile devices quickly and enthusiastically, and those doing so at a much more gradual pace. Add to this landscape, the reluctance of many governments to move beyond the "channel of choice" philosophy of channel maintenance, as well as the absence of more integrative and collaborative governance mechanisms across jurisdictions, the determinants of Canada's stagnating performance become apparent.

The arrival of a new federal government presents the potential makings of a new chapter in digital government and service innovation, although the early signs are mixed in this regard. Moreover, with an increasingly fragile economic and fiscal climate, it remains to be seen the degree to which investments in digital channels and a renewed service apparatus galvanize political investment (that in turn shapes public service action and priorities). At least early on, there would appear to be some risk that provincial and local clamouring for new federal investments into more traditional forms of infrastructure (that is, water and transportation systems), coupled with national priorities such as health care and climate change, may well overshadow the appetite for--and ultimately investments into, digital leadership and capacities. As the comparative examples in this article, as well as the domestic analysis of the CD Howe Institute with respect to financial payment systems clearly show, the challenge is also not one for the public sector alone. A more concerted set of efforts encompassing all sectors--industry, government, and a more engaged citizenry, will largely determine whether the service delivery eco-system for the country receives a significant impetus for reform and innovation or rather continues along a much more trepid and incremental path.

From a research perspective, public sector stakeholders must move beyond traditional and increasingly dated forms of public satisfaction surveys that seek to measure performance through either polling on the one hand, or static and highly simplistic exit surveys upon transactional completion. New forms of experimentation with the co-production of public value require an appetite for seeking to engage the public more directly in the evaluation of services as well as their design and implementation. While open government efforts to create apps competitions are indicative of this shift, a more fundamental embracement of public involvement is called for, especially via the participatory platforms of mobile devices and social media that carry great potential to leverage collective innovation for public value creation.

Through an applied lens, there is an urgent need in Canada for key public sector stakeholders (notably the Institute for Citizen-Centred Service, ICCS) to explore newer and more novel methodologies for gauging service improvement and facilitating service innovation. While ICCS deserves immense credit for pioneering the public sector value service chain and its corresponding reliance on Citizen's First surveys, these tools have done little to spur governments into widening digital innovation efforts and specifically incentivizing digital channels (in a manner akin, for example, to the UK's Digital by Default initiative). Instead, Citizen's First surveys arguably reinforce the sort of complacency that has led to the under-performance of Canada's public sector in the digital realm (Auditor General of Canada 2013; Auditor General of Ontario 2013; Accenture 2014). It should also be acknowledged there that a key constraint in this regard is the absence of more political buy-in and support for digitization, a reality that at least to date seemingly remains largely unchanged (as discussed above).

A refurbished ICCS role for research should instead focus more squarely on existing and emerging directions including: i) identifying and overcoming major impediments to greater digital services uptake (including incentives for those citizens online and special support programs and for those unable or unwilling to be online); ii) a greater dissection of process and performance across service types (such as those categories discussed above); iii) an analysis of the links between open government and service innovation (and how new data analytics capacities both inside and outside of government can facilitate innovative service design, especially in the most complex forms of developmental services); and iv) prototyping new forms of public participation in service design and evaluation, participation that is consistent with the advent of co-creation and public value management.

This fourth direction aligns closely with the creation of public sector innovation labs in many jurisdictions both federally and provincially--and suggests an important synergy between service innovation in the digital realm, and new design methodologies such as those discussed in Peter Jones' contribution to this special issue. In practice, an example such as the Alberta CoLab has explicitly sought to align the development of an open government strategy with more participative forms of service and policy innovation. The likeminded initiative in New Brunswick (nb +) is forging a similar path, creating new links between the traditional provincial service provider (Service New Brunswick) and external constituencies comprising the innovative ecosystem of the "smart province" (the umbrella term of the Province itself). Such initiatives provide fertile ground for case study investigation and for active experimentation in applying new design and co-creation principles to public sector service delivery. Such an area, furthermore, is ripe for inter-sectoral partnerships and inter-disciplinary research teams (the essence of the innovation labs themselves).

From a more traditional academic vantage point, more qualitative and quantitative study of online behaviour would contribute to a richer understanding of the factors shaping the public's willingness to engage with governments online--both in a technical sense (that is, the online interface and channel performance) and a social and political sense (that is, the sharing of personal data in exchange for the perceived and ultimately demonstrated creation of public value). Comparisons across industries and the public sector are also important sources of learning as retail and financial organizations outpace government service providers in not only facilitating virtual transactions but also engaging customers (in the marketplace context) in discursive and community-building endeavours designed to create private value (as distinct from, but not unrelated to notions of public value). Comparative studies across jurisdictions, both domestic and international would further illuminate ways in which governments in Canada can further improve their own service capacities while also orchestrating the conditions for wider public learning and systemic governance adaptation. A recent report by the OECD provides useful comparative illumination in this regard, while also showcasing the widening links between open government, data-driven analysis, and service innovation (OECD 2015).

With respect to conceptualizing digital government and an evolving service eco-system enjoining governments and a range of other stakeholders, it does bear underscoring that traditional public administration, new public management, and public value management will all continue to exert significant influence on government efforts going forward. Understanding the internal administrative and political dynamics owed to each typology, as well as their interplay also denotes a critical dimension of scholarly research that can shed light on the degree to which the public sector is serious in viewing public value as a more open and participatory endeavour (or instead whether such aspirations or more rhetorical and constrained by traditional practices and processes). Such ongoing tensions between varying and co-existing public administration and service typologies provide fertile ground for ethnographic and case study research, with some notable and rigorous examples from the UK context providing important illumination in this regard (Dunleavy 2010; Clarke and Margetts 2014). (6)

Lastly, there is an increasingly urgent need to better examine the interrelatedness between technological infrastructure and innovation one the one hand, and service governance architecture on the other hand. As has been made evident in Canada by the ongoing struggles of Shared Services Canada federally (the internal agency responsible for government-wide infrastructure, notably email systems, data base management, and certain components of cyber-security), as well as the closely related Phoenix payroll debacle (separately managed though within the same Public Works and Government Services Ministerial portfolio as Shared Services Canada), any government that is unable to effectively refurbish itself digitally on an internal basis, is likely to be challenged in providing leading-edge service externally.

Part of the challenge here is the mainstream political and managerial orientation of senior public sector leaders to view digital technologies through a prism of efficiency and cost-cutting (and thus a mix of traditional public administration and new public management), certainly the case with respect to Shared Services Canada. By contrast, Millard (2015) makes the case for a more outward and expansive view of digital innovation--one that is highly consistent with the advent of open source technologies and open innovation systems. His notion of "doing more with more" challenges the public sector to orchestrate collective engagement rather than ordain service strategies, in a manner closely aligned with the many examples of the aforementioned OECD report (2015). Importantly, Millard's focus on open source technology platforms as an important enabler is a notable departure from the still-enshrined proprietary bent of much of the public sector digital apparatus, certainly the case in Canada federally and provincially (Roy 2014a). More research is thus required on how a government's technology choices impact its service mindset and channel operations, as well as its ability to devise outward and collective networks for innovative design and adaptation. This point is especially relevant with the advent of the mobile era, and the crowdsourcing logic of apps development as well as the co-existence of both proprietary (Apple) and open-source (Android) operating systems for mobile devices, as well as the emergence of agile innovation systems across the public and private sectors more widely (Roy 2014a; 2014b; Nam 2014; Mergel 2016).

Conclusion

Canada has evolved from being an early and recognized global pioneer of online public sector service delivery to now widely being viewed as a laggard, despite some promising pockets of innovation that exist across all government levels. Whereas the Harper era constrained service innovation, mainly viewing the digital apparatus as a means of cost-cutting and efficiency, the Trudeau Government has yet to prioritize any particular aspect of digital government, at least in the early part of its mandate. The one exception to this Harper era characterization is the emergence of open government (especially open data), though little was done to directly tie together open government with service innovation in a manner that is increasingly on display in other countries (Accenture 2014; OECD 2015). While the Provinces defy uniform characterization, the under-performance of online service channels is generally consistent across both government levels, as is the more recent advent of open government as well as the emergence of innovation labs as a potential catalyst for prototyping new forms of digital and mobile service delivery through more open and collective design capacities. Nonetheless, the absence of a more robust and at least partially political inter-jurisdictional governance framework continues to greatly constrain collaborative undertakings, especially problematic in the rapidly evolving and inter-related realms of identity management and digital and mobile payment systems.

A national research strategy--enjoining public sector service providers and stakeholders such as ICCS as well as applied research bodies, private sector institutes, and academe would thus seem a necessary precursor to moving beyond the current malaise of traditionalism and incrementalism that has come to define public sector service delivery in recent years. An equally important enabler is greater political investment into digital matters generally, a recent and encouraging example being the decision of the Government of Ontario to appoint a Digital Minister (under which a new position of Chief Digital Officer shall guide government-wide planning and strategies). Additionally, consistent with the advent of open government, social media and mobile platforms, as well as the pursuit of more participative governance models predicated upon the co-creation of public value, more stakeholder and public conversations can only assist in facilitating social learning and collective innovation. If governments are to view digital tools and platforms as a means to do "more with more," to once again quote from Millard, a more open and agile mindset is foundational for any prospective potential.

Notes

(1) Source: http://engage.gov.bc.ca/digitalservices/.

(2) http://www2.gov.bc.ca/govtogetherbc/consultations/digital_services.page.

(3) For an overview of the Government of Canada Open Government Action Plan (under the prior Conservative Government), please see: http://open.canada.ca/en/content/ canadas-action-plan-open-government-2014-16.

(4) For details of the Danish strategy please see: http://www.digst.dk/Servicemenu/ English/News/~/media/Files/Digitaliseringsstrategi/Engelsk_strategi_tilgaengelig.ash

(5) Source: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/president-treasury-board-canada-mandate-letter.

(6) Although Clarke and Margetts (2014) focus predominantly on open data in their analysis, their three typologies of public sector governance (traditional public administration, new public management, and digital era governance) align closely with the three typologies presented in this article. Indeed, there is a presumed close alignment and consistency across varying though closely related governance prisms such as public value management, new public governance, and digital era governance (the latter most directly examining the overlay of evolving technological infrastructure onto governmental structure and culture). For a more direct dissection of service typologies in a manner more complementary of digital era governance, see Dunleavy (2010).

References

Accenture. 2014. "Digital government pathways to delivering public services for the future: A comparative study of digital government performance across 10 countries." Available at http://nstore.accenture.com/acn_com/Accenture-Digital-Government-Pathways-to- Delivering-Public-Services-for-the-Future.pdf.

Al-Hujran, O., M. M. Al-Debei, A. Chatfield, and M. Migdadi. 2015. "The imperative of influencing citizen attitude toward e-government." Computers in Human Behaviour 53: 189-203.

Aucoin, P., M. Jarvis, and L. Turnbull. 2011. Democratizing the Constitution: Reforming Responsible Government. Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications.

Auditor General of Canada. 2013. Access to Online Services (Chapter Two). Ottawa: Office of the Auditor General. Available at http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parLoag_ 201311_02_e_38796.html.

Auditor General of Ontario. 2013. ServiceOntario (Chapter Three). Toronto: Office of the Auditor General. Available at http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_en/en13/2013ar_en_web.pdf.

Borins, S., K. Kernaghan, D. Brown, N. Bontis, P. 6, and F. Thompson. 2007. Digital State at the Leading Edge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Brown, A. W., J. Fishenden, and M. Thompson. 2014. "Revolutionising digital public service delivery: A UK government perspective." Available at http://www.blogs.jbs.cam.ac.uk/ markthompson/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Digital-Public-Service-Delivery.pdf.

Chant, J. 2015. Money in Motion: Modernizing Canada's Payment System. Toronto, ON: CD Howe Institute. Available at https://www.cdhowe.org/sites/default/files/attachments/ research_papers/mixed/Commentary 432.pdf.

Clarke, A. 2013. "Exploiting the web as a tool of democracy: New ways forward in the study and practice of digital democracy." World forum for Democracy 2013 Issues Paper. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available at http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/ news/wfd/study_en.pdf.

Clarke, A., and H. Margetts. 2014. "Governments and citizens getting to know each other? Closed, and big data in public management reform." Policy and Internet 6 (4): 393-417.

Cordelia, A., and N. Tempini. 2015. "E-government and organizational; change: Re-appraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery." Government Information Quarterly 32: 279-86.

Dunleavy, P. 2010. "The future of joined-up public services. 2020 public services trust at the RSA." Available at https://eprints.lse.ac.Uk/28373/1/The_Future_of_Joined_Up_Public_ Services.pdf.

Dutil, P., C. Howard, J. Langford, and J. Roy. 2010. The Service State - Rhetoric, Reality, and Promise. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

Francoli, M., and A. Clarke. 2014. "What's in a name? A comparison of 'open government' definitions across seven open government partnership members." journal of Democracy and Open Government 6 (1): 248-66.

Ganapati, S. 2015. Using Mobile Apps in Government. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government. Available at http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/ default/files/Using%20Mobile%20Apps%20in%20Government_0.pdf.

Gasco, M. ed. 2014. Open Government: Opportunities and Challenges for Public Governance. New York: Springer.

Harrison, T. M., S. Guerrero, B. G. Burke, M. Cook, A. Cresswell, N. Helbig, J. Hrdinova, and T. Pardo. 2012. "Open government and e-government: Democratic challenges from a public value perspective." Information Polity 17: 83-97.

Jaeger, B. 2012. "New frontiers in the digital divide: Revisiting policy for digital inclusion." Available at https://www.scss.tcd.ie/disciplines/information_systems/egpa/docs/2012/ Jaeger.pdf.

Kernaghan, K. 2013. "Changing channels: Managing channel integration and migration in public organizations." Canadian Public Administration 56 (1): 121-41.

Langford, J., and J. Roy. 2008. Moving Towards Cross-Boundary Citizen-Centred Service Delivery: Challenges and Lessons from Canada and Around the World. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.

Lee, G., and Y. Kwak. 2011. An Open Government Implementation Model: Moving to Increased Public Engagement. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.

Lips, M. 2012. "E-government is dead: Long Live Public Administration 2.0." Information Polity 17: 239-50.

Maier-Rabler, U, and S. Huber. 2011. "'Open': The changing relation between citizens, public administration, and political authority." JeDEM: journal of Democracy 3 (2): 182-91.

Mergel, I. 2014. "The social media innovation challenge in the public sector." Information Polity 17: 281-92.

--. 2016. "Agile innovation management in government: A research agenda." Government Information Quarterly 33 (3): 516-23.

Millard, J. 2015. "Open governance systems: Doing more with more." Government Information Quarterly. Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/articIe/pii/S0740624X15 300034?via%3Dihub.

Nam, T. 2014. "Determining the type of e-government use." Government Information Quarterly 31: 211-20.

OECD. 2015. Rebooting Public Service Delivery: How Can Open Government Data Help to Drive Innovation? Paris: OECD.

Osimo, D. 2008. "Web 2.0 in government: Why and how?" JRC Scientific and Technical Reports. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.

Osman, I., A. L. Anouze, Z. Irani, B. Al-Ayoubi, H. Lee, C. Balci, T. C. Medini, and V. Weerakkody. 2014. "COBRA framework to evaluate e-government services: A citizen-centric perspective." Government Information Quarterly 31: 243-56.

Reddick, C. G., and S. K. Aikins. eds. 2012. Web 2.0 Technologies and Democratic Governance: Political, Policy and Management Implications. New York: Springer.

Rose, J., J. S. Persson, and L. T. Heeager. 2015. "How e-Government managers prioritise rival value positions." Information Polity 20: 35-59.

Roy, J. 2006. E-Government in Canada: Transformation for the Digital Age. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

--. 2008. "Beyond Westminster governance: Bringing politics and public service into the network era." Canadian Public Administration 5 (4): 541-68.

--. 2013. From Machinen/ to Mobility: Government and Democracy in a Participative Age. New York: Springer.

-. 2014a. "Cloud computing and Gov 2.0: Traditionalism or transformation across the Canadian public sector?" International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age 1 (1): 74-90.

--. 2014b. Mobility and Government: Opportunities and Challenges for Service Delivery and Information Management. Toronto: Institute for Citizen-Centred Service.

--. 2014c. "Open data and open governance in Canada: A critical examination of new opportunities and old tensions." Future Internet 6 (3): 414-32.

--. 2016. "Data, dialogue and innovation: Opportunities and challenges for open government in Canada." journal of Innovation Management 4 (1): 22-38.

Stoker, G. 2006. "Public value management - A new narrative for networked governance?" American Revino of Public Administration 36 (1): 41-57.

World Economic Forum. 2011. The Future of Government: Lessons Learned from around the World. Davos, Switzerland: World Economic Forum, Global Agenda Council on the Future of Government.

Jeffrey Roy is Professor, School of Public Administration, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia.