Governance of Innovation System

GO

VE

RN

AN

CE

OF

INN

OV

AT

ION

SY

ST

EM

S V

olu

me

3: C

ase

Stu

die

s in

Cro

ss-S

ec

tora

l Po

licy

The full text of this book is available on line via these links:

http://www.sourceoecd.org/scienceIT/9264035710http://www.sourceoecd.org/industry/9264035710http://www.sourceoecd.org/industrytrade/9264035710http://www.sourceoecd.org/governance/9264035710

Those with access to all OECD books on line should use this link:

http://www.sourceoecd.org/9264035710

SourceOECD is the OECDs online library of books, periodicals and statistical databases. For more information about this award-winning service and free trials ask your librarian, or write to us at [email protected].

This book provides lessons from case studies in policy governance for the information society and sustainable development. It highlights important lessons from these policy areas for the governance of innovation policy, and illustrates mechanisms and practices for better co-ordination and integration across policy areas.

Companion volumes to this edition are:

Governance of Innovation Systems Volume 1: Synthesis Report Governance of Innovation Systems Volume 2: Case Studies in Innovation Policy

Governance of Innovation SystemsVOLUME 3: CASE STUDIES IN CROSS-SECTORAL POLICY

www.oecd.orgISBN 92-64-03571-0 92 2006 02 1 P-:HSTCQE=UXZ\VX:

Governance of Innovation SystemsVOLUME 3: CASE STUDIES IN CROSS-SECTORAL POLICY

SCIENCE INNOV

ATION GOVERNA

NCE SCIENCE IN

NOVATION GOVE

RNANCE SCIENC

E INNOVATION

GOVERNANCE INN

OVATION SCIENCE

GOVERNANCE INN

OVATION SCIENCE

GOVERNANCE INN

OVATION SCIENCE

GOVERNANCE INN

OV

INNOVATION GO

VERNANCE SCIE

NCE INNOVATION

GOVERNANCE

SCIENCE INNOV

ATION GOVERNA

NCE

INNOVATION SCIE

NCE GOVERNANCE

INNOVATION SCIEN

CE GOVERNANCE IN

NOVATION SCIENC

E GOVERNANCE INN

OVATION SCIENCE

GOVERNANCE S

CIENCE INNOVA

TION GOVERNAN

CE SCIENCE INN

OVATION GOVER

NANCE SCIENC

E

SCIENCE GOVERN

ANCE INNOVATION

SCIENCE GOVERN

ANCE INNOVATION

SCIENCE GOVERN

ANCE INNOVATION

SCIENCE GOVERN

ANCE

SCIENCE INNOV

ATION GOVERNA

NCE SCIENCE IN

NOVATION GOVE

RNANCE SCIENC

E INNOVATION

GOVERNANCE INN

OVATION SCIENCE

GOVERNANCE INN

OVATION SCIENCE

GOVERNANCE INN

OVATION SCIENCE

GOVERNANCE INN

OV

INNOVATION GO

VERNANCE SCIE

NCE INNOVATION

GOVERNANCE

SCIENCE INNOV

ATION GOVERNA

NCE

INNOVATION SCIE

NCE GOVERNANCE

INNOVATION SCIEN

CE GOVERNANCE IN

NOVATION SCIENC

E GOVERNANCE INN

OVATION SCIENCE

GOVERNANCE S

CIENCE INNOVA

TION GOVERNAN

CE SCIENCE INN

OVATION GOVER

NANCE SCIENC

E

SCIENCE GOVERN

ANCE INNOVATION

SCIENCE GOVERN

ANCE INNOVATION

SCIENCE GOVERN

ANCE INNOVATION

SCIENCE GOVERN

ANCE

SCIENCE INNOV

ATION GOVERNA

NCE SCIENCE IN

NOVATION GOVE

RNANCE SCIENC

E INNOVATION

GOVERNANCE INN

OVATION SCIENCE

GOVERNANCE INN

OVATION SCIENC

E GOVERNANCE INN

OVATION SCIENCE

GOVERNANCE INN

OV

INNOVATION GO

VERNANCE SCIE

NCE INNOVATION

GOVERNANCE

SCIENCE INNOV

ATION GOVERNA

NCE

INNOVATION SCIE

NCE GOVERNANCE

INNOVATION SCIEN

CE GOVERNANCE IN

NOVATION SCIENC

E GOVERNANCE INN

OVATION SCIENCE

GOVERNANCE S

CIENCE INNOVA

TION GOVERNAN

CE SCIENCE INN

OVATION GOVER

NANCE SCIENC

E

SCIENCE GOVERN

ANCE INNOVATION

SCIENCE GOVERN

ANCE INNOVATION

SCIENCE GOVERN

ANCE INNOVATION

SCIENCE GOVERN

ANCE

SCIENCE INNOV

ATION GOVERNA

NCE SCIENCE IN

NOVATION GOVE

RNANCE SCIENC

E INNOVATION

GOVERNANCE INN

OVATION SCIENCE

GOVERNANCE INN

OVATION SCIENCE

GOVERNANCE INN

OVATION SCIENCE

GOVERNANCE INN

OV

INNOVATION GO

VERNANCE SCIE

NCE INNOVATION

GOVERNANCE

SCIENCE INNOV

ATION GOVERNA

NCE

INNOVATION SCIE

NCE GOVERNANCE

INNOVATION SCIEN

CE GOVERNANCE IN

NOVATION SCIENC

E GOVERNANCE INN

OVATION SCIENCE

GOVERNANCE S

CIENCE INNOVA

TION GOVERNAN

CE SCIENCE INN

OVATION GOVER

NANCE SCIENC

E

SCIENCE GOVERN

ANCE INNOVATION

SCIENCE GOVERN

ANCE INNOVATION

SCIENCE GOVERN

ANCE INNOVATION

SCIENCE GOVERN

ANCE

SCIENCE INNOV

ATION GOVERNA

NCE SCIENCE IN

NOVATION GOVE

RNANCE SCIENC

E INNOVATION

GOVERNANCE INN

OVATION SCIENCE

GOVERNANCE INN

OVATION SCIENCE

GOVERNANCE INN

OVATION SCIENCE

GOVERNANCE INN

OV

INNOVATION GO

VERNANCE SCIE

NCE INNOVATION

GOVERNANCE

SCIENCE INNOV

ATION GOVERNA

NCE

INNOVATION SCIE

NCE GOVERNANCE

INNOVATION SCIEN

CE GOVERNANCE IN

NOVATION SCIENC

E GOVERNANCE INN

OVATION SCIENCE

GOVERNANCE S

CIENCE INNOVA

TION GOVERNAN

CE SCIENCE INN

OVATION GOVER

NANCE

SCIENCE GOVERN

ANCE INNOVATION

SCIENCE GOVERN

ANCE INNOVATION

SCIENCE GOVERN

ANCE

SCIENCE INNOV

ATION GOVERNA

NCE SCIENCE IN

NOVATION GOVE

R

GOVERNANCE INN

OVATION SCIENCE

GOVERNANCE INN

OVATION

INNOVATION GO

VERNANCE SCIE

NCE

INNOVATION SCIE

NCE GOVER

Fx-titre.fm Page 1 Friday, November 18, 2005 2:04 PM

! "

#$$% &'

(( ) )* + + + , -

.!/!0010 223'

333& 4-43

2 5

!!"#$%&$"!'"(

)*&+,-.%++/0 #

Fx-titre.fm Page 2 Friday, November 18, 2005 2:04 PM

FOREWORD 3

GOVERNANCE OF INNOVATION SYSTEMS: CASE STUDIES IN CROSS-SECTORAL POLICY ISBN-92-64-03571-0 OECD 2006

Foreword

This publication constitutes Volume 3 of Governance of Innovation Policy, a three-volume compilation of the proceedings of collaborative work in the MONIT project (Monitoring and Implementing National Innovation Policies). This volume, Governance of Innovation Systems: Case Studies in Cross-sectoral Policy, provides an overview of analytical work on policy governance in OECD member countries participating in the project. The policy areas under scrutiny are the information society, sustainable develop-ment and transport policy. The aim of these studies is to draw lessons for innovation governance from policy areas with characteristics similar to those of the broader area of emerging innovation policy. The chapters also serve as empirical support for Volume 1 in the series: Governance of Innovation Systems: Synthesis Report.

The publication was prepared under the aegis of OECDs Committee for Science and Technological Policy (CSTP) and its working party on Technology and Innovation Policy (TIP). The report was edited by Svend Otto Reme who also co-ordinated the MONIT project together with Mari Hjelt, Pim den Hertog, Patries Boekholt and Wolfgang Polt.

5


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword 3 Executive Summary 7

Part 1. Governance and the Information Society 11 Chapter 1. Governance in Austrian Information Society Policy:

Progress without Strategy? 13

Chapter 2. Information Society Governance and Its Links to Innovation Policy in Finland

35

Chapter 3. Information Society Policy Co-ordination: A Mould for Innovation Policy Development in Norway?

65

Chapter 4. Innovation and the Information Society: Policy Coherence and Governance in Ireland

93

Chapter 5. Horizontal Co-ordination of Innovation Policies: Information Society Policies in the Netherlands

115

Chapter 6. Information Society Governance in Greece: One Swallow Does Not Make a Summer

145

Chapter 7. Towards the Information Society: The Case of Sweden

169

Part 2. Governance in Sustainable Development 171

Chapter 8. Policy Integration: The Case of Sustainable Development in Finland

191

Chapter 9. Environmental Policy Integration: How Will We Recognise It When We See It? The Case of Green Innovation Policy in Norway

221

Chapter 10. Linking Innovation Policy and Sustainable Development in Flanders

245

Chapter 11. Moving out of the Niche: Integrating Sustainable Development and Innovation Policy in Austria

271

Chapter 12. Patchwork Policy Making: Linking Innovation and Transport Policies in Austria

297

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Mari Hjelt, Wolfgang Polt and Svend Otto Reme

Background: the MONIT project The OECDs project on National Innovation Systems (NIS) was initiated in 1995.

Under the Working Party on Technology and Innovation Policy (TIP) it set out to explore the requirements for redirecting innovation policy in OECD countries, taking into account new insights into the innovation process that arose from the research on innovation at that time. While many accepted that the linear model of innovation did not capture the realities of the innovation process, it was acknowledged that public policy still relied upon the linear model and its implications for policy. Hence, the OECD NIS project became an important collaborative mechanism for generating new data based on the interactive model of innovation and for developing a set of recommendations for public policy.

Formally, the OECD NIS project was concluded in 2001. It generated several publications on industrial clusters, networks, human mobility, synthesis reports on the renewal of innovation policy, and it also fed into other OECD work. However, the concluding work (OECD, 2002) raised a critical question that was the starting point for the current MONIT project. If the developed economies are becoming more innovation-oriented and dynamic, can national governments and their policy-making modes remain largely unaffected? More precisely, given the changes needed in policy, how can or should governments change their structures and processes to better accommodate the dynamism in their environments?

To explore these issues, the OECD and its Working Party on Technology and Innovation Policy (TIP) endorsed in 2002 a new collaborative study called MONIT (monitoring and implementing national innovation policies). The project was organised in two work packages: one studied the main innovation governance issues in each country and the other studied selected policy areas with characteristics relevant to innovation policy. Volume 2 contains the results of the first of these packages and this volume contains the results of the second.

MONITs basic assumption was that innovation policy and its governance require significant changes. While the linear and systemic models of innovation can be seen as the first and second generations of innovation, MONIT set out to explore the foundations of the third generation which views policy making as a process, along with its institutional, structural and political characteristics. Seen from the point of view of a firm, this model represents a nexus in which policies interact and produce innovation outcomes. Achieving coherence of innovation policy across ministerial boundaries is therefore seen as key to successful governance.

8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Learning from horizontal policy areas

Innovation policy has typically been seen as an extension of R&D policy involving a number of instruments and policies that stimulate the innovation process, such as science-industry relationships, intellectual property rights, and industrial networks and clusters. However, as economic development has become more dependent on innovation and as growth patterns worldwide become more volatile and dynamic, innovation and growth may need broader stimulus from governments than has generally been the case. Hence, innovation policy may increasingly need to be redefined and expanded to encompass a wider set of policy domains.

This raises at least two key issues. First, governments will need to develop capa-bilities for broader or more horizontal governance spanning ministerial and other institutional boundaries. This requires learning from policy domains with such charac-teristics. The MONIT project therefore included the study of policies on the information society and sustainable development as well as transport and regional policy.

Second, it raises the issue of the relationship between innovation policy and other areas. These relationships may be supportive or unsupportive, creating challenges for balancing the links between them. Governments will also need to learn more about options and barriers to integrating diverse policy areas and thereby develop a policy environment that is coherent and conducive to innovation in the economy.

A guide to the volume

In the MONIT project, the study of policies for the information society was a core activity, as most countries have given priority to national initiatives to promote development with the support of information and communication technologies (ICT). Further, several countries studied linkages between innovation policy and policies for sustainable development, as the latter have been given importance as a principle under which to subsume other policy areas and priorities. These topics are therefore at the heart of this volume.

The chapters are typically shorter versions of the studies conducted. Lessons derived from the studies are treated in Volume 1, the synthesis report, which also contains summary analytical reports on the information society and sustainable development (OECD, 2005a).

Part 1: Governance and the information society In Chapter 1, Wolfgang Polt and Julia Schindler describe how Austria has failed

twice to produce an overall strategy for information society policy, but has nevertheless succeeded in promoting ICT diffusion and use in various fields, such as e-government. They also describe obstacles and failures in specific policy domains and provide examples of policy learning from successes and failures.

In Chapter 2, Juha Oksanen analyses Finnish policy for the information society and the vital links with innovation policy. He argues that a principal driving force for both the information society and innovation policy have been concerns about countries inter-national competitiveness and wealth creation in the global economy. Also, innovation policy and development of the information society have many features in common. Both policy domains are based on a strong commitment and protection of consensus among major stakeholders representing the public and private sector.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9


In Chapter 3 Trond Einar Pedersen studies the Norwegian national plan for the information society and argues that the current governance situation represents a delicate policy dilemma. While overall economic policy takes a hands-off approach, with a lesser role for state involvement, the current organisation of eNorway (the term for the national policy) open possibilities for more hands-on implementation and co-ordination.

Chapter 4 contains an analysis by Paulina Ramirez, Murray Scott and Willie Golden of Irelands information society policy and the missing linkages with innovation policy. They argue that an important reason for the lack of coherence between the two policy areas is the science-push character of Irelands present STI policy which makes co-ordination with other policy domains difficult.

In Chapter 5 Pim den Hertog and Hilde de Groot present the Dutch information society, arguing that ICT has become an enabler of broad transformation processes in both industry and the public domain. However, most actors see ICT simply as an enabler in their primary processes and do not see a clear link to innovation. Thus, they do not develop an information society/ICT policy with a view to increasing innovation or developing a knowledge economy, and this impedes horizontal co-ordination.

In Chapter 6, Lena Tsipouri and Mona Papadakou study recent developments in Greece against a backdrop of inflexible hierarchies, low competitiveness and incomplete infrastructure. Innovation policy and information society policy had little in common, but Greeces introduction of an information society initiative highlighted governance gaps, and new governance structures were implemented to overcome the inherent weaknesses in horizontal co-ordination. If successful, this initiative may help to modernise Greek governance.

Chapter 7 by Kristina Larsen, Patrick Sandgren and Jennie Granat-Thorslund is an analysis of the governance challenges in Sweden. It highlights the high degree of decentralisation in the Swedish model which results in a high level of efficiency but also illustrates a need to improve horizontal co-ordination in the context of handling more substantial changes in policy agendas.

Part 2: Governance in sustainable development In Chapter 8 Mari Hjelt, Sanna Ahvenharju, Mikko Halonen and Mikko Syrjanen

study the need for integration between science, technology and industry policies and policies for sustainable development, and conclude that despite the challenges related to expanding science and technology (S&T) policy to a broader innovation policy, there is both a need and an opportunity, from the point of view of sustainable development, to broaden the policy scope. However, there are also several challenges and barriers. This suggests that policy integration requires basic changes in policy formulation and implementation to generate effective interfaces.

The issue of policy integration is also at the heart of Chapter 9. William Lafferty, Audun Ruud and Olav Mosvold Larsen develop a benchmark for assessing the integration between innovation and sustainable development policy as green innovation policy. The findings indicate that Norway actively promotes vertical environmental policy integration, but that specific and direct efforts towards green innovation are practically non-existent.

10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Chapter 10 is a study by Ilse Dries, Peter van Humbeek and Jan Larosse of the linkages between policies for innovation and sustainable development. The focus is on the policy response to the industrial lock-in of the Flemish innovation system in material- and energy-intensive production systems. The way out in system innovation demands a long-term transition to a new, less resource-intensive and more knowledge-intensive economy.

In Chapter 11, Brigitte mer-Rieder and Katy Whitelegg illustrate the barriers to integration of innovation and sustainable development policies in Austria, and show that this partly hinges on the fact that sustainability policy is not an established policy field and that innovation policy is not recognised as an effective key driver for sustainable development.

In Chapter 12 Katy Whitelegg shows that even in cases where two policy areas are located in a single ministry, there are wide gaps between them. She highlights the importance for policy integration of lack of understanding of neighbouring policies and shows that perceived missions help to keep separate policies that might otherwise be more integrated.

References OECD (2002), Dynamising National Innovation Systems, OECD, Paris. OECD (2005a), Governance of Innovation Systems, Volume 1: Synthesis Report, OECD,

Paris. OECD (2005b), Governance of Innovation Systems, Volume 2: Case Studies in Innovation

Policy, OECD, Paris.

11


Part 1

GOVERNANCE AND THE INFORMATION SOCIETY

GOVERNANCE IN AUSTRIAN INFORMATION SOCIETY POLICY: PROGRESS WITHOUT STRATEGY? 13


Chapter 1

GOVERNANCE IN AUSTRIAN INFORMATION SOCIETY POLICY: PROGRESS WITHOUT STRATEGY?

Wolfgang Polt and Julia Schindler Institute for Technology and Regional Policy, Joanneum Research Ltd., Austria

Against the background of developments of the past decade, this chapter takes a skeptical view of the possibility of steering developments in sectors as divers as e-government, e-business, e-health, e-learning, etc., through a grand design and an overarching strategy. It describes how Austria has twice failed to produce a general information society strategy, but has nevertheless succeeded in promoting ICT diffusion and use in areas such as e-government. Obstacles and failures in specific policy domains are discussed and examples are provided for policy learning from both success and failures. Among various ways of achieving policy coherence, some have also been quite successful. The study suggests that with sufficiently strong communication channels, institutions and incentives for self-organised co-operation and mutual policy learning, effective Austrian information society policies can be achieved.

Introduction

Austrian information society policies in the past decade have been marked by a discrepancy between the size and structure of the ICT-producing sector and the diffusion and use of ICT in various sectors of economy and society (for an overview of recent Austrian performance, see Schneider et al., 2004). The former has been according to most indicators close to or even below the EU15 average. Investment in ICT is not very high and the Austrian pattern of industrial specialisation is not very geared towards ICT, although successful niche players in some fields have established themselves as highly competitive in their respective markets. As a result, unlike other small open economies such as Ireland or Finland, Austria did not profit from the new economy boom of the 1990s.

However, while Austria lagged in ICT diffusion in most fields in the 1980s, it later caught up rapidly and even approached top rankings in some fields, e.g. early up-take and high penetration rates of mobile telephony, broadband and wireless broadband access to the Internet, and e-government. Even taking these positive developments into account, however, the general perception is that there is still much room for better ICT use throughout the economy and society.

In Austrian information society policy, there is at most a weak link between horizontal science, technology and innovation (STI) policy and the relevant sectoral policy (e.g. health, business, transport). Thus, the current policy challenge for information

14 GOVERNANCE IN AUSTRIAN INFORMATION SOCIETY POLICY: PROGRESS WITHOUT STRATEGY?


society policies in Austria is to further enhance ICT up-take by demand- and mission-oriented policies (especially in fields like e-government, e-education, e-health and transport) and to combine this with policies fostering R&D and innovation in the ICT-producing sector (Schneider et al., 2004).

Against this background, in 2001 the Austrian Council for Science and Technology Development asked the three ministries with the main responsibilities for science, technology and innovation policy (i.e. the Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Tech-nology, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Labour, and the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture) to co-ordinate their information society/ICT programmes and to bring forth a common and coherent concept. For this purpose an inter-ministerial ICT working group was established, consisting of representatives from the three ministries and the Council. This inter-ministerial working group subsequently commissioned a study on the Governance of Austrian Information Society Policy in order to gain insight into the roles of the players, their interaction and co-ordination mechanisms. The study was produced in the context of the NIS MONIT project (Ohler et al., 2004), and the main results are presented here.

The study started off from the observation that past attempts to formulate a coherent strategy for information society policy were not successful. It was therefore necessary to analyse not only the current institutional setting and its policy co-ordination mechanisms, but also the reasons why previous attempts had not succeeded. A process-oriented historical approach was adopted.1 This allowed for analysing the actors incentives and motives, the barriers to communication and co-ordination, as well as path dependency and policy lock-in. As there is no, or very little, quantitative data available on information society policy processes, a qualitative approach was used, based on structured interviews with key players (a list of institutions covered can be found at the end of the chapter). Furthermore, important strategy documents and institutional mapping, i.e. a description of the formal relationships and distribution of competences, were examined.

The chapter briefly describes historical developments in the different sub-fields of information society policy, namely e-government, e-health, e-learning, e-business and science, technology and innovation policy for ICT along with the institutional settings and policy agendas specific to each field. Next, the different stages of the stylised policy process are addressed: agenda setting, policy formulation and co-ordination, imple-mentation, and policy learning. These stages of the policy cycle are analysed by applying key concepts of systems theory to the policy process. These concepts, such as context specificity, path dependency, localised learning and accumulated knowledge, can help explain the main characteristics of these processes. The final section draws conclusions about how the policy process might be (re)shaped to allow for the formulation of coherent policies under the constraints of multiple actors, divided competences and asynchronous policy agendas.

Historical development and formal organisation of information society/ICT policy

Historical development of Austrian information society policies While some countries launched broad information society policy initiatives in the late

1980s and early 1990s, political awareness of the topic in Austria came only in the aftermath of the publication of the Bangemann Report (European Commission, 1994) and the US Information Highway initiative. The Alpbach Technology Forum in August 1994 marked the establishment of information society policy as an important policy field



in Austria. On this occasion, the Chancellor stated the need for political action and the government declaration of November 1994 took up the topic of the information society. Information society technologies and applications were just around the corner. Several technologies were mature enough to enter the market. The government initiative was declared to be of highest priority, and this created high expectations.

Subsequently, a first attempt was made to create a coherent strategic view on information society policy. A number of working groups were created, involving a large number of the most important stakeholders. These working groups produced recom-mendations for action and listed fields of potential policy challenges, which were made public in a final report (Federal Chancellery, 1996). In March 1997 the report was accepted. This was the first strategic document for information society policy in Austria, but it never had the status of a White Paper as similar documents did in other countries. No funding was specifically allocated for the strategy as a whole, and no central responsi-bility was defined to supervise and monitor the process. Mainly, it was left to the respective actors in the various policy fields to use the document as a (non-binding) guidepost. Ten years later, interviewees hardly remembered it as having led to increased policy co-ordination or coherence. As a point of comparison, the Bavarian initiative Bavaria Online, which was started at the same time, was allocated substantial financial resources and was put into practice within a couple of months.

A main reason for the reluctance of government to actually use the document as a means to formulate and implement an overarching strategy might have been that interests of stakeholders were diverging: while some were asking for rapid liberalisation of the telecommunications sector, powerful actors (public-sector trade unions) resisted change. As a result, the telecommunications sector was liberalised at the last moment in Austria, after all other EU countries. Moreover, the government did not pay enough attention at the time to the challenges arising for governance when dealing with such cross-cutting policy matters as the information society (whereas other countries had already established special responsibilities and structures within government to deal with information society matters in the form of information society envoys or secretaries).

On the other hand, while it failed to provide an umbrella for the coherent strategic orientation of actors, the information society initiative mobilised the most important players, some of which then started follow-up activities. A number of national and regional Internet initiatives were started in 1994-95 (e.g. the Austrian Platform for Tele-matics Applications APTA), a specific programme, Technologies for the Information Society, was started by the Innovation and Technology Fund (ITF), and e-government initiatives were launched (e.g. the digitalisation of the public administration) or envisaged (e.g. the creation of an electronic social security e-card).

It was only in 2000 that another initiative to formulate an overarching strategy for information society matters emerged. The main impulse came from the EU in the form of the European Commissions e-Europe initiative. The Austrian e-Austria in e-Europe initiative was started as a large-scale effort to formulate an information society strategy. Another important reason why the information society topic returned to the Austrian policy agenda was the change of government in 2000. The Ministry for Public Services and Sports established in 2000 led the e-Austria initiative and set up an information society task force, Taskforce e-Austria. Its purpose was to propose aims and action lines to strengthen Austrias position in the e-technology environment.



The taskforce developed a concept paper, which again did not become an official document of the federal government. The reasons were twofold: first, there was insufficient involvement of major stakeholders and second, political responsibilities for information society matters were not clearly assigned from the start. As a result, the other ministries responsible for information society matters did not accept the Ministry for Public Services and Sports de facto responsibility for the information society. Some ministries also felt that their work was being held up because they had to wait for an overall information society strategy and were unable to implement already well-developed sectoral information society measures.

As was the case with its predecessor, although no overall, commonly accepted information society strategy was developed through the e-Austria in e-Europe initiative, it did motivate several information society activities in various sub-fields, giving rise to more coherent sectoral policy approaches, which are described below. For example, it led to the formulation of a strategy for the promotion of e-business activities by the Ministry for Economic Affairs and Labour and also paved the way for the creation of an e-government board and subsequently the creation of an e-government strategy.

In sum, two major attempts to formulate an overarching information society strategy failed. Some of the reasons can clearly be viewed as policy weaknesses (lack of allocation of funds, competences, process responsibility and process ownership, lack of awareness of the challenges for governing cross-cutting policy matters). Others are intrinsic to the complexity of the process (large number of actors, different incentives or disincentives to co-operate, time and effort needed for co-operation). If some of these barriers remain in place, there is little chance for future success. On the other hand, even in the absence of an overarching information society strategy, many policy initiatives in various information society sub-fields were successfully initiated. Institutional innovations were also triggered, as in the case of e-government. Where major projects failed, this was less because of a lack of co-ordination between the relevant information society policy sub-fields or with innovation policy, but because of reasons such as poor project management. Examples of successes and failures are given below.

Current setting: formal organisation of ICT policy at the central government level

To date, the main policy makers for information society policy are the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Labour (ICT innovations, e-business, e-content), the Ministry for Transport and Innovation (ICT innovations, R&D), the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (e-learning, IT for schools, polytechnics and universities) (Figure 1.1). These ministries have formed an inter-ministerial working group on ICT, in which the Austrian Council for Research and Technology Development is also involved. Another important player is the Ministry of Finance (electronic documents and payments, e.g. of taxes). The Federal Chancellery is in charge of e-government. The dominant players are the Chief Information Office (co-ordination of horizontal e-government activities, development of strategies and solutions), the e-Government Platform (with political responsibility for e-government) and the e-Co-operation Board (with operational responsibility for e-government) (Figure 1.2).



Figure 1.1. Basic institutional setting of Austrian information society policies

E-government E-government initiatives have been a significant driver of Austrian information

society policies, and, in the absence of a generally agreed overarching information society strategy, act as a major driver for other policy fields. In this area, major institutional changes have taken place in order to cope with information society matters.

The major institutional innovation in this realm was the creation, motivated by government and the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber, of the Chief Information Office and chief information officer in August 2001. This was done partly to overcome the shortcomings of the existing working groups for e-government issues, which worked somewhat at cross-purposes, partly as a reaction to a controversial e-government bench-marking study.2 The expert group on benchmarking blamed the lack of an e-government strategy for Austrias low ranking, and an e-Government Platform was created, along with the chief information officer. Furthermore there has been institutionalised co-operation between the ministries, the federal government, the Lnder (federal states) and the municipalities. Co-ordination between the federal government and the Lnder takes place regularly through two working groups: one for technical and the other for legal issues (see Figure 1.2).

Figure 1.2 shows the dual structure of the technical and organisational strategic units, which helps overcome the problems associated with allocation of e-government responsi-bility to IT representatives who emphasised the technical dimension and neglected the organisational and political aspects.

Ministry of Economics and Labour

Ministry of Transport,

Innovation and Technology

Ministry of Education, Science, and the

Arts

Council for Science and Technology Policy

Government

WG on ICT

E-government Co-ordination bodies

Ministry of Finance

Interministerial Working Group on ICT

Federal Chancellery



Figure 1.2. E-government institutions in Austria

The ICT board is responsible for co-ordinating horizontal e-government activities on the federal level, seeking e-government solutions and planning relevant strategies. The position of chief information officer was entrusted to a professor of information technology, who had previously worked on the e-health card and the electronic signature.

The e-Government Initiative 2003 led to the establishment of the e-Government Platform at the political level, assisted by the e-Co-operation Board on the operational level. The e-Government-Platform led by the Federal Chancellor put forth a roadmap, including a master plan for joint projects, financing models, an implementation framework and general objectives. An e-government strategy consisting of several modules was established. Both the chief information officer and the executive secretary are assisted by the administrative officials of the Chief Information Office.

According to interviewees, the ICT board (headed by the chief information officer), the e-Co-operation Platform (headed by its executive secretary) and the e-Government Platform have been fairly successful. During interviews, policy representatives stated that e-government is well co-ordinated, that the mechanisms are suitable for achieving consensus and that e-government in Austria is very modern, advanced and highly competitive in international comparisons (especially for the back office and the electronic file). A key factor leading to the perceived success of the Chief Information Office was the fact that it was equipped with adequate resources, including about 20 employees. Also, the units are integrated. The Chief Information Office tries to build consistent and transparent e-government structures. The commitment of the Federal Chancellor was an important success factor.

As a result, Austrias performance in e-government has improved significantly over the past years, especially with respect to implementation and back-office applications. For example, Austria has a leading position in the category electronic file.

Among weaknesses can be noted the lack of integration of ministerial departments into e-government processes. Some interviewees stated that they did not know the Chief Information Office or the e-co-ordination representative of their own ministry. Likewise the Chief Information Office and e-co-ordination representatives of a ministry often did

- E-Government Platform

Head: Federal Chancellor

CIO

Executive Secretary

E-Cooperation Board

ICT Board

Technical level

Implementation level

Federal states (Lnder)

Municipalities

Political level

Federal government

Cities



not know who was working on information society innovation issues in their ministry. Clearly, there is a lack of transparency concerning responsibilities for information society issues within ministries. The breadth and cross-sectoral properties of information society matters make this difficult, but it is essential to improve transparency and awareness within ministries.

E-health: ICT in the health sector ICT is used in the health sector for diagnosis, therapy methods and instruments. The

main focus of the discussion of ICT use in the health sector, however, is on ICT use in administration and inter-organisational data transfer (i.e. health certificates, transmission of diagnostic findings and medical records). Health telematics has become an important topic in information society policy discussions.

In contrast to the homogeneous and hierarchical structure of e-government, the health sector consists of highly heterogeneous players: resident doctors, hospital doctors, hospitals, hospital operators, health insurance providers, health ministry, social ministry and interest groups. Hospitals are also heterogeneous owing to the diverse ownership structure (there are public, private and religious hospitals). ICT use is affected by these complex organisational-institutional constellations. Co-ordination, introduction of de facto standards and guidelines, compatible incentives and acceptance are essential but difficult to achieve owing to the heterogeneity.

Health policy, social security and retirement pension insurance policy are interlinked, but are divided among two ministries. The Ministry for Health and Women has to share some of its competence in health matters with the Ministry for Social Security, Generations and Consumer Protection. This divided responsibility has advantages and disadvantages. With respect to e-health the division is seen as a disadvantage.

The Ministry for Health and Women has authority for ICT applications in the health sector, but does not use it for various reasons, such as the low level of attention to ICT within the ministry, as well as the strength of institutions such as hospital associations and the social security carriers. Furthermore, some issues are dealt by the Lnder. The ministry is not allowed to order a reduction in hospital beds or the shutdown of a hospital, although it can make suggestions. The ministry might intervene in other ways, e.g. cutting back government aid for certain hospitals, which might lead to a reduction in hospital beds or the closure of hospitals. However, it generally does not use this method, owing to local interests and the power of policy players. It also does not make use of its legislative and co-ordination powers for policy design and implementation.

The e-card offers an example of the difficulties of implementing an e-health strategy. The e-card project is the e-health project that has received the most policy attention in the past years. In 1999 the main association of social security carriers was given the assignment to introduce a wide-reaching electronic administration system, in particular to introduce a chip card to replace paper health certificates. A call for tender was held in 1999. In April 2001 the task was commissioned to a general contractor consortium EDS/Orga.

Conflicts about contract requirements and specifically the extent of services to be rendered led to the early termination of the contract on the part of the main association of social security carriers. In spring 2003 a new call for tender was issued. Instead of seeking a general contractor, the project was now split into several sub-projects. Currently, the main function of the e-card is to replace the paper health certificate, but it



should be designed to enable future extensions. For example, the storage of patient records on the e-card is being discussed. Widespread use of the e-card is expected for 2005. The e-card will not comply with the strict security requirements of the Austrian Signature Law, which would have enabled it to be used as a citizen card for other e-government services. Although the federal government had wanted the e-card to meet the high security requirements of the citizen card, no one was willing to share with the social security carriers the high costs that would have been involved.

E-education and e-learning The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture is responsible for the information

society sub-fields of e-education and e-learning. As in other areas, impetus from the EU played an important role in policy formulation. The EU Council resolutions of Feira and Lisbon influenced the establishment of the e-Fit Austria programme, which promotes the broad and sustainable use of modern ICT in education, science and culture through numerous initiatives and projects.

The programme is an example of policy co-ordination by programme steering: e-Fit Austria integrates the activities of all units in a thematic programme. The decision to co-ordinate activities via a joint thematic programme was also used as a lever for internal institutional reforms. An IT steering committee was established to co-ordinate the programme. It co-ordinates the activities of ten ministry departments, related international activities, and strategic partnerships with industry and other national players. There are several working groups, ties with international co-ordination groups (the e-learning industry group) and strategic partnerships with industry. The concentration of activities helped overcome the diversity of activities, organisational barriers and the previously low degree of co-ordination.

The New Media in Teaching initiative is another successful sub-programme. It supports projects to develop software applications for teaching in universities and polytechnics. Its aims are quality improvements in teaching, easier access to education, interdisciplinary co-operation and networks, and systematic integration of the funded innovations into classes and teaching. Subsidies are an incentive for the continuous development of new media in teaching and the strengthening of the community. Detailed preparation involved stakeholders, and contacts were sought with polytechnics, uni-versities, students and industry (federal economics chamber, multimedia firms). The involvement of stakeholders in the preparation process and communication and net-working in the implementation process were important for enabling the very first example of co-operation between universities and polytechnics in development projects.

The programme builds on the multimedia teaching material programme of the 1990s. The early existence of ACOnet (the Austrian Academic Computer Network) is another important factor, as it made possible broadband data cable connection between universities as well as broadband Internet to European research and science networks. In the early 1990s, tertiary learning institutions were linked through medium-speed broad-band. More recent programmes and initiatives were able to focus on content and peda-gogy, because the infrastructure was already available.

The eFit programme and the New Media in Teaching programme serve as a basis for further programmes and reforms (within the ministry, schools and tertiary education). Awareness and acceptance will continue to be necessary, and diffusion is expected to become a more important topic. Among the important elements of a well-structured process are the following:



Extensive research to define the target groups and the type of specific thematic priorities.

Integration of existing institutions and initiatives.

Selection of project carriers through a rigorous procedure involving a two-stage assessment.

Existence of a person, generally with relevant know-how and competence, responsible for every thematic priority. Some priorities also received support from external project bureaus.

High priority given to achieving sustainable results. Project participants are required to update their products.

Feasibility and support studies to analyse and better co-ordinate demand, target groups and impact.

Within this policy field, as in e-government, an institutional setting seems to have been found that ensures a high degree of (internal and partly also external) policy coherence.

E-business Explicit public measures to support ICT development and applications were taken as

early as the late 1970s.3 In the 1980s and early 1990s use of ICT for intra- and inter-firm processes received little attention, except for electronic data exchange (EDI) between organisations, which focused work on i) the development of standards, and ii) the spread of underlying technologies, standards and applications. Data exchange, between firms (the automobile industry was the pioneer user) and between banks and between firms and public institutions, especially tax and customs authorities, constituted the dominant field of application.

Until the mid-1990s the Ministry for Science and Research and the Ministry for Public Economy and Transport had the main responsibilities for this area of information society policy. The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Labour did not have an important role. The only information society activity for which the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Labour was exclusively responsible was representation of Austria in standardisation institutes concerning EDI. It also had joint responsibility with the Ministry for Science and Research for the IMPACT programme.

The beginning of information society discussions in 1994/95 and the establishment of the information society working group led to the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Labours greater involvement in information society policy. The Technologies for the Information Society programme, carried out by the ITF, fell partly under the responsibility of the Ministry for Economic Affairs, which initiated two focus areas for the programme: EDI Business Austria and Multimedia Business Austria. The ministry decided to focus on areas in which it already had some expertise. This also ensured that the Ministry for Economic Affairs and Labour became a central player in information society matters.

In 2000 the Ministry for Economic Affairs and Labour widened its coverage of information society activities with the launching of the E-business in a New Economy initiative, also in the context of the EUs e-Europe initiative. This was a full-fledged strategy process involving a large number of stakeholders. A steering committee and



seven parallel working groups, involving 300 persons, were established and led by representatives from business and science. The working groups made 35 proposals clustered around six action lines: Information and Awareness, Start-up and Growth Potential of Internet Firms, R&D, e-Content Austria, Technology Transfer and Location e-Austria, Gateway to the East.

This scheme not only developed new programmes and action lines, but also integrated existing measures, thus allowing for policy coherence over time. Furthermore a monitoring group was established and revision of strategies and measures was planned as a part of the process.

The scope was such as to include R&D and innovation policy, but went beyond the narrow confines of R&D. It addressed a number of broad information society topics (e.g. regulatory and legal aspects of e-business). It is a good example of strategy definition and of integration of information society policy and innovation policy in a narrow sense, but it did not extend outside the ministry.

R&D and innovation policy for ICT The competence for ICT research and development and innovation policy mainly lies

with the Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology and the Ministry for Economic Affairs and Labour. The former focuses on ICT R&D, whereas the latter focuses more on ICT applications and their diffusion.

Austria has a broad range of measures (indirect support via R&D tax breaks, direct support via thematic programmes, dedicated institutions, infrastructure build-up, etc.) to support R&D. These include non-targeted support for R&D, targeted support in the form of thematic programmes oriented towards ICT, and thematically oriented programmes which address ICT along with other targets.

In terms of non-targeted support, figures for indirect support are not available. For direct support for R&D projects that are defined as bottom-up, some 40% goes to ICT according to a recent evaluation of the major technology fund. Also, in the Competence Centre Programme, which funds the establishment of research organisations jointly run by academia and business, a considerable share of non-earmarked funding goes to ICT-related centres (between 30% and 40%).

In the cluster programmes, which are mostly carried out by the regions, some clusters are either entirely ICT or have a large ICT component. Since the mid-1990s most Austrian Lnder have recognised the significance of technology and innovation policy and have allocated significant amounts of money. Regional technology policy and regional ICT activities were introduced essentially simultaneously in several Lnder. Styria, Salzburg and Upper Austria developed specific information highways and tele-regions, often with EU support. These initiatives started in 1994.

Specific thematic programmes supporting R&D and diffusion of ICT have been in place since the early 1980s: e.g. the microelectronics/information-processing programme. This programme, even by todays good-practice standards, was quite advanced: there was systematic co-operation, each of the ten action lines was under a lead scientific institute, supporting social science research was carried out and an extensive evaluation followed. In the mid-1980s, the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Fund led to several ICT-specific programmes, in computer-integrated manufacturing and software as well as the above-mentioned Technologies for the Information Society. With the fading out of these programmes, few thematic programmes now focus on generic ICT technology



development. Currently, there is only the FIT-IT programme, initiated by the Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology, which aims at stimulating longer-term, more advanced research in selected thematic areas (e.g. embedded systems).

Finally, ICT also figures prominently in other thematic technology programmes, particularly in the transport sector, where a large programme on intelligent transport systems and services comprises components on transport telematics, logistics, satellite navigation, etc.

Especially for the thematically oriented R&D and diffusion-oriented programmes, one could hope to find close co-ordination on the policy agenda of the information society and innovation policy. However, there seems to be hardly any link: while this is not surprising for the bottom-up projects, even dedicated programmes like the FIT-IT programme has not so far incorporated information society topics into its portfolio. The same is by and large true of the thematic programmes with other orientations, but with a high ICT component, such as the transport-oriented research programmes. There is no co-ordination between departments of the same ministry to bring together transport policy, information society policy and RTD policy. The main reason is that the transport policy department and the innovation policy department see themselves as culturally very different and with incompatible goals (e.g. securing/improving public transport vs. fostering risky innovation projects).

Thus, the field in which information society policies and innovation policies might be best linked is the one with the least developed institutional setting to do.

Agenda setting

This section focuses on agenda setting in information society innovation policy. How do discussions, topics, measures, programmes and policy areas arise? Why are broad strategic concepts developed from time to time? Are some methods less successful than others? Does best practice exist? This studys findings on agenda setting processes in Austrian information society innovation policy are presented below.

Issues arrive on the political agenda through a variety of channels. Many arise quite spontaneously without going through a formal process. Therefore, the way in which a topic appears is often not observed by the external observer.

Agenda setting is influenced by many factors: the distribution of formal responsi-bility, successful previous programmes, existing networks, dedicated persons, dominant organisations, internal distribution of tasks and changes in the organisational structure, general administrative reforms, (benchmarking) reports, presence in EU programmes and policies.

In Austrian information society policy, the EU is an especially important factor in strategic policy formulation. Both recent attempts to arrive at an overarching information society strategy were based on EU initiatives. EU policies thus strongly affect Austrian information society agendas. The EUs influence is not only due to political documents (such as the Bangemann Report, the e-Europe Initiative), but also to thematic priorities in the framework programmes, e.g. the e-Europe initiative and the IST programme. The EU agenda is filtered through the local operational logic; for example, the IST is translated into the Austrian FIT-IT programme. The importance of the EU in shaping national politics is likely to increase further, especially with respect to infrastructure and standards.



Historic development paths are another important factor affecting the emergence of agendas. The development of an agenda, its contextual design and its implementation are often based on previous activities, responsibilities or experiences, e.g. on previous programmes, responsibilities for particular agendas (especially EU), current or previously established networks, and previously successful approval procedures. As a result, estab-lished competences are enhanced and strengthened, but this also leads to gaps and blind spots. This must be taken into account when trying to understand the difficulties the administrative system had (and has) in coping with the challenges of horizontal policy matters like the information society.

During the study, it was observed that players seek to minimise the expected co-ordination effort and show a clear preference for local autonomy in agenda setting. The localised nature of such efforts seems to be a relatively stable pattern and was found in all policy sub-fields, because of: i) the local nature of knowledge and experience; ii) the local nature of networks and memberships; and iii) the low incentive for crossing borders. Localised behaviour does not necessarily cause activities to be narrowly defined, as illustrated by e-Business in a New Economy and e-government activities.

The above remarks support the hypothesis that the process of agenda setting is predominantly context-specific, contingent and local. The question is the extent to which more rational approaches to policy formulation are possible, i.e. policies that are i) pro-active, ii) horizontal/global in nature and iii) avoid contextual randomness.

New and sometimes radically new agendas arise with the advent of so-called change agents. Windows of opportunity for change agents are especially large when changes in government occur, especially when a new government comes into power. New governments tend to be more active in setting new directions, overcoming barriers and interrupting or putting off current information society policy processes. It was observed that the new government that came into power in 2000 in Austria meant new directions, new people and the formation of new networks. This helped overcome lock-in situations, but the changes in personnel also led to the disappearance of accumulated know-how and (partly) destroyed old networks. Strong change agents can act as points of orientation or centres of gravitation for other players and implement changes that would not occur otherwise.

Over the ten years of discussion about an information society in Austria, there were two attempts to develop a global concept. The first document, in 1996, received little notice as a lead document, but the preparation work was a starting point for several initiatives. The second initiative in 2000 likewise did not produce a global strategy document that was accepted by the government, but it also sparked several smaller initiatives. Where stakeholder groups were involved, the mobilisation effect was suc-cessful. Moreover, owing to the complexity of the topic, it is increasingly difficult to develop concepts requiring a high degree of experience and contextual knowledge. It is therefore unlikely that another global ICT or information society strategy initiative would succeed.

An alternative to the construction of global concepts is the systematic detection of gaps (bottleneck analysis). The search for explicit needs for action has many advan-tages. It is not necessary to screen the whole system, but only to identify development-hindering factors and, on that basis, to design appropriate measures. Moreover, the clock can be repaired while ticking. and some contextual constraints can be overcome. This study did not find this kind of agenda-setting, but it would appear to be quite attractive. As an example, in the Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology, the IT



innovation department designed an IT research programme in an area where the department saw a funding gap, i.e. a bottleneck, in the structural context.

Just as most firms formulate a vision and goals, it is useful for a public body to formulate its aims and instruments. This is helpful in creating internal and external clarity. It defines a framework for agenda setting and makes it easier to determine whether ideas match the general goals of the organisation and to justify them. If explicit guidelines, in the form of meaningful mission statements and strategies, do not exist, there is more room for determining the agenda through personal relationships. However, informal agenda setting runs a higher risk that some players will not be heard.

Even if public bodies do not explicitly discuss which topics reach the agenda and how, there is one formal mechanism that is very influential in agenda setting. The (annual) budget planning is the point at which agendas are defined and agenda priorities are newly formulated. In ministries with few formal agenda-setting mechanisms, interviewees complained about not being heard. The interview partners did not explicitly blame this on the lack of formal mechanisms, but felt that their ministry lacked interest in information society matters, that their superiors did not attach importance to information society matters or that they were not well-connected within the ministry. This can occur in any policy area, but it is a greater problem for a horizontal policy area when the people responsible are ignored or given little prominence in the vertical power chain. The existence of formal co-ordination and interaction channels within ministries is important for articulating a horizontal policy area within the ministry.

Policy formulation and co-ordination

Policy formulation Austrian information society policy formulation largely occurs in a local setting. Each

ministry formulates its activities and programmes and does not necessarily take into account what is happening in other departments and institutions. Policy formulation generally focuses on department plans for near-term activities. In this sense, policies are rather small-scale and short-term and can lead to duplication and to a lack of vision or missing the big picture. The strongly local orientation is due to the fact that gathering and co-ordinating information about other public institutions is perceived as costly. This is discussed below in further detail.

As compared to the many examples of local policy formulation, two attempts to formulate a global information society strategy stand out. In both cases, a lot of resources were devoted to the strategy formulation. A large number of people were mobilised for brainstorming in working groups and the processes were quite time-consuming. The content of the first global strategy was viewed as acceptable by most relevant policy players at the time, while the content of the second strategy was heavily criticised. The two processes differed in that the first involved many stakeholders and policy players, whereas the second was outsourced to external experts and did not involve a number of important policy players from the ministries.

Both cases of the global information society strategies focused strongly on the content of the strategies, but did not focus enough attention on the process to implement the policies. This led to the fact that neither of the two attempts to formulate an information society strategy were implemented.



Co-ordination Policy co-ordination is important for the effective use of public resources, for

example to avoid policy duplication. A horizontal policy area such as the information society, which is spread over a multitude of public bodies, requires horizontal co-ordination to connect the information society sub-areas and vertical co-ordination to embed the information society areas into specific ministries policies. Co-ordination is a common means of addressing coherence.

In general co-ordination appeared to have an ambivalent status among actors in Austrian information society policy. In theory it is seen as extremely important, but it is also difficult for the players to appropriate the returns on their investment in the co-operation. Co-ordination and co-operation are often seen as an additional burden, as an increase in complexity and as leading to additional uncertainty. This is because more information has to be processed and co-ordination is not free from hidden strategic motivations among the players involved. Recently, a third reason has emerged: co-ordination and co-operation require additional resources without necessarily creating a compensating gain. Current constraints on budget and personnel resources act as disincentives to engage in co-operation and co-ordination.4 This constitutes a relatively stable pattern of behaviour, one that is observed not only for information society policy.

The degree of co-ordination needed varies among the different information society policy areas. E-government for example is an area in which broad co-ordination is necessary as it affects all ministries. Furthermore, e-government instruments such as the electronic file are to be implemented by all ministries in a similar way. The rather homogenous structure of the players involved and the general relevance of the measure make it an area that is potentially easy to co-ordinate, when the area is given thought and when resources are set aside for the programme.

Other information society areas such as e-learning and e-education affect only one ministry, thus requiring very little inter-ministerial co-ordination (inter-ministerial information exchange can still be useful, however). In this case the players involved in information society-related education policy (e-learning, e-teaching) are identical to the players involved in education policy in general. Co-ordination might still be difficult, but no additional co-ordination is necessary. Horizontal information exchange with IT research units could be useful, for example to start joint measures for the development of modern e-learning tools.

The information society area e-health consists of a large diversity of players. Co-ordination is extremely difficult but involves the same players as health policy in general. Co-ordination problems that arise are not due to the horizontal property of information society policy but to the complex structure of the health sector in general.

Co-ordination in the area of information society technology research is difficult, because research and technology policy is cross-sectoral. IT research is an area of information society policy which requires co-ordination and currently involves too little. The difficulty of co-ordination here is not specific to information society policy, but is due to the fact that technology policy is a horizontal policy area that affects a heterogeneous group of players. An added difficulty is the fact that successful IT research and innovation depend on many factors, including a well-functioning education and science system, the presence of IT researchers and IT firms and a healthy business (creation) environment.



The amount of co-ordination needed depends on the number and heterogeneity of the players involved. Sometimes formal co-ordination is unnecessary and information exchange is sufficient to avoid duplication and to create awareness. Co-ordination boards can be decision-making bodies or can serve for information exchange purposes only.

Experience has shown that the establishment of a co-ordination board does not ensure successful co-ordination. It is very important that co-ordination boards consist of representatives with the knowledge and decision power to fulfil the aims of the board. Co-ordination boards do not necessarily require high-ranking officials, but the members need to be adequate for the purpose. Successful co-ordination requires adequate financial, personal and managerial resources. Some co-ordination boards aim only to exchange information; they are useful as long as the participants gain insight from attending the meetings. This will be the case when the representatives are capable and willing to share information that is relevant for the others. Co-ordination boards that do not fulfil their purpose should be dissolved or their aims should be adapted to their capabilities. In order to ensure the effectiveness of co-ordination boards, it is good to be open to changes in the participants and to allow fresh insight to enter.

Stakeholders are often involved in co-ordination activities. Successful co-ordination and co-operation require differentiating between stakeholders who are participants and supporters of interests and those who are carriers of knowledge. This is more easily achieved when the core competency has been described and there is a clear definition of roles.

On the programme level, examples of successful co-operation and co-ordination were found. This is facilitated when there is a clear definition of roles and the necessary knowledge is available. The integration of different support channels under the e-Fit and New Media for Teaching programmes are cases in which the combination of steering committees, forums and external counsellors led to stability and good information exchange.

Implementation Much that has been said about co-ordination and coherence efforts is also true for the

implementation of measures, because coherence efforts are themselves part of imple-mentation. A second observation is that the status of implementation has greatly changed within the last ten years. Implementation has become a separate issue and numerous new public management concepts have entered policy actions.

The strategy formulation exercises showed that concepts, lead documents and (global) strategies that were not planned with a view to implementation risk ending with the production of the final document, leaving open whether or not they will be implemented. This is definitely not ideal, because good ideas may be wasted and because those who took part do not see any returns to their efforts and lose interest or become frustrated.

Personnel and financial resources need to be allocated to implementation to achieve good results. This is true for strategy concepts, and was also the case for the e-card. The failure of the first attempt to introduce an e-card (for the health system) depended significantly on the underestimation of the resources needed by the social security carrier to carry out the desired plans.



In many cases, implementation is a process based on division of labour, involving ministerial departments, agencies and private firms. This is very prominent in the programmes of the Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology and in parts of the Ministry for Economic Affairs and Labour. There has been some criticism that the division of labour has reached a level that makes governance difficult to sustain because of the lack of process ownership. This is not a problem only in the information society context.

On the programme level there are numerous cases in which the quality and originality of concepts and programmes were not determined by the content but by the method of implementation. Many of the case studies (Chief Information Office, e-FIT, New Media for Teaching, e-Business) can be seen as supporting examples.

Policy learning

The analysis of learning processes and effects gives very ambiguous results, as in the case of the two information society strategy formulation exercises. Although the first exercise made clear that it is not sufficient to create a strategy document, but that efforts must be made to implement the new ideas, the second information society strategy made the same mistake. A final document was produced, but was not even circulated within the department. Positive effects resulted from the exercise in that some of the brainstorming activities led to new initiatives, but it is not possible to conclude that the second information society strategy initiative had learned how to conduct a strategy exercise.

Examples of successful learning do however exist. Integrated learning processes were used in a number of government support programmes, especially in IT research and development support programmes. Explicit justification for measures, monitoring throughout the duration of the measures and evaluation (which has nearly become a standard measure) are clear evidence of this. This does not exclude the possibility that the justification was carried out unsatisfactorily or that monitoring and evaluation results were not utilised to create improvements. Learning processes, such as the evaluation of particular measures and the establishment of information channels, still need to be established or improved in all areas of information society policy. This is especially true for the health sector.

Main findings and suggestions for policy

This chapter analyses Austrian information society innovation policy, looking at historical development, current status and degree of coherence of information society innovation policy. Interviews with important policy players gave insight in the different stages of the policy cycle (agenda setting, policy formulation, implementation, co-ordination and learning).

Information society policy is no longer a new cross-sectoral policy topic. In the 1980s and 1990s information society innovation policy had some difficulty positioning itself in the departmental structure of the federal ministries, but information society topics are now quite well established. Owing to the relative maturity of the policy area, depart-mental units have had time to build up competence and establish their responsibilities for specific information society innovation policy matters. This has led to clearer definitions of information society policy responsibilities. With respect to transparency and allocation of responsibilities, the coherence of Austrian information society policy has certainly increased.



Another important development affecting Austrian information society innovation policy is the growing influence of European-level information society innovation policy. EU initiatives and aims affect Austrian agenda setting and lead to a significant degree of synchronisation of the agenda, especially in information society R&D policy. EU initiatives and guidelines lead to greater coherence among European nations, but also in Austrian information society policy itself.

The maturity of the policy area is also reflected in the fact that large-scale information society innovation strategy concepts are no longer developed; current information society innovation policy now consists of many small initiatives. Owing to the fact that many institutions are involved in information society innovation policy and all are working on their own, there is a strong need for co-ordination. Although total policy coherence is an ideal which cannot be achieved in the real world, working towards coherence is definitely desirable. Austrian information society innovation policy lacks coherence in some aspects, e.g. when a duplication of initiatives occurs (in ICT research and development) or when players do not co-ordinate well (e-health).

Information society policy measures have proliferated in various domains in recent years. Many departmental units have created their own programmes, in some of which their aims or instruments overlap with other measures. The costs of checking whether any one else is already conducting a similar initiative and discussing possible alterations seem too high compared to possible benefits. Some pressure to co-ordinate does exist within departments, but depends on the structures. Generally there is less motivation to co-ordinate with more distant policy bodies, e.g. other ministries and other agencies. Co-ordination is sometimes enforced from above by the Council for Research and Tech-nology Development (as for the ICT programmes of the three ministries) .

A study by Dachs et al. (2003) on the factors of success and failure in Austrian IST development5 concludes that Austrian political institutions showed little concerted effort to actively push information society policy. Instead they stress the importance of EU stimuli through White Papers and regulation as well as the interest of the private sector (Dachs et al., 2003, p. 17). They also believe that Austria would be doing even better in some indicators if there had been a stronger public policy push towards the information society.

Possible policy conclusions for the different phases of the policy cycle are noted below.

Agenda setting Agenda setting can take place as a formalised process or can be continuously adapted.

Agendas can be determined top down by high-ranking bodies or can arise through suggestions and ideas, e.g. from interest groups. An important factor in shaping the national agenda has been EU policies, which represent an orientation point for national agendas and serve as a natural mechanism to align policies and provide ideas.

Localised information society policy strategies are useful for orientation and as guidelines both for the organisation itself and for indicating how its activities differ from those of other organisations. Global or overarching information society strategies are theoretically useful for creating more coherence among policies, but face a much more difficult task. Apart from the difficulty of devising and designing such a strategy, it faces the risk of not being accepted by all stakeholders.



The systematic detection of ways to improve the current strategy (bottleneck analysis) is an alternative to the construction of overarching strategies. It consists of identifying development-hindering factors and then designing helpful measures. This approach has the advantage of being more realistic about what can be achieved and thus has a better chance of acceptance and implementation.

Significant revolutionary changes rarely occur in agenda setting. One point in time when agendas are strongly modified is when new governments come into power and create new change agents. They often set new directions and lead to the creation of new networks (however, they may also destroy old agendas and old networks).

Level of policy co-ordination Policy co-ordination is important for the effective use of public resources, especially

in a cross-sectoral policy matter that needs to be embedded both in the departmental structures and linked between departments. The degree of co-ordination needed varies among information society policy areas, depending on the areas structure. Whereas e-government policy often deals with a large number of homogenous players, e-health consists of a large number of heterogeneous and influential players, making it very difficult to achieve consensus and to plan measures without formal co-ordination. Sometimes information exchange is sufficient, at other times formal co-ordination boards are needed.

When co-ordination boards are needed, it is very important that they consist of representatives with the knowledge and decision power to fulfil the aims of the board. Boards do not necessarily need high-ranking officials, but the members need to have the necessary qualifications and power.

Policy implementation In order for concepts to become a reality, it is very important to carefully plan and

carry out the implementation. The quality and originality of concepts and programmes are greatly affected not only by the content but also by the method of implementation. For the implementation to be successful, adequate resources are necessary for:

Ex ante activities, e.g. detailed content planning and maybe foresight.

Co-ordinating activities, e.g. the involvement of stakeholders in all phases of the programme.

Outward communication, awareness-building activities.

Use of analytical tools such as evaluation, monitoring (project supervision), benchmarking.

Concepts, lead documents and (global) strategies that were not planned with respect to their implementation have a great danger of remaining ineffective or having unplanned (and undesired) effects. In the past, policy makers have tried to outsource the imple-mentation of initiatives; however, public organisations need to retain some process ownership. In order to formulate the outsourced duties, the contracting authority needs some managerial and hierarchical competence. This is imperative for achieving the intended results of an initiative.



Policy learning Integrated learning processes, such as policy evaluation and the establishment of

information and feedback channels, are necessary for successful policy learning. A combination of local and higher-ranking policy learning must exist in a complex policy area such as the information society. The establishment and provision of strategic intel-ligence, i.e. organised information provision, can be done through various instruments (market studies, technology assessment, technology foresight, monitoring, evaluation).

To sum up, there is considerable room for increasing policy coherence in the field of information society policy in Austria. At present, there appears to be at most a weak link between information society policy and technology and innovation policy. On the other hand, even in the absence of an overarching information society strategy, policy has reacted to the challenges of the information society. This was often done in a localised way, that is, with the borders of the respective administrative competences. In the various sub-fields of information society policy, failures were found, but also different ways to achieve policy coherence, some of which have succeeded quite well. It also emerged that there might be limited need to co-ordinate everything and everybody in the form of a grand strategy. The reasons why attempts have failed twice in the past are still in place. If there were communication channels, institutions and incentives for co-operation that are sufficiently strong to allow for self-organised co-operation and mutual policy learning, Austrian information society policy would be successful.

Interview partners

Interviewees held responsibilities for information society matters in the following institutions:

Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology

Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Labour

Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture

Federal Ministry for Health and Women

Federal Ministry of Finance

Federal Ministry of Justice

Federal Chancellery

Chief Information Office

E-Co-operation Board

City of Vienna Chief Executive Office ICT Strategy and Management

Vienna Science and Technology Fund

Council for Research and Technology Development

Main Association of Austrian Social Security Institutions

Austrian Regulatory Authority for Broadcasting and Telecommunications

Austrian Federal Economic Chamber



Public Employment Service

Austrian Medical Association

Competence Centre FTW (Research-Centre Telecommunication Vienna) Imagination (industry partner in the competence centr

Documents

Governance of Innovation System