Assessment and recommendations

Abstract

This chapter presents the assessment of the state of digital government in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) based on the analysis undertaken through this review, conducted between 2020 and 2022 amidst COVID-19 response and recovery efforts. It also includes concrete and actionable recommendations which aim to support LAC governments in advancing the digital transformation of their public sector. The assessment and recommendations are organised around the five areas of study included in this review: 1) governance of digital government; 2) digital government investments and digital skills; 3) data-driven public sector; 4) public service design and delivery in the digital age; and 5) digital innovation and GovTech.

    

Governance of digital government

Strengthening the institutional setup to drive the digital government agenda

Leading digital government

Most countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (88%) have established organisations in charge of digital government across the central or federal government, located generally within a line ministry or a special agency, and to a lesser extent in the centre of government or a co-ordinating ministry. However, not all these institutions have a sufficient set of responsibilities and mandates securing their ability to steer the implementation of digital government reforms, policies and initiatives coherently across the public sector. Only half or less of the organisations in the region responsible for digital government have decision making responsibilities such as the capacity to provide financial support, approve the development and implementation of digital transformation initiatives, mandate external reviews, or enforce standards on digital technologies across the central or federal government.

Steering and co-ordinating digital government

A modest majority of LAC countries (59%) have established digital government co-ordination bodies, intended as entities bringing together chief digital officers from public sector institutions, or individuals with similar roles, to align the implementation of digital government reforms and strategies.

Most of these co-ordination bodies play an advisory role and only a few have decision-making responsibilities, particularly centred around the prioritisation of digital/ICT projects investment across the central/federal government. The limited presence of these decision-making bodies across LAC countries hampers the capacity for aligning public sector institutions with major strategic objectives and for the coherent implementation of digital government policies and projects.

Reinforcing the digital government agenda

National Digital Government Strategies and Regional Strategic Instruments

The LAC region has advanced in creating national and regional strategic instruments defining the vision, goals, and milestones for the implementation of digital government policies. While almost all countries (94%) have adopted national digital government strategies (NDGS), around half of the strategies analysed date from 2020 or before, highlighting the need of keeping them up to date in line with the rapidly evolving digital landscape. Regional strategic instruments for digital government are generally articulated around broader digital agendas spanning multiple countries. However, these agendas do not always encompass a comprehensive set of digital government priorities and often lack adequate monitoring mechanisms. A second challenge is securing alignment with regional priority issues, particularly in areas such as digital inclusion, given that the region still falls behind OECD average (84%) of individuals making use of internet. This includes addressing access to digital technologies and fostering the development of necessary skills both within the public sector and the population-at-large. It is noteworthy that countries align their digital government objectives with broader digital agendas and most dedicated NDGS have monitoring instruments in place.

In terms of strategic priorities, national digital government strategies and regional strategic instruments target societal objectives such as improving citizens’ well-being, increasing the efficiency of the public sector to deliver higher value, streamlining, and enhancing access to public services, or improving collaboration with and participation of citizens in policy making. Among concrete action points, national and regional strategic efforts focus on the governance of digital government and the delivery of digital services, supported by goals to increase privacy, security, digital public infrastructure (including digital identity), and public sector innovation capabilities. Most current regional instruments are not comprehensive, focusing primarily on government services, public innovation, and open data.

Furthermore, countries have advanced in developing broader digital agendas including targets on the development of connectivity, telecommunication networks, innovation and entrepreneurship, digitalisation of SMEs and emerging technologies, with less attention on skills, talent, digital inclusion, and digital government (ECLAC, 2022[1])). Nevertheless, digital development across countries in the LAC region is uneven. Such context demands greater efforts and special attention to regional inequalities while creating synergies and joint digital government agendas.

Aligning normative and regulatory frameworks towards digital government

Most LAC countries (above 80%) cover in their legislations issues such as privacy and data protection, transparency and access to public sector information, digital signature, e-procurement, cybersecurity, and digital government. However, approximately half of the countries in the region have not fully kept pace with topics generally addressed by OECD countries related with advanced digital capabilities and proactive and anticipatory approaches within their legal and regulatory frameworks. These include digital identity, once-only principle, access to private sector information/data, digital by design, cloud computing, legal and/or regulatory sandboxes, artificial intelligence, emerging technologies, the right to challenge (i.e., ability to apply for exemptions from existing rules, or ability to request rules be reconsidered), among others. As a result the necessary safeguards for the correct planning, implementation, and monitoring of digital government initiatives are not sufficiency up to date in half of the region.

Proposals for action In light of the key assessments detailed above which draw on the main findings and analysis included in Chapter 1 of this review, LAC governments could consider implementing the following policy recommendations:
1. Reinforce the leadership and co-ordination for digital government. The following priorities can be considered: a. Secure political leadership for digital government policies through dedicated and recognised institutions to help advance whole-of-government strategic transformations beyond the technical aspects. b. Set clear and contextually adapted responsibilities for the institution in charge of digital government, enabling it to drive the digital government agenda according to the needs and conditions in each country. c. Increase efforts to build more robust co-ordination bodies supporting the coherent development of digital government across the public sector, with dedicated and articulated functions to coordinate the development, implementation, monitoring, and financial support of National Digital Government Strategies (NDGS). d. Expand the scope of the stakeholders engaged in existing co-ordination bodies, considering the inclusion of sub-national governments and strategic non-governmental actors. e. Establish explicit co-ordination and support mechanisms from the central/federal government to sub-national governments in order to align digital government policies and share capabilities for implementation across states, provinces, and municipalities.
2. Strengthen the strategic approach for digital government through comprehensive and forward-looking national digital government strategies. The following priorities can be considered: a. Where not available, consider adopting a dedicated NDGS to enhance implementation and accountability of the digital government agenda through measurable targets. b. Where in place, regularly update NDGS to secure that goals and actions are relevant and adapted to the changing technological, economic, cultural, and political landscape, and aligned with key priority issues in the region, such as inclusion, skills, access to digital technologies, and trust in government. c. Increase efforts to co-ordinate national digital government policies with sub-national governments through dedicated co-operation mechanisms, incentive funds, capacity building, shared digital public infrastructure, among others. d. Consider developing a dedicated and comprehensive digital government strategy for the LAC region, including targets on co-operation, the development of shared resources and common projects, regulatory harmonisation, regional governance mechanisms, and a shared vision adapted to the different contexts across and within countries. e. Improve the alignment of regional strategic instruments with digital development and co-operation agendas through common objectives, actions lines, projects, and indicators. f. Foster civil society participation in the design and delivery of digital government policies to reinforce government accountability, increase citizens’ empowerment and engagement in decision-making, and tap on wider networks and ecosystems for innovation in policy making and service delivery. g. Make of building trust between citizens and the government a strategic priority of NDGS, including by adopting explicit indicators and strategic objectives related to public trust within national and regional digital government strategies.
3. Adjust the legal and regulatory framework to anchor digital transformation efforts and support the transition from e-government to digital government. The following actions can be considered: a. Where in place, be proactive in improving the legal and regulatory frameworks to unlock the potential for a responsible, inclusive, and coherent use of digital technologies in government. b. Where necessary, align the legal and regulatory frameworks with key policy priorities associated with a user-centred, proactive, and whole-of-the-government approach to digital government. c. Establish stronger ethical, security, and human rights safeguards through the adoption of binding and non-binding normative frameworks to prevent any potential harm caused by the use of digital technologies and data by and in governments.

Public sector capabilities for digital transformation

Digital Government Investments

Strategic planning of digital government investments

Strategic planning is the cornerstone for an efficient and coherent approach to digital government investments. It reflects the co-ordination and alignment of the relevant stakeholders around key policy goals and the actions required to achieve them through public investments. LAC governments still face challenges to align efforts between digital, budget and procurement authorities on digital government investment decisions in an institutional context where budget authorities lead resource allocation. As a result, there seems to be space for governments to strengthen horizontal co-ordination and collaboration in the approval process to foster alignment between key stakeholders e.g., budgeting, investment, procurement and digital authorities.

Additionally, digital government authorities in LAC countries often do not seem to have concrete and actionable mechanisms to support the coherent planning for digital government investments, including dedicated and comprehensive value proposition mechanisms, risk assessment and mitigation tools.

Furthermore, countries included in this report largely follow a traditional approach in the value proposition rather than acknowledging the specific benefits of the digital transformation, including its underlying economies of scale and network effects. Additionally, rising and pressing global challenges, such as the green transition, call for updating relevant frameworks in LAC so that multi-faceted decisions on digital investments can better contribute to the achievement of broader challenges (including social, economic, environmental and security considerations).

Implementation of digital government investments

Countries in the region have an opportunity to leverage the approval process to enhance the management of digital investment portfolios by securing compliance with digital standards across governments, and secure alignment and co-ordination among different authorities. Evidence shows that governments in LAC are generally utilising national guidelines and directives to streamline the management and implementation of digital investments across public sector institutions. In most countries, these are non-mandatory standards that guide the implementation of digital government investments and build coherent implementation.

Regarding the procurement of digital goods and services, governments in the region often use traditional public procurement mechanisms, reflecting an existing opportunity for countries in LAC to use public procurement more strategically in digital goods and services to achieve other objectives than value-for-money. Similarly, innovative procurement mechanisms remain an exception rather than a regular practice when procuring digital goods and services in the region, despite the availability of relevant laws and regulations enabling for instance experimentation or partnerships with GovTech. Digital authorities in the region are well placed to collaborate with procurement agencies to leverage public procurement as a strategic tool and policy lever for the digital transformation of the public sector and achieving broader objectives of their digitalisation policies.

Monitoring and evaluation of digital government investments

Governments in the region have not adopted dedicated monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for digital government investments. The absence of investment portfolio monitoring mechanisms has an impact on the capacity of the public sector to take strategic digital investments decision-making through reliable and timely information that identifies and informs on potential problems so that digital government and other competent authorities can act appropriately.

Evidence shows that some countries in the region have advanced in collecting insights and data on user experience in digital government investments; however, these practices are still limited in terms of coverage and purpose. These efforts are undoubtedly a necessary but insufficient condition to fully exploit the benefits of digital government to deliver better services. Despite these initial steps to collect information on user experience, countries in the region still show difficulties using and channelling this information into the formulation of future investments.

Digital Talent and Skills

Building an environment to foster digital transformation of governments

More mature digital government requires an enabling cultural environment across the public sector, for example, by accepting risk taking, fostering experimentation, building multidisciplinary teams and promoting flexible ways of working. Governments in LAC still face challenges when encouraging experimentation in the public sector due to a risk-averse culture rooted in the region's administrative and legalistic environment of the public administrations, reflected for example in burdensome and rigid auditing processes, limiting the use of innovative practices such as proof of concept and overall experimentation in the public sector. On the other hand, LAC countries have benefited from setting-up multidisciplinary teams for delivering digital projects in the public sector.

Skills to support digital government maturity

To advance in their digital maturity, governments should clearly understand and identify the skills and talents required to be able to count on a workforce adequately equipped to support the digital transformation. Skills frameworks are key policy instruments to build a shared understanding and standardisation of the skills needed to advance the digital transformation of governments. These frameworks can enable the standardisation of recruitment processes, the fine-tuning of training programmes and facilitate the identification of digital capacity gaps in public institutions. Evidence showed most LAC governments have developed skills frameworks and strategies to align and enhance training and capacity-building efforts, covering also subnational governments. Nevertheless, there is an opportunity to advance creating dedicated skill frameworks for management level and frontline service delivery public servants. The region could benefit from further collaboration between countries in the identification and development of digital skills to foster regional integration.

Establish and maintain a digital workforce in the public sector

Governments should establish dedicated efforts to attract, develop, allocate and retain digitally competent talent across the public sector. The evidence collected shows that Latin American countries have not been able to create integrated and whole-of-government approaches to attract and recruit digital talent in the public sector. Digital government authorities are well positioned to co-operate with Civil Service authorities in defining strategies to attract and retain talent and allocate it across public sector institutions by developing integrated efforts, including dedicated instruments to support subnational governments. Finally, governments in the region introduced remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic to secure the continuity of services amidst the global disruption and there is an opportunity to adapt these flexible working schemes to attract more talent to public sector organisations.

Proposals for action In light of the key assessments exposed above, which draw on the main findings and analysis included in Chapter 2 of this review, LAC governments could consider implementing the following policy recommendations:
4. Advance towards a strategic and whole-of-government planning and co-ordination mechanism for investments on digital government. The following priorities can be considered: a. Advance towards two-layer co-ordination mechanisms for digital government investments at a strategic and operational level, to ensure effective communication, alignment and coherence on digital policy objectives while steering digital investment decisions towards strategic policy goals. b. Foster collaboration between digital, budget and procurement authorities when planning digital government investments to enhance coherence and boost efficiency in digital government spending. c. Develop comprehensive value proposition mechanisms to assess the merits of digital investments in the public sector, including economic, social and political considerations, that complement existing ex-ante assessment tools and criteria to support short-, medium- and long-term planning. d. Develop risk management frameworks which, aligned with value proposition mechanisms, help address the underlying threats and risks related to digital technologies and data, such as cybersecurity and the ethical use of data – including algorithms and AI-powered solutions. e. Introduce environmental considerations in the value proposition assessment of digital government investments to secure a sustainable digital transformation of the public sector and build policy coherence for the twin green and digital transitions.
5. Use public procurement more strategically and innovate to support the implementation of investments on digital government. The following priorities can be considered: a. Leverage the approval process of digital projects to secure compliance with digital standards, foster alignment between key stakeholders, and build coherence in the delivery of digital government investments. b. Promote and incentivise the use of agile methodologies by those responsible for implementing digital government investments and projects within central and local governments. c. Advance towards a more strategic approach to the public procurement of digital goods and services, exploiting the underlying economies of scale in the public sector for example through joint procurement for digital, including subnational governments. d. Explore the opportunity to use innovative public procurement mechanisms such as competitive dialogue, dynamic purchase systems, design contests or innovation partnerships, and challenge-based mechanisms to build agility, innovation and cost-efficiency when procuring digital goods and services.
6. Deploy accountability mechanisms and results-oriented approaches when investing on digital government. The following actions can be considered: a. Use monitoring tools as a strategic lever to steer the delivery of digital projects, for example by developing and leveraging performance indicators, including implementation progress, to provide policymakers with a comprehensive picture of the digital investment portfolio in the public sector. b. Adopt open-by-default approaches to the monitoring of digital government investments to build transparency and foster accountability by leveraging open government data and online dashboards to inform the progress of the digital investment portfolio. c. Develop standardised methodologies to measure user experience and channel these insights into the design and delivery of future digital government investments.
7. Promote an organisational culture for the digital transformation of governments. The following actions can be considered: a. Increase dedicated action lines in national digital government strategies to develop skills and talent for digital government among civil servants and citizens. b. Foster experimentation in the public sector by creating safe spaces for public officials to test and trial innovative approaches and increasing awareness among civil servants, to ultimately advance towards a cultural shift in LAC public administrations. c. Consolidate and expand the use of multidisciplinary teams in central and sub-national governments to benefit from different perspectives and expertise when addressing the inherent complexities of policymaking in the digital age.
8. Develop and maintain comprehensive skills frameworks to advance the digital transformation of governments. The following actions can be considered: a. Rethink, update and leverage digital skills frameworks to advance digital government maturity, including subnational governments, to provide a shared understanding and standardise the expected skills in the public sector workforce. b. Foster cross-country collaboration to identify the skills needed to drive the digital transformation of the public sector, building the ground to advance towards a regional digital skills and talent framework. c. Identify existing gaps in digital talent across the public sector to expand capacity-building initiatives and provide training to public officials with a special focus on sub-national governments.
9. Develop an organizational environment to attract, develop and retain digital talent in the public sector. The following actions can be considered: a. Promote collaboration between digital government and civil service authorities to advance towards a standardised digital talent attraction and recruitment policy, including in subnational governments. b. Advance towards an integrated approach to the attraction, recruitment, allocation and retention of digital talent and digital specialists, rethinking incentives in the public sector and benefitting from economies of scale to secure digital talent in the public sector. c. Revise remote working policies to attract digital talent to the public sector while securing legal obligations and safeguarding performance management and accountability tools. d. Foster the establishment of communities of practice, professional networks, and mentoring programs flexible spaces to promote peer learning and secure a dynamic digital workforce across the public sector. e. Explore scaling up existing communities of practice at a regional level, fostering cross-country collaboration and knowledge-sharing towards common challenges and opportunities in digital government in the region.

Building data-driven public sectors

Strengthening data interoperability and infrastructures

LAC countries acknowledge the significance of data integration and interoperability across the public sector, with the COVID-19 pandemic having been a catalyst to accelerate efforts in this regard. Nevertheless, important challenges remain to be addressed, particularly regarding outdated and burdensome processes for data generation and sharing, as well as important data legacies and data maturity at the national and local level.

Steering data policy change

Regulatory frameworks

While some countries have solid legal foundations in areas such as data interoperability, open data, and personal data protection, others are still lagging behind. Specific to personal data protection, the right of habeas data, which gives individuals the right file a complaint against the illegitimate use of their personal data or information or is present de jure or de facto in available regulatory frameworks on personal data protection across the region. While the COVID-19 pandemic prompted some countries to update data-related regulatory frameworks coherently across the region, regulations that do not match global and regional standards or their complete absence pose a challenge for trustworthy cross-border data integration, access, and sharing.

Co-ordination and collaboration

While in some instances co-ordination among relevant stakeholders takes place at the political or decision-making level (e.g. Data Governance Boards) and in the instance of digital government co-ordination bodies, co-ordination efforts do not necessarily take place also at the technical level (e.g. among data practitioners in the public sector) or with actors outside the public sector.

Data roles and responsibilities across public bodies

In LAC, the clear attribution of data leadership roles and responsibilities across public bodies is most evident in personal data protection in line with national legislation - when available. Institutional roles on open government data are not always self-standing, thus relevant open data responsibilities are often allocated as an additional task of the officials in charge of access to public sector information. At the same time, tactical roles such as data stewards are absent from most countries or this responsibility is allocated as part of institutional leadership roles on digital government.

Also, the emergence of data-intensive technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) has further highlighted the gaps in relation to data management and data governance capacity within the public sector in the region, as also indicated in recent regional reports on AI by the OECD and other organisations in the LAC region (OECD/CAF (2022[2])).

Data leadership and strategies

Whole of government data leadership

Dedicated leadership positions in the data policy area, such as in the form of formal and stand-alone one-person roles are mostly absent from public sectors in LAC. The data leadership mandate, responsibilities or tasks are often attributed to the body in charge of the digital government agenda (e.g. digital government agencies, telecommunication ministries). The data leadership task under these bodies often has a strong focus on public sector interoperability. Furthermore, the leadership and/or mandate on personal data protection, access to public information, and open government data often fall in different bodies across LAC countries.

National data strategies

The adoption of national data strategies for governments are not standard practice in LAC countries. In most cases, data-related actions are included as a sub-component of digital government strategies and similar agendas or focused on specific aspects such as open government data. National data strategies often translate more into several policy tools and strategies in areas such as interoperability, open data, digital government, personal data protection and AI rather than proving an integrated action-oriented approach within a single instrument.

At the regional level, the appetite for data integration is reflected in the actions undertaken in regional trade mechanisms such as MERCOSUR and digital government networks such as Red GEALC – the Network on E-government in Latin America and the Caribbean. Other efforts are observed in the context of the Digital Nations (with Uruguay as a member) and the UNeCLAC’s Digital Agenda for Latin America and the Caribbean (eLAC2022).

Open government data

Some countries have reinforced their regulatory and institutional governance arrangements for open government data, but in recent years open data efforts have stagnated due to a lack of continuity of political support to the agenda or sustainability in the implementation of open data initiatives. Open government policies remain a driver for open data initiatives in the region. Whereas open data stands as a key component of anti-corruption initiatives in the region, further work is needed to connect it to other policy challenges including the fight against climate change, the use of AI in the public sector, and the inclusion and protection of vulnerable groups.

Progress in implementation of open data policies and impact assessment remain a challenge. Also, the practice of exploring public-private partnerships to increase data re-use and identify data demand is uneven across countries. Lastly, open data efforts at the local level are growing but still incipient.

Trustworthy data access and sharing

LAC countries are still in the process of building or consolidating regulatory and institutional arrangements for personal data protection and privacy. Some LAC countries are still struggling to provide citizens with tools they can use to know how their data is being used, for what purpose and by whom within the public sector.

Also, the COVID-19 pandemic and the accelerated shift towards digitalisation of public services has brought data security to the forefront of the policy agenda, but LAC countries need to take a more proactive and preventive approach to the management of digital risks. Data ethics is a growing area, which has so far been largely understood only as related to personal data protection.

Proposals for action In light of the key assessments exposed above, which draw on the main findings and analysis included in Chapter 3 of this report, LAC governments could consider implementing the following policy recommendations:
10. Strengthen data interoperability and infrastructures. The following priorities can be considered: a. Map data flows, data relationships and the connection of data to services (shared or public) to increase the use of interoperability buses. b. Improve the discoverability and quality of data assets by promoting the development and use of data catalogues and data maturity assessments. c. Address multi-level data governance challenges, including data capability at the local level, exchange and scale of shared tools, and the digitalisation of public registers when needed in collaboration with local authorities. d. Invest further efforts to advance semantic interoperability, metadata, data classification schemas, and web services. e. Promote use of open standards and open-source infrastructure tools for scalability and regional data integration.
11. Reinforce regulatory frameworks, co-ordination, and collaboration to steer public sector data policy change. The following priorities can be considered: a. Strengthen legal foundations for data interoperability in the public sector, open data, and personal data protection by updating their scope and provisions in line with global standards and principles or issuing legislation when needed. b. Advance regional regulatory interoperability by harmonizing data-related legislation across countries. c. Establish formal and informal co-ordination mechanisms for data governance in the public sector to ensure clarity in terms of data-related roles and to promote collaboration across different levels of government and with external communities such as representatives of vulnerable groups, minorities, human rights watchers, journalists, and GovTech and civic tech actors. d. Explore collaborations and foster informal communities of practice within the public sector to reinforce public sector data maturity with a bottom-up approach. When available, tap on schools of public administration or civil service institutes for this purpose. e. Promote engagement with external communities, to ensure the development of trustworthy, inclusive, and representative data-related strategies, projects, and initiatives.
12. Clarify data roles and responsibilities across public bodies. The following actions can be considered: a. Clarify the responsibilities of data-related roles across public bodies in charge of, among others, open data, access to information, data management, personal data protection, and data science to prevent duplication of efforts, enable better co-ordination and accountability and foster synergies. b. Establish tactical and cross-cutting roles, such as institutional data stewards, across ministries and public sector bodies, in particular those with data-intensive policy agendas. This, to facilitate co-ordination, promote connections between national and institutional data strategies, and foster a data culture within public sector organizations. c. Foster capacity building and knowledge-sharing across borders to advance common approaches and capacities on personal data protection, open data, artificial intelligence, data governance, and digital security. Temporary public officials’ placements or loans across countries and join capacity building exercises in the context of regional digital government fora and multi-lateral collaboration could help in this regard.
13. Improve whole-of-government data leadership and strategic approach. The following actions can be considered: a. Improve co-ordination among bodies (e.g. digital government bodies, line ministries) responsible for personal data protection, open data, access to information, data security and interoperability by further promoting the creation of co-ordination bodies such as data governance boards. b. Provide a stronger political back-up to help advance strategic ambitions beyond the technical aspects of data-driven public sectors. In some LAC countries, this would imply connecting with broader efforts to strengthen the governance and leadership for digital government should the data leadership be attributed as a task or mission of the digital government leadership body or role. c. Work towards the development of integrated national data strategies at the central/federal government level to provide more coherence, policy steering, foster synergies and reduce duplication of efforts, and to bring together existing data-related strategies under one single policy umbrella. d. Initiate discussions at the political level towards a common data strategy at the regional level. This could help to englobe available data-related efforts in different sectors, advance data-driven approaches to improve cross-border service design and delivery, and secure the use and scalability of data governance tools such as digital identity.
14. National data strategies and open government data. The following actions can be considered: a. Work towards the development of integrated national data strategies at the central/federal government level to provide more coherence, policy steering, foster synergies and reduce duplication of efforts, and to bring together existing data-related strategies under one single policy umbrella. These data strategies should connect with other strategies such as those on AI in order to ensure the cross-pollination of data governance and AI governance efforts. b. Initiate discussions at the political level towards a common data strategy at the regional level. This could help to integrate available data-related efforts in different sectors, advance data-driven approaches to improve cross-border service design and delivery, and secure the use and scalability of data governance tools such as digital identity. c. Develop strategies for open data at the national level that provide clear timeframes, responsibilities, actions and indicators, framed in the context of broader digital, data and AI strategies if needed. d. Keep investing efforts to clarify roles and strengthen legal frameworks for open data e.g. by including specific open data provisions and definitions; and ensure alignment with broader digital transformation and AI strategies. e. Engage external communities such as representatives of vulnerable groups, minorities, human rights watchers, journalists, and GovTech and civic tech actors to identify needs on demand and promote data re-use. f. Ensure that open government data availability respond to emerging policy challenges in the region, including gender violence, feminicides, violence against LGBTQ+ communities and other vulnerable groups. g. Further promote the adoption and implementation of international open data standards on public contracting, beneficial ownership, and public infrastructure in line with initiatives such as the Inter-American Programme on Open Data to Prevent and Fight Corruption (PIDA). h. Further integrate open data initiatives with the achievement of the goals of digital government agendas. This means implementing actions to use open data for the co-creation of services citizens’ and businesses’ can use in their day-to-day lives, including in collaboration with data holders from the private sector and through partnerships with these actors. i. Encourage open data at the local level while acknowledging the need to also advance progress in related aspects such as connectivity, local digital and data maturity, and the inclusion of rural communities.
15. Establish the conditions for trustworthy governance and use of data in the public sector. The following actions can be considered: a. Establish clear responsibilities and roles for personal data protection across public sector organisations and at the level of responsible bodies (e.g. data protection authorities, Ombudsman) and increase digital and data literacy in this area within public bodies and across society. b. Develop and provide citizens with access to tools such as digital identity, digital wallets, citizens’ folders, e-signature, and authentication mechanisms. c. Invest further efforts on data ethics to ensure the responsible generation, management, sharing and use of inclusive and representative data, including in the context of AI systems. d. Advance digital security efforts to enhance the protection of government activities and of the data these generate and collect, including personal data.

Improving public service design and delivery

Defining integrated strategies for public service design and delivery

Strategic approach to and co-ordination for service design and delivery

The public services agenda (efforts conducive to improve access, responsiveness, proactiveness and human-centricity of government services) is gaining increased political momentum and support in LAC following the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite progress in the digitalisation of public service delivery through different channels and in user adoption, LAC governments should develop a forward-looking strategic approach that supports whole-of-government and omni-channel public service transformation to address remaining challenges. These include a limited availability of adequate policy frameworks and limited mandates and responsibilities related to the services agenda. Co-ordination mechanisms to support a coherent and integrated approach to designing and delivering services around users and their needs both at central and local levels are not the norm, as opposed to a silo-based and analogue-oriented digitisation.

Channels strategy

Most LAC governments have adopted multi-channel service delivery strategies (intended as services available through different channels yet offering a different user experience) - in contrast to a few that offer government services under an omni-channel approach (that focuses on providing the same quality of seamless user journeys across multiple channels). The predominant multi-channel approach in LAC is a missed opportunity to increase convenience and responsiveness for users to complete public services from an end-to-end perspective. This is particularly sensitive as delivering equal service quality across all channels is essential for an inclusive digital transformation of the public sector in the region considering existing social and economic inequality and exclusion across territories. Digital means have become a core delivery channel, but there are still limitations to offer a fully end-to-end and complete experience to users through existing platforms despite the rapid increase in the number of analogue processes being available through digital means.

User-centred service design

Involving and understanding users and their needs

The ultimate goal of public service delivery is to solve users' end-problems. However, LAC governments are still largely oriented towards designing and delivering public services driven by public sector bureaucracy and regulatory requirements (government-centric approach), constraining the public sector's ability to understand and meet user needs. The existing dominant legalistic culture, also applied to public service transformation, has caused limited advancements in digital government maturity in the past decades. The legalistic approach to service design and delivery is reflected in the limited understanding and capacities for service design and user research, and has acted as barrier to fully embrace a user-driven approach for the digital transformation of public services in LAC. As a consequence, LAC governments often follow a top-down approach (interpretation rather than understanding of user needs) and an inward-looking mindset (oriented to bureaucracy rather than users) when transforming public services.

Measuring service performance and user satisfaction

Delivering responsive and convenient public services to users requires continuous improvement and a systematic approach to capture service performance and user opinions and satisfaction through feedback loops. LAC countries do not have a consistent and comprehensive approach to collect, analyse and use public service performance data, relying largely on basic indicators that restrict public sector capacity to transform services informed by their delivery performance. Efforts to measure and apply user satisfaction into service improvement remain limited, mostly focused on collecting data that do not inform service improvement in a consistent way and are often disconnected from the broader service delivery policy.

Setting enabling conditions for digitalisation of government services

Guidelines, standards, and capacities

A whole-of-government approach to public service design and delivery includes developing common and actionable mechanisms to assist service teams when digitally transforming a service. Due to the dominant legal culture, the majority of existing standards and supporting means are framed within existing regulatory frameworks in the region. While relevant, they do not provide actionable guidance for the effective design and delivery of public services. Advancing the development of guidelines for user research and service design would be particularly relevant to help mitigate the existing legal-oriented and limited human-centric mindset driving the public service agenda in LAC.

Regarding specific capacities to digitally transform public services, most LAC countries are investing in ensuring in-house capability to design and operate services, as well as to outsource with traditional external suppliers. To a lesser extent, governments in the region are building on existing development capabilities from other public sector institutions (e.g., reusing their solutions). Leveraging the expertise of start-ups, entrepreneurs, or innovators through GovTech partnerships remain limited across the region, reducing access to new and more innovative suppliers or partners to contribute to the digitalisation of government services.

Common digital tools and enablers

A whole-of-government approach to service design and delivery builds on the premise that public sector institutions can have access to common digital tools and enablers that facilitate effective collaboration and integration in service delivery. While LAC countries are advancing the development of digital public infrastructure (DPI) such as cloud, data interoperability, digital payments, digital notification, or digital identity, there is an untapped opportunity to advance regional discussions on digital public goods (DPGs) that require further regional co-operation and sharing of practices. There is a limited development of open-source solutions in LAC, with the missed opportunity to advance towards common tools that may respond to similar legal and cultural frameworks, such as digital notification or citizen folder solutions.

Proposals for action In light of the key assessments exposed above, which draw on the main findings and analysis included in Chapter 4 of this review, LAC governments could consider implementing the following policy recommendations:
16. Anchor the design and delivery of government services in national public priorities and policies. The following priorities can be considered: a. Embed public service transformation as a core policy goal in government priorities, including the development of dedicated policy frameworks or strategies that define roadmaps, targets, and actions for improved responsiveness and user-centricity of digitally enabled public services. b. Define specific mandate and responsibilities to lead a public service design and delivery agenda, integrating responsibilities for user research, user-centric design and administrative simplification with the development of core building blocks for digitalisation of government services. c. Empower digital government authorities to play a central role in public services agendas, securing the mandate, capacities, and fostering the evolvement of the needed mindset to further develop service design within national digital government strategies. d. Anchor the digitalisation of local government services within central/federal digital government strategies and policy frameworks to secure coherence and alignment for service design and delivery. e. Foster the development and adoption of an omni-channel service delivery approach securing sound channel strategies, co-ordination and the establishment of enabling conditions from funding to effective data sharing within the public sector. f. Increase the online availability of fully transactional government services by securing that efforts are devoted to rethink and simplify government processes and services, making them more agile and efficient through the use of digital technologies and data, avoiding replicating analogue and paper-based processes online. g. Consolidate ongoing efforts to develop whole-of-government service catalogues across different channels, including relevant information to support service redesign or streamlining.
17. Develop culture and capacities for a user-centric approach in the design and delivery of government services. The following priorities can be considered: a. Develop service design capacities within digital government leading agencies, including standards and guidelines on user research to equip public sector institutions to implement user-driven digital transformation of public services. Strengthening service design capacities is particularly relevant in the current context of increased citizens expectations with the public sector as well as increased political and financial support to digitalisation of public services in the region. b. Secure inclusive design and delivery of public services in LAC, in particular targeting active engagement with key groups such as migrants, elderly, and students in the context of regional migration and population ageing. c. Promote horizontal collaboration within the public sector, for example through the development of communities of practice and peer networks, as well as with key external stakeholders to better engage different groups in service design as well as to share best practices and tackle common challenges for embedding user research into digital transformation initiatives. d. Encourage regional sharing of best practices and lessons on service design that, acknowledging the regional administrative, economic and societal context, help further advance adoption of service design practices for public service transformation. e. Develop capacities and allocate resources to consolidate public service performance data in LAC, including further integration with service catalogues and registries to generate a whole-of-government overview of public services delivery. f. Develop data analytics capacities in digital government and/or public service authorities to improve the collection, management, and use of performance data to improve service design and delivery. g. Strengthen the development of common methodologies for user satisfaction that support a better understanding of the experience of users after accessing services. h. Secure the alignment and integration of service performance and user satisfaction measurement with the public service transformation agenda to strengthen an evidence-based approach to improve service design and delivery building on the experience of users.
18. Reinforce the enabling conditions for the digitalisation of government services. The following actions can be considered: a. Develop a consistent set of guidelines and standards, building on the existing regulatory frameworks for digital government and public services, to effectively equip service teams with a common and unified approach to digitalise public services centred on users. b. Make available dedicated guidance for service design and user research that, coupled with strengthened resources and capacities, can effectively switch the mindset of civil servants and delivery teams towards a user-driven approach. c. Broaden the scope of external suppliers and partners to design and deliver innovative and proactive public services, levering the experience and capacities of intra- and entrepreneurs, start-ups and public-private partnerships (PPPs) to complement regular suppliers and in-house capability. d. Advance towards an integrated and coherent framework for common digital public infrastructure available to central, federal and local governments that promotes a coherent and interoperable approach in public service delivery. e. Advance regional co-operation to develop and share digital public goods that can support cross-border service delivery in LAC, leveraging the experience of governments in the region with open-source tools. f. Leverage international co-operation to advance the governance of digital public infrastructure for trusted and interoperable solutions agreed among like-minded countries.

Digital innovation and GovTech

Managing a portfolio of innovation

Only a slight majority of digital government leaders in LAC find that the public service in their country is innovative. OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation’s evidence shows that LAC governments are taking bold steps to innovate, most strongly favouring mission-oriented innovation (or setting a clear outcome and overarching objective for achieving a specific mission) and also tending to embrace adaptive innovation (or testing and trying new approaches in order to respond to a changing operating environment). In contrast, governments’ efforts are weaker in enhancement-oriented innovation (or upgrading practices, achieving efficiencies and better results, and building on existing structures) and the weakest in anticipatory innovation (or exploring and engaging with emergent issues that might shape future priorities and future commitments). This hampers the ability of the public sector to take actions towards proactively anticipating public issues and finding innovative ways to address them.

Committing to innovate

LAC governments generally place a strong emphasis on innovation within their digital government strategies. Some have also developed digital innovation and artificial intelligence strategies specifically for the public sector. However, broad public sector innovation strategies have been less pronounced, although certain governments, particularly municipalities, are outstanding actors in government innovation. Nonetheless, the absence of strategies may pose challenges for LAC governments in adopting a systems approach to innovation and linking their overall innovation efforts to their digital strategy and digital innovation goals.

Seven LAC governments (41%) have adhered to the OECD Declaration on Public Sector Innovation, formally recognising the importance of innovation as a strategic capability of government to modernise state administrations and achieve policy goals, and actively implementing initiatives to operationalize its principles. However, the number of adhering countries in the region remains a minority. By becoming adherents to the Declaration, countries can indicate their commitment and alignment with internationally recognised principles and actions to embrace and enhance innovation.

Promoting innovation skills and capabilities

The findings from the OECD-CAF LAC Digital Government Agency Survey, based on the perceptions of digital government officials as to whether public servants in their countries have the core skills outlined in the OECD skills model for public sector innovation, suggest that the foundational enablers of innovative capacities and culture are not currently in place in the region. However, the relatively high scores for curiosity hint that public servants want to try new things and innovate, but that they do not always have the know-how and empowerment to move forward. More specifically, LAC governments have increasingly developed training and capacity building components to help strengthen some of their innovation skills, especially when it comes to data literacy, user-centricity, and iteration. Other skills like storytelling appear to be less of a focus, according to the perceptions of digital government officials.

Promoting digital innovation and the use of emerging technologies

LAC governments are exploring the use mostly of artificial intelligence in the public sector as documented extensively in previous reports (OECD/CAF, 2022[2]), while showing some interest for other innovative and emerging technologies, particularly big data analytics, internet of things, and blockchain. Only a few governments reported that they have strategies around other forms of emerging technology (not AI) and there is low level of evidence of actual efforts in implementing them.

Unlocking the potential of GovTech

Better collaboration with start-ups and exploring public-private partnerships have been identified as particular priorities and challenges in LAC to promote better uptake of emerging technologies and greater agility and innovation in government. The region has already been taking bold steps in promoting awareness and interest in GovTech startups, showing the most significant expansion at the sub-national level in cities such as Córdoba, Argentina, Sao Paulo, Brazil, or Bogotá, Colombia. Many GovTech solutions leverage government data to develop services based on artificial intelligence solutions.

At the national level there has been less prevalence, limiting opportunities for a systemic approach to GovTech and potentially hindering the ability of start-ups to obtain funding and scale up. After evaluating several key GovTech enablers, including start-up investment, data infrastructures, innovation spaces, and public procurement, LAC governments exhibit comparatively slower progress at the public policy level. This pertains particularly to the limited development of strategies and the absence of dedicated entities responsible for coordinating GovTech efforts.

Proposals for action In light of the key assessments exposed above, which draw on the main findings and analysis included in Chapter 5 of this review, LAC governments could consider implementing the following policy recommendations:
19. Reinforce capacities and commitment for digital innovation in the public sector. The following priorities can be considered: a. Develop a more consistent approach towards the governance of public sector innovation, including adopting dedicated overarching public sector innovation strategies and setting up institutional structures to steer innovation in government. b. Adopt a portfolio approach - multiple projects and investments in government innovation - that allows governments to understand, foster and manage different facets of innovation, as well as spreading the risk and mitigating the chances of loss. c. Promote use of the Portfolio Exploration Tool (PET) among digital government and innovation agencies to facilitate a customized evaluation of each organization's context, enable the mapping of their innovation portfolio on a project-by-project basis, identify any existing gaps, assess the alignment of their efforts with core strengths, and enhance their capacity to adopt a portfolio approach to innovation. d. Promote an environment and capabilities for innovation by establishing appropriate organisational structures, mechanisms, and incentives (including financing), where public servants are empowered to engage with new ideas, technologies, and ways of working. e. Connect different actors (public, private, not-for-profit, citizens) in ways that allow the public sector to partner, collaborate, and co-create new approaches; as well as to create partnerships to increase the public sector’s ability to innovate. f. Systematically share learning arising from innovation activity (whether success or failure). g. Ensure a foundation of strong innovation skills among public servants based on the OECD skills model for public sector innovation, where all officials have at least some level of awareness of the six areas in order to support increased levels of innovation in the public sector. h. Maintain awareness of new technologies and how they may be used by or impact the public sector, while adopting a risk-based approach that involves carefully evaluating the potential risks and benefits and implementing appropriate measures to mitigate them.
20. Unlock the potential of the GovTech ecosystem. The following priorities can be considered: a. Strengthen the governance of GovTech by developing dedicated strategies and responsibilities to steer the agenda, ensuring close alignment with digital government institutions and strategies. b. Develop dedicated GovTech challenge funds and investments mechanisms to promote digital public sector innovation and economic entrepreneurship in this space. c. Review public procurement frameworks to better understand how perceived barriers to GovTech are hard-coded into the rules or if there is room for clarification and alternative interpretations.

References

[1] ECLAC (2022), A Digital Path for Sustainable Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, https://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/48461 (accessed on 14 January 2023).

[2] OECD/CAF (2022), The Strategic and Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Public Sector of Latin America and the Caribbean, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1f334543-en.