eGovernment for Development

eTransparency Case Study No.3

Improving Transparency of File Movement in a South Asian Planning Commission

Case Study Authors

Anonymous

Application

A South Asian Planning Commission introduced a pilot information system in 2002 to make file movements more transparent.

Application Description

Planning Commissions are the main planning agency in those governments that have them. A Planning Commission plans and allocates funds for national projects. Files on projects are initiated at a lower level. Files move from office to office - bureaucrat to bureaucrat - in a turnaround fashion in the hierarchy for the process of approval. Each government official adds his/her own comments in the file. The approved files are finally put forward in a high-level meeting of the relevant ministries.

A file therefore contains all the necessary details on projects for approval. The files also contain any relevant investigation into the feasibility of the projects. Movement of files from office to office permits government officials to sit on files, and movement is deliberately slow because of personal motivations. Stakeholders in the projects need to therefore get involved in "helping" the files move. Thus, it often happens that projects are not eventually forwarded for selection on basis of merit or benefit to the public. Instead, it is the personal benefits of the stakeholders and the government officials that matter the most. Since the interest of the stakeholders is in approval of the project, they do not want to exert any pressure (e.g. complaint) that could yield adverse results on the public servant. The simplest way that a public servant deals with negative pressure, is that a file goes missing. To initiate the project again would take a stakeholder another six to eight months. Thus, payment rather than pressure is the norm, but kickbacks for file transfer are all under the table and are very difficult to prove.

Occasionally, there are ministers that like to show benefits to the public and want to encourage proper movement of files. However, even if top-down orders go out that a file must not stay with a government officer for more than two days, it is very difficult to implement. There are registers that sequentially log the entry and exit of files and letters from any office. However, to work out the period of stay of a file, one has to search different registers to find the same file. Thus information stays locked in these registers. Except for ad hoc top-down instructions, there are no standards or codes maintained for movement of files.

This pilot application set out to record date of file entry and date of file exit on a central computerised register, thus enabling the duration of stay in any particular office to be easily calculated. Since government officials generally remain busy and do not like to use computers (which is sometimes considered a menial job) the ideal persons to enter the entry and exit information were seen to be the clerks who maintain the registers. The computer system offers functionality at two levels:

• Individual officials can use it as a personal file manager - it can show them which files are pending by priority (e.g. just the urgent ones); it can list files by sender (e.g. to identify files from key officials); and it can help locate required files that are in colleagues' offices.
• Senior official can use the application as a management information system, showing overview statistics, e.g. on the file-handling performance of different staff members.

The pilot application is initially being introduced into just one section of the Planning Commission - it is currently still at a training and learning stage.

Role of ICT

The system makes use of a central database system, based on mySQL and running on Linux, which is hosted on a server linked to other PCs in the Planning Commission via a local area network.

Application Drivers/Purpose

The ultimate aim was to allow the Planning Minister, who heads the Planning Commission, to statistically see the average duration of files kept by any public servant. The system could create a merit list of the most efficient officers; if wished, the Minister could reward those officers. Alternatively, those seen to be sitting on files for a long period - or those sitting on some files for long periods but others for very short periods - could be targeted for further investigation since such patterns could well indicate corruption of the file-handling process. In addition, the system is intended to help individual officers assess their own performance and priorities.

The drive for the project came from an idea by the system developer combined with the desire of the Section Head for a quick, low-cost e-government system. That desire itself arose because the Section Head - seeking to prove his own knowledge and expertise - made a passing comment to the Chief Secretary of the Commission that he would start e-government within two weeks. The Section Head was then driven to deliver on this promise to avoid losing face.

Stakeholders

As noted the system is being developed in one particular section of the Commission. The key stakeholders in this pilot project are the system developer, the Section Head, and planning officers within the section. The Planning Minister and Chief Secretary are more distant stakeholders. The intention is to roll out the application to other Commission sections, whose officers therefore represent potential stakeholders. Those with interests in each of the particular projects contained within files are also application stakeholders.

Transparency and the Poor

There is no direct relationship between this application and the poor, since it is internal to the Planning Commission. However, it is intended to create a more level playing field for projects. It may therefore bring equality of treatment for those projects that involve poor communities and stakeholders without finance or political connections who, to date, have found it hard to get their projects forwarded and approved.

Impact: Costs and Benefits

System costs have been minimal - the database and operating system software were already present, and development of the database was quick and simple. The hardware of server and networked workstations was already present within the Planning Commission. Only limited training was required for the clerks to be able to use the system.

The system's pilot status and implementation difficulties mean that formal benefits have yet to be identified. However, the potential benefits are very significant since the entire bureaucracy of government rests on file movement. That file movement has been tainted by corruption, and the system can help to undermine one of the foundations of corruption in the form of delays to file movement.

Evaluation: Failure or Success?

There has been no formal evaluation of the project to date.

Enablers/Critical Success Factors

1. Strong political drive . As noted above, the Section Head had promised to begin e-government within a two-week period. He then badly needed an application that could deliver on this rather careless boast - which the system developer duly provided. The Section Head was very strongly supportive of the application as a way to avoid appearing foolish. This drive was itself enabled by the foreign, donor-funded Project Director who supported the application and made funds available for it.
2. KISS . This e-transparency application was based on existing hardware and software, and stuck to the KISS ("Keep it Small and Simple") principle: the system was easy to build, easy to understand and easy to use. It was initially implemented only on a small scale. This has contributed to the quick, low-cost implementation.
3. Design based on some local realities . The system design made use of existing information that was already recorded in paper registers; it also based itself on a pressing real need to address the lack of transparency in file movement.

Constraints/Challenges

1. Lack of implementation ownership . This Section Head's promise was deemed fulfilled once the system was designed and loaded, and once staff had been trained in its use. The Section Head seemed to have little interest beyond this face-saving action in the actual functioning of the system. Even in his own office, he has not requested either personal and management reports from his PA, e.g. to list his own pending files, or to see the performance of others. This is a major issue underlying the other challenges identified here: internal staff take a lead from the Section Head's lack of interest. Likewise it would need the Section Head to convince the Chief Secretary and the Minister if the project is to be rolled-out to other sections. But his lack of project ownership means he feels no motivation to do any such convincing.
2. Staff resistance . Most clerical staff have been unwilling to use or even, in some cases, to learn to use the system. They have permanent jobs with low salaries and low job motivation. There are no incentives for them to use the new system, given the lack of top-down orders or encouragement; and there may actually be disincentives for some in the form of reduced corrupt income. In the case of training courses, these staff will attend if an additional daily allowance is paid. Otherwise, they see it as an extra burden that they can live without. There are exceptions - clerks who want to do their job properly - but they are the minority.
3. Scale-up . No funds have been provided to roll-out the system from its pilot location to all other sections within the Planning Commission.

Recommendations

1. Design for all local realities . eTransparency systems must be designed in a way that recognises all local realities: not just the realities of what information is currently available, but also the realities of current organisational culture, working practices, and individual motivations.
2. Address the personal interests of government staff . An e-transparency system like this potentially removes a source of income and power for some public officials in the Planning Commission. There need to be clear incentives - either reward or punishment - in place to override the disincentive of transparency.

Further Information

n/a

Case Details

Case Editor : Richard Heeks.
Author Data Sources/Role : Direct Role.
Centrality of Transparency : Central. Type : Reporting. Audience : Internal. Content : Workflow. Sector : General Services.
Outcome : Too Early to Evaluate.
Region : South Asia. Start Date : 2002. Submission Date : November 2003.