Key to Increasing Transparency in e-Government Deployments: Public Feedback Mechanisms, The

In this APDIP e-Note, the author argues that public feedback mechanisms (PFMs) are essential if
e-Government is to achieve its goals of increasing transparency and decreasing corruption. These PFMs fall into two broad categories:

• Separate portals to file complaints and grievances. This would be a one stop portal (potentially a designated website) through which citizens could submit feedback or complaints directed at, or routed to, any government department.
• Systems integrated with a government service delivered online. In a service integrated PFM, individual government agency or service sites provide their own direct feedback mechanisms (such as email links on online documents) allowing messages to be delivered directly to the relevant government office.

While each system has unique requirements and advantages, the author notes that
"PFMs tied to a government service are more straight forward to implement
because they require coordination with only one or two agencies."
Regardless of the system chosen, all PFMs should meet certain criteria:

1. Information is directly routed to the relevant party
   and not to a vague point of contact such as the
   webmaster.
2. Information can be internally tracked so the
   recipient of feedback is held accountable for
   processing it.
3. Information can be externally tracked so the
   feedback provider can follow-up on his/her inquiry.

The author provides examples from Singapore, Korea and India of how both separate grievance portal
and service-integrated systems
have attempted to meet PFM requirements. Studies are cited indicating that citizens have found these sites effective. Technological
barriers and
lack of cross-agency collaboration, however, are noted at potential barriers to implementing such programmes effectively.



The author concludes that creating "a public feedback mechanism
requires a combination of technological support, clearly
defined policies, and focal points that are held
accountable. In order to better improve the system,
governments should evaluate the performance of PFMs
by looking at the turnaround times for replying to
submissions, the specificity of the responses, the
percentage of responses that are adequately
addressed, and the perceptions of the mechanism both
from the citizen and civil servant perspective."