Skip to main content

This page has been translated using TexTra by NICT. Please note that the translation may not be completely accurate.If you find any mistranslations, we appreciate your feedback on the "Request form for improving the automatic translation ".

2025 (2025) The 1st Policy Evaluation and Administrative Project Review Expert Meeting (held on Friday, April 25, 2025)

Overview

  • Date: Friday, April 25, 2025, from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
  • Location: Online
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Business
      1. Holding of the Advisory Council on Digital Agency Policy Evaluation and Administrative Project Review
      2. Election of Chairperson and Appointment of Acting Chairperson
      3. Operation of the Advisory Council on Digital Agency Policy Evaluation and Administrative Project Review
      4. Discussion on review and improvement of business (explanation of each business)
        1. Control and supervision support system
        2. Electronic approval system (EASY)
    3. Other (future plans)
    4. Closing

Material

Summary of proceedings

Date

April 25, 2025 (Friday), 2025, from 11:00 to 12:30

Location

Holding online

Attendee

Committee member

Committee Chair Satoh, Committee Member Iwasaki, Committee Member Uemura, Committee Member Kanbayashi, Committee Member Kobayashi, Committee Member Sasajima, Permanent Committee Member
*Mito Committee members review in writing

Business

  1. Holding of the Advisory Council on Digital Agency Policy Evaluation and Administrative Project Review
  2. Election of Chairperson and Appointment of Acting Chairperson
  3. Operation of the Advisory Council on Digital Agency Policy Evaluation and Administrative Project Review
  4. Discussion on review and improvement of business (explanation of each business)
    1. Control and supervision support system
    2. Electronic approval system (EASY)

After the Secretariat announced the opening of the meeting, the Chairperson and Acting Chairperson were elected by the committee members themselves. After the Secretariat explained the background and positioning of the establishment of the Society and how to proceed in the future, the person in charge explained the project and the committee members made comments and answered questions.
The main comments and questions are as follows.

1. Supervisory Support System

Committee member: In the ? For example, do you have target KPIs?

Person in charge: handout is the table of contents for the project plan, and the specific situation is described in chapter 5, "Targets and Monitoring."
There is a certain amount of cost for the information system, but the point of view that we put the most importance on in the review is how much effect is produced for the cost, and what the KPI is like for the KGI that we aim for, and we confirm it firmly in the project plan.

Committee member: In the should be entered as necessary?

Person in charge: Province, so it is quite difficult to confirm all items in terms of quantity.
Therefore, "-" does not mean that it is never confirmed or that it is not necessary to describe, but it indicates review items to be confirmed as necessary, and "○" indicates review items to be confirmed intensively.

Committee member: In the To add something, PJMOs basically support the development and operation of information systems. With regard to the KPIs that Committee Member Uemura just mentioned, I think there are many KPIs in businesses using information systems, but they are not always set for information systems themselves.
Depending on the business, KPIs may be set, but depending on the product, I imagine that information systems themselves may be described.

Committee member: In the In the slide titled "Proposal for the Direction of Problem Solving" at the end, there is a description such as "In order to realize these, drastic improvement (zero based renovation) of the control and supervision support system is necessary." Are there no budgetary problems?

Person in charge: We regularly operate, maintain, and modify the control and supervision support system, but if we try to realize the contents described in the document, it will not proceed with minor modifications. We are considering a radical review of the database, and if we import information that we do not currently manage, we will not be able to realize the contents of the document unless we remake the existing information system from scratch, rather than by minor modifications.
On top of that, although we have secured a certain amount of budget every fiscal year, I think it is impossible to realize the content of the material by itself, so in that sense, I feel that the budget is a bottleneck at the moment.

Committee member: In the budget, I would like to make two recommendations.
The first point is that upgrading information systems naturally entails maintenance. You presented the current schedule, but I thought it would be important to set a schedule that includes an adjustment period based on the assumption that the budget will be secured, and to make efforts to secure further cooperation with those in charge of the budget, including from other ministries and agencies.
The second point is about the electronic approval system (EASY). For example, in the explanation on a yearly basis, I thought that we should aim for further business efficiency by changing the development period by dividing some functions to some extent and devising specifications that utilize AI.

Committee member: In the .
The first question is about the roles of the PJMO. Are the documents prepared by each ministry and agency at the PJMO stage different from the draft plan submitted to Digital Agency, or are they the same?
The second point is the budget request for information systems that came up in Digital Agency. When will we discuss the overlapping and unification of information systems between ministries and agencies?

Person in charge: Regarding the first point, the plans made by each ministry and agency are basically submitted to Digital Agency as they are. Project plans are used by each ministry and agency as IT governance, and those same things are submitted to Digital Agency to advance the project.
The second point is that each ministry and agency has been developing the same information systems separately, and I understand that this was an opportunity for Digital Agency to be established in order to prevent such a situation.
In addition, there are budget requests at the planning stage of information systems. For new information systems, we always look at what kind of plans they are, and if they can be replaced by other information systems or by private services, we stop reviewing them at the planning stage.

Committee member: In the I would like to make some comments on the point that I would appreciate your reply next time.
The first is that updating information for one year is a little long, and I think there are places where orders have already been placed after one year, so how will it be improved after this?
The second point is that, basically, system procurement by ministries and agencies does not have to be done by ministries and agencies. If the purpose is to improve the way of procurement and ordering, I am not sure whether centralization will necessarily be an advantage. If centralization is a kind of positioning of what Digital Agency is doing, if you do not show me the advantages of centralization, it will only put a burden on the PJMO of each ministry and agency because it will be input into this information system. In this regard, if you do not show me what the advantages outweigh, I am not sure if this is right.

2. Electronic Approval System (EASY)

Committee member: In the According to the first person's explanation, a satisfaction survey on the electronic approval system (EASY) was conducted, and 80% of the respondents were satisfied and 20% were not satisfied. What is stated in "5. Major Issues of EASY and Directions for Resolution of Issues (Draft)" in the material, is it an attempt to resolve the issues based on the dissatisfaction of these 20%, or is it completely unrelated and an attempt to find and resolve issues independently? If there are points of dissatisfaction pointed out in the satisfaction survey, please let me see them.

Person in charge: This satisfaction survey is a survey on EASY, which is currently being used by each ministry and agency. The issues raised in this document are issues for creating new functions.
On the other hand, in the satisfaction survey, there are such proposals from each ministry and agency, and we are responding to them from what can be done in the renovation every year.

Committee member: In the If that's the case, I should understand that the response is based on the satisfaction survey.

Person in charge: We start with what we can do. We also take into account the budget and other factors, and respond to the extent possible.
For example, we have already improved the display screen of the approval route that can be enlarged and displayed as necessary, which is described as an example of usability improvement on page 5 of the document, and we are continuing such efforts.

Committee member: In the , I understand to some extent the current status of the resources related to system development and scheduling that you explained at the end. Based on the Public Records and Archives Management Act, in order to properly manage administrative documents themselves, digitalisation is required. Work is currently being promoted to transfer the public records that you mentioned to the National Archives and Records Administration, but until now, the work has been enormous and complicated due to analog work, and I recognize that it is very important to make it efficient with fewer resources, but I also recognize that it is very difficult.
From what I have heard from you, I feel that there are budget constraints, but the schedule has already been decided, and in light of that, I think it is important to set a schedule based on the budget, or to make adjustments so that the necessary budget can be requested without fail, and to further promote cooperation with Cabinet Office. On the other hand, if it is possible to request a budget of the necessary amount, I think it is actually desirable.

Committee member: In the , I would like to ask you one question. In the case of this information system, since it is for the management of official documents, I think the important points are where it comes out and where it comes in. As you just mentioned, there are significant advantages to digitalisation where it comes out, but GSS and EASY are duplicated in terms of where it comes in, and I think that at some point GSS will be replaced by EASY. However, if the timing of the development of GSS and EASY is shifted, are there any concerns?

Person in charge: Since there is an area under consideration in GSS-SPO and documents will be moved from there, it is assumed that the new features of this new system have been migrated to GSS.
Therefore, first of all, the ministries and agencies that are transitioning to GSS will be able to use this new system, but since there is a schedule for each ministry to transition to GSS, I recognize that it is necessary to proceed while watching the situation there.

Committee member: In the GSS comes first. I see.

Committee member: In the explanation, I understand the electronic approval, but do you intend to retain the documents themselves, or do you intend to manage the life cycle of the documents in a way that Cabinet Office or other ministries and agencies do to some extent? I would like to ask you to explain what management means in the first place when managing documents.
Also, when we look at the "Basic Policy on Electronic Management of Administrative Documents (Outline)," there is the word "metadata." There are things that trace back to something in the document, such as a card in a book. There are things that are somewhat search-like and things that are searched using metadata. There are things that are roughly wrapped up in the word "management," and to be honest, I don't see anything specific.
Also, this project is basically based on the Public Records and Archives Management Law, but if Cabinet Office is in charge of designing the system and Digital Agency is in charge of the system, we can't really comment on it. There are many parts that have already been decided to some extent in terms of the system design, and if we just receive a request from Cabinet Office and systemize it, we have no choice but to comment within that range. I think we have no choice but to proceed with that point from the next meeting while listening to the opinions of the committee members.

Or more