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) First Policy Evaluation and Administrative Project Review Panel (held on Friday, April 25, 2025)

Overview

  • Date and time: Friday, April 25, 2025, from 11:00 to 12:30
  • Location: Online
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Proceedings
      • (1) Holding of the Digital Agency Policy Evaluation and Administrative Project Review Panel
      • (2) Election of Chair and Nomination of Acting Chair
      • (3) Operation of the Digital Agency Policy Evaluation and Administrative Project Review Panel
      • (4) Discussion on review and improvement of businesses (explanation of each business)
        • (1) Supervisory and supervision support system
        • ② Electronic approval system (EASY)
    3. Other (future)
    4. Closing

Data

Summary of proceedings

Date and time

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

Location

Online

Attendees

Member

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

Proceedings

  1. Digital Agency Policy Evaluation and Administrative Project Review Panel
  2. Election of Chair, Nomination of Acting Chair
  3. Management of the Digital Agency Policy Evaluation and Administrative Project Review Panel
  4. Discussion on review and improvement of businesses (explanation of each business)
    • (1) Supervisory and supervision support system
    • ② Electronic approval system (EASY)

After the opening of the meeting was declared by the Secretariat, the Chair and the Acting Chair were elected from among the Committee members. After that, the Secretariat explained the background and position of the establishment of the Association and the way forward. After that, the person in charge gave an explanation of the Association's activities, and the Committee members gave comments and answered questions.
Main comments and questions are as follows.

1. Supervisory and supervision support system

Member: In your explanation of What is the format of each project plan? For example, do you set target KPIs?

Person in charge: The right side of page 9 of the handout is a table of contents for the project plan. Chapter 5, "Targets and Monitoring," describes the specific situation.
The information system costs a certain amount of money, but the most important aspects of the review are how much the cost is effective and how the KPIs are in relation to the target KGI. These are thoroughly confirmed in the project plan.

Member: In your explanation of Do you mean that items marked with "-" should be entered as necessary?

Person in charge: , so it is quite difficult to check all items in terms of quantity.
Therefore, "-" does not mean that it is never confirmed or that there is no need to describe, but it indicates review items that should be confirmed as necessary, and "○" indicates review items that should be mainly confirmed.

Member: In your explanation of In addition, PJMO basically supports the development and operation of information systems. Regarding the KPI that Member Uemura just mentioned, I think there are many KPIs in businesses that use information systems, but it is not always the case that KPIs are set for the information systems themselves.
I imagine that depending on the business, KPIs may be set, but depending on the product, information systems themselves may be described.

Member: In your explanation of In the last slide titled "Proposal for the Direction of Problem Solving," it is stated that "In order to realize these, fundamental improvement (zero based renovation) of the supervision and supervision support system is necessary." Are there any problems with the budget?

Person in charge: As far as we are concerned, we are always engaged in the operation, maintenance, and renovation of the control and supervision support system. However, if we try to realize the contents described in the material, we will not proceed with a shoddy renovation. If we drastically review the database and import information that is not currently managed, we believe that the contents of the material cannot be realized unless we rebuild the existing information system from scratch, rather than rebuilding it with a shoddy.
On top of that, although a certain amount of budget is secured every year, I think it is impossible to realize the contents of the materials only by that, so in that sense, I feel that the budget is a bottleneck at present.

Member: In your explanation of budget.
The first point is that renovation of information systems naturally entails maintenance. You presented the current schedule, but I believe it is important to set a schedule that includes the adjustment period based on the assumption that the budget will be firmly secured, and to make efforts to secure further cooperation with budget staff, including those from other ministries and agencies.
The second point is related to the electronic approval system (EASY). For example, I thought that we should aim to further improve operational efficiency by changing the development schedule by dividing some functions to some extent and devising specifications using AI in the explanation on a yearly basis.

Member: In your explanation of I have two questions to confirm.
My first question is about the roles of the PJMO. Are the documents prepared by each ministry and agency at the PJMO stage and the plan submitted to Digital Agency different or the same?
Second, regarding the budget request for information systems raised by Digital Agency, when will the duplication and unification of information systems between ministries and agencies be discussed?

Person in charge: The first point is that basically, the plan prepared by each ministry and agency goes up to Digital Agency as it is. Each ministry and agency uses a project plan as IT governance, and the project is being advanced in such a way that the same is brought up to Digital Agency.
The second point is that the same information systems have been developed separately by different ministries and agencies, and I understand that the establishment of Digital Agency was an opportunity to prevent such a situation.
On top of that, there is a request for budget at the planning stage of the information system. For new information systems, we will make sure to look over what kind of plan it is, and for those that can be replaced by other information systems or private services, we will stop at the planning stage. That is the flow of the review.

Member: In your explanation of I would like to make some comments on the point that I hope you will respond to me next time.
The first is that updating information for one year is rather long, and I think there are some places where orders have already been placed after one year, so how will we improve after this?
The second point is that basically, it is OK for ministries and agencies to conduct system procurement. If the aim is to improve the way of procurement and ordering, I don't know whether it is necessarily beneficial to centralize. If centralization is a kind of positioning of what Digital Agency is doing, if you don't show me the benefits of centralization, it will only put a burden on the PJMO of each ministry and agency to input into the information systems. In this regard, if you don't show me something that the benefits outweigh, I wonder if this is OK.

2. Electronic Approval System (EASY)

Member: In your explanation of According to the first explanation, a satisfaction survey of the electronic approval system (EASY) was conducted, and 80% were satisfied and 20% were not. In "5. Main Issues of EASY and the Direction of Solving the Issues (Draft)" in the document, which is it that you are trying to solve based on the dissatisfaction of the 20%, or is it that you are trying to find and solve the issues on your own without any relationship at all? If the satisfaction survey points out unsatisfactory points, please let me see them.

Person in charge: This satisfaction survey is a survey on EASY, which is currently used by each ministry and agency. The issues listed in the material this time will be issues in creating new functions.
On the other hand, with regard to the satisfaction survey, each ministry and agency has made such proposals, and we are responding to such proposals starting with those that can be made during the annual renovation.

Member: In your explanation of If that's the case, I should understand that we are responding based on the satisfaction survey.

Person in charge: . We are also taking measures to the extent possible, taking into account the budget framework.
For example, we have already modified the approval route display screen that can be enlarged as necessary, which is described as an example of usability improvement on page 5 of the handout, and we are continuing to make such efforts.

Member: In your explanation of I understand the current situation to some extent regarding the resources related to system development and schedule that you explained at the end. Based on the Public Records Management Act, in order to appropriately manage administrative documents themselves, it is required to digitalisation them. The work of disposal consultation and the transfer of public records to the National Archives of Japan that you mentioned is currently being carried out. However, I recognize that the work has been extremely huge and complicated due to analog work, and that the work of improving efficiency with more limited resources is very important, but on the other hand, I also recognize that it is extremely difficult.
Listening to your talk, 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, make adjustments to ensure that the necessary budget can be requested, and further promote cooperation with Cabinet Office. On the other hand, if the necessary amount of budget can be requested, I think that would actually be desirable.

Member: In your explanation of I would like to ask one question. In the case of this information system, since it is for the management of official documents, I believe that where to submit and where to enter are important. Regarding where to submit, as you just stated, the merits of digitalisation are great, but regarding where to enter, I believe that there are two types, GSS and EASY, and at some point the GSS will be replaced with EASY. However, are there any concerns that the timing of the development of GSS and EASY will be different?

Person in charge: There is an area under consideration in GSS-SPO, and documents will be moved from there, so the use of the new function of this new system is based on the assumption that it has been moved to GSS.
Therefore, first of all, I intend to make the new system available to the ministries and agencies that are moving to the GSS. However, since there is a schedule for each ministry to move to the GSS, I recognize that it is necessary to proceed while monitoring the situation.

Member: In your explanation of GSS first. I see.

Member: In your explanation of , I understand the electronic approval process, but I would like you to explain whether the documents themselves will be retained, or whether the life cycle of documents will be managed to some extent by Cabinet Office or the ministries and agencies. When you talk about document management, I would like you to explain what management is in the first place.
Also, if you look at the "Basic Policy on the Electronic Management of Administrative Documents (Overview)," there is the word "metadata," and there are things that trace some kind of document, for example, whether it is something like a book card or something like a search, whether it is searched using metadata, etc., but the word "management" is used roughly, and there are some things that cannot be seen in detail.
In addition, this project is basically based on the Public Records and Archives Management Law. However, if Cabinet Office is in charge of designing the system and Digital Agency is in charge of the system, there is not much we can comment on. There are many parts that have already been decided to some extent in terms of designing the system. If only systematization is done at the request of Cabinet Office, we will have no choice but to comment within that scope. From the next meeting, I think we have no choice but to proceed while listening to the opinions of the committee members.

Greater than or