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) Second Policy Evaluation and Administrative Project Review Panel (held on Friday, May 23, 2025)

Overview

  • Date and time: Friday, May 23, 2025, from 13:30 to 15:00
  • Location: Online
  • Summary of Proceedings:
    1. Opening
    2. Proceedings
      • (1) Direction of resolution of each business
        • (1) Supervisory and supervision support system
        • ② Electronic approval system (EASY)
      • (2) Preliminary Report on Policy Evaluation and Administrative Project Review (draft)
      • (3) Selection of projects subject to the public disclosure process
    3. Other (future)
    4. Closing

Data

Summary of proceedings

Date and time

Friday, May 23, 2025 (2025), from 13:30 to 15:00

Location

Online

Attendees

Member

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

Proceedings

  1. Direction of solutions for each business
    • (1) Supervisory and supervision support system
    • (2) Electronic approval system (EASY)
  2. Preliminary Report on Policy Evaluation and Administrative Project Review
  3. Selection of Projects Subject to the Disclosure Process

1. Direction of resolution of each business

After the opening of the meeting was declared by the secretariat, the person in charge explained the objectives, outline, issues, and targets of each project, and a question and answer session was held.
Main comments and questions are as follows.

(1) Supervisory and supervision support system

Member: You say that the low freshness of information has become a bottleneck and it is difficult to use it, but if the freshness of information increases, will it be able to be used for sure?
Person in charge: Each reviewer conducts reviews while collecting various information or having conversations with the other ministries and agencies. However, since the system is updated only once, useful information cannot be obtained even if the information in the Supervision and Management Support System is accessed. As a result, it is necessary to ask each ministry and agency individually or to bring information from another source. What would have been easy if it had been integrated into the Supervision and Management Support System, would have resulted in a loss of time because of the need to ask each question one by one, and the efficiency of reviews has declined.
On the other hand, if everything is integrated into the supervision support system, it will increase the work of each ministry and agency. Therefore, I would like to consider in the future the details of the collection target, such as the degree to which it will be updated and the scope of inclusion.
Member: To what extent and to what extent is considered to be quite important, and I wonder if there are areas that are easy to do and areas that are difficult to do. It may be wasteful for all ministries and agencies to adapt to the supervision and supervision support system, so I think it is quite important to do what we can.
Member: I have two questions. The first question is how you think about version control when you say that updates are allowed.
The other point is that I believe you have just mentioned that the information handled in the Supervisory and Supervision Support System should be limited or selected. In other words, the information that is not selected will be stored outside the Supervisory and Supervision Support System, and it is necessary to operate the external information and the internal information in a consistent manner. What are your thoughts on this point?
Person in charge: Regarding the update, there is no specific decision on how to manage the data, but I think the timing of the update varies depending on the data handled, so I think that each person in charge will update the listed data as needed, and it is not a version control.
Member: Are you going to overwrite everything?
Person in charge: The current system is rather prone to overwriting, so we can only have one per year. Therefore, the current hypothesis is that it would be better to review the design of the database so that it has a record every time it is updated.
With regard to the second point, the scope of selection is not necessarily the same for all systems. I believe that there are various types of information, such as useful information for each system, information that is not useful, or information that should be held by any system. However, such differences lead to the workload of each ministry and agency, so I believe that we need to use different shades of gray.
Regarding those that were not selected, if they are necessary information in the review, I think it is possible to examine them individually and obtain information, but I think it is a little too heavy to ask for consistent operation.
Member: email, you gave us some figures on how much the cost can be reduced by the supervisory support system, but we are not sure. In your explanation earlier, the information in the system is out of date, so in the end, I think the Digital Agency staff asked each ministry and reviewed it. In that case, I think the difference between how much time is spent now and how much will be reduced by the new system is 8 hours of reduced work hours per unit. The first point is that I would be grateful if we could understand more about the relationship between how much time and effort have been spent as a baseline and the expected reduction.
As I thought in the question by the committee members just now, I would appreciate it if you could tell us how you estimate the time and effort required for data input will increase and cost for each ministry.
Person in charge: If necessary, the numerical value will be supplemented later.
First of all, in terms of time and effort, I believe it is the time spent on review by the person in charge of supervision and administration in Digital Agency and the input by each government agency. As you pointed out, I believe that the number of data input by each government agency will increase, but I think that simply enhancing information is putting the cart before the horse. Therefore, I believe that it is necessary to consider expanding the scope of data to the extent that it does not impose an excessive burden on each government agency as much as possible, or increasing the frequency of updates.
In addition, with regard to the review of the Digital Agency side, while there are currently approximately 1400 information systems across the Government, we are not looking at all of them at the same level of granularity. Rather, we are focusing on those systems that are quite large to some extent and those that have the timing for updating.
From the perspective of reducing such costs, I would like to reduce the number of man-hours by streamlining the review activities in this initiative, and deepen the review by further expanding and detailing the scope of what is currently being conducted.
Member: I thought that your point of view was very important, so I thought it would be good to include it somewhere in the report.
Member: Regarding the questions I submitted in advance, for example, budget requests have been answered, so I myself am satisfied with that.
Although it overlaps with your opinions, I have the impression that updating information once a year is a challenge at a time when e-government requires a sense of speed. I think it is important to update necessary information and date at an appropriate time, but monitoring whether it is being updated at the right time will become a very important task in the future. Therefore, I am a little concerned about whether there are enough resources, but I would like to let you see with a little hope that we can make updates efficiently in the future by utilizing technologies such as AI for the timing of updates.
Member: Supervisory Support System project, how do you interpret the term "advancement" to mean that various information is integrated into a database, visualized, and contributes to the advancement of supervisory support?
Person in charge: As I explained at the beginning, upgrading means to express opinions on the system to each Ministry and Agency as part of the review effort. It is considered from the viewpoint of whether the system is necessary or not, whether it is urgent or not, and whether it is cost-effective or not.
Member: Review, do you mean the review of information systems or the review of various projects and policies carried out in information?
Person in charge: What I am referring to as the review is the activities that we usually carry out. Each ministry and agency submits a project plan at the time of renewal. It contains design drawings of information systems in the form of the use of the government cloud and coordination with other systems. In response to that, from a kind of third party perspective, I believe that the most advanced and desirable point is to convey our opinions sharply and accurately about whether there is an efficient way or whether there is a wrong coordination.
Member: government, but there are quite a few cases where non-government data is important as an independent variable for reviewing projects, and I thought that such a problem could not be solved only by upgrading the system.
Person in charge: government. For example, it is possible to include various information other than the items that can be collected from information systems, such as the ideal theory of a generally efficient system and the number of man-hours for system improvement. However, current efforts are not at such a high level.
Member: In addition to what you just said, I would like to express my opinion. What you said is reasonable, and it is a little difficult to understand your intention. The reason why it is difficult to understand is that before the inauguration of Digital Agency, for large-scale projects of each government agency, PJMO was entrusted to the private sector, and the private sector first selected a company to conduct PJMO, and then selected a system by bidding. Therefore, at present, it is up to each government agency to decide whether or not to entrust PJMO to the private sector, but the PJMO company was watching to see whether or not the company that made the system by actually bidding with the knowledge of the private sector was doing it properly.
However, this is basically done at the ministerial level, and when Digital Agency was established, various differences and know-how on PJMO were shared among the ministries, so I believe you are talking about the unification.
However, as pointed out by other members of the committee, from the perspective of improving the efficiency of system development in each ministry and agency, it is not really necessary to centralize. Conversely, since there are various characteristics of each ministry and agency, if the person in charge in Digital Agency points out something in response to them, it may be more efficient. Therefore, I think that there are not many answers about the necessity of centralization or how centralization will improve efficiency.
Another question is whether one year is too long or too short. As mentioned by another member of the committee, the system differs depending on the government and ministries. Considering that the PJMO is entrusted to the private sector and not necessarily to people in government offices, it must be quite a burden to input something for this system in Digital Agency. Therefore, as pointed out by some members, the frequency is not so high, but if the information is relatively similar to the centralized system assumed by Digital Agency, it is possible to speed up the frequency. The term "centralized management" is very restrictive. Rather, from the viewpoint of efficiently developing the system of the government and ministries and making good things, I think it is better to improve the points that are easy to improve rather than centralize the system. I would like to hear your opinions on this in the future discussion.
Person in charge: is thinking and the direction we are thinking are in the same direction. On top of that, I would like to add a part of recognition. The PJMO here is not a contractor, but is in charge of each government agency.
Member: PJMO, and I felt that the gap in recognition might have caused a misunderstanding. I think it would be better to explain what the PJMO is.
Person in charge: Sorry for the lack of explanation. As I said, PJMO is in charge of each government agency.
In addition, integrated project management does not simply mean that Digital Agency gives an opinion on information systems in an integrated manner for all ministries. Rather, it means that he scrutinizes and comments on individual systems from a third party perspective regarding the systems that each ministry is in charge of, and that he is working from an auditing perspective.
Member: What I understand now is that each ministry and agency in Digital Agency is in charge of the project, and the integrated management and supervision support system is in charge of unifying the project. Therefore, the point of contention is whether there is any merit in supervising the integration. This is within the scope of this review, and I think that any individual support from Digital Agency to each ministry and agency is not covered.
Member: I'm not sure about that either, but the provisional version of the review report (draft) is written without explanation, so I think it's better to explain and supplement properly.
Member: With regard to whether this understanding is correct, the sentence "Centralized project management" in the "Current status and issues" section is difficult to understand as Japanese. Does the term "centralized project management" have the same meaning as the Japanese phrase "when the PMO centrally compiles the estimation basis of project plans, estimates, etc. prepared and updated by the PJMO of each ministry and agency, and Digital Agency centrally reviews them, then the project manager and others are involved?"
Person in charge: That's right.
Member: I see. Thank you.

② Electronic approval system (EASY)

Member: In short, I wanted to know whether or not it has become user-oriented. But before that, as a matter of course, in order to improve efficiency and productivity, the first thing you need to do is to reduce the number of documents or simplify the approval process. Am I correct in understanding that you have started with such things, and that there is an electronic approval system (EASY) after that?
Person in charge: That is my understanding.
Member: This kind of system is used in various places, but even if we make this kind of system, the point is that many seals are required for approval in the same way as in the past, and by simplifying such a method and changing the allocation of responsibility, I feel that efficiency will be further improved, so I can't say anything without looking at it together.
Member: This is going to be discussed later, but the person in charge in Digital Agency can't do anything about it, and the system is a problem on the Cabinet Office side. Therefore, this project is quite difficult, and I feel that only the person in charge in Digital Agency can answer.
Member: I understand.
Member: Is there anything else?
Person in charge: Only one. The approval process as you pointed out is not defined in the Official Document Management System. If anything, it is a world of work efficiency improvement. In the past, we used to get a seal for approval directly on paper, but it started with the idea of making such a process electronic. We have been working on electronic approval since the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications period, and naturally, we are also making work efficiency improvement as a set. In the past, we used to get many seals, but the approval process has been simplified, and by reducing the number of stages and broadcasting it, we have made it possible to have an electronic mechanism in which the seal is shared with all parties concerned by reducing the number of people who affix the seal. By doing so, we are contributing to work efficiency improvement. All the approval documents are stored in EASY, so there is no need to store them on paper, which contributes to work efficiency improvement.
On the other hand, the Public Records and Archives Management Act as a whole belongs to Cabinet Office, and the New EASY falls into that category, so as you mentioned, it is under the jurisdiction of Cabinet Office.
Member: In this talk, there is a mixture of talk about approval and talk about document management. There are always official documents that require approval, but are there some official documents that do not require approval? Is there an inclusion relationship? Or is there a set of documents that have an intersection and require approval but are not official documents?
Person in charge: Basically, we consider documents that have been approved as administrative documents. This time, with the new EASY, even for documents that do not require approval, administrative documents that are not properly stored should be properly managed.
Member: Therefore, is it correct to understand that the original purpose is to improve efficiency by overlapping the approval process and the process of managing official documents?
Person in charge: We will try to streamline the entire document management process, including approval.
Approval is a separate system from the management of official documents, but since approval is included in the flow of document management, it will be streamlined as a series including such things.
Member: It is a system to carry out the approval process and the document management process at the same time.
Person in charge: approval itself, so we will add processes other than approval.
To add a little more, regarding the first question asked by the committee members, regarding whether the documents for which approval is to be obtained are all administrative documents, it is difficult for us to give a definite answer because it is an institutional interpretation of the Public Records and Archives Management Act. However, considering the provisions of Article 4 of the Public Records and Archives Management Act, we recognize that documents for which approval is to be obtained are usually administrative documents.
On top of that, with regard to the current EASY, the function of electronic approval and the management function for documents that have been approved under the public document management system have been implemented. With regard to the new EASY that we are about to promote, we are trying to ensure that administrative documents that do not require approval, which are not provided in the current EASY, can be properly managed as a government common system.
Member: I am sorry to ask you again, but is it correct to assume that all official documents will be under the jurisdiction of New EASY?
Person in charge: will be included in the range. The reason for this is that there are generally referred to as business systems. For example, there are information systems related to personnel and salaries, travel expenses, and information systems developed for business that are specialized by each ministry and agency, but there are also administrative documents managed in these systems. In Cabinet Office, we have been considering whether to include them in the scope of management under the New EASY, which will be subject to the development this time, but as a result, it has been proposed that they will not necessarily be included in the range.
Member: You just used the word "necessarily." Did you mean that Digital Agency could decide?
Person in charge: I'm sorry. The policy is that the business system should be properly managed by the business system, so it is not included in the range.
Member: I see. Am I correct in understanding that there are administrative documents that are not included in the New EASY that are decided by Cabinet Office and undertaken by Digital Agency?
Person in charge: As you understand.
Member: I see. Thank you.
Member: Outcome is 20% in seven years from 2020. Since it is already 2025, is it correct to think that this 20% has been reduced? What are the results of the activities?
Person in charge: EASY, we updated the system in fiscal 2023 and achieved the reduction of operating expenses at that time.
Member: That means you have achieved it. The next topic is New EASY, so what are the goals you have set there?
Person in charge: At present, the status is that we will develop it first, so I believe that the outcome is to develop it first. The outcome is one of the number of systems, but we have temporarily set the number of systems to be built first and to be used by each ministry and agency.
Member: Do you mean that quantitative outcomes are not set?
Person in charge: As for the goal of New EASY, we are currently in the stage of designing and developing, so one of our goals is to develop a system.
On the other hand, the system is not completed after development. It is of course necessary to have each ministry and agency use it. In that sense, the number of ministries and agencies using it has been set as one of the targets.
On top of that, as you may have heard from other members of the Committee, with regard to the effects of the use of New EASY, based on the prospect that the time for the management of administrative documents that are currently managed outside of EASY and that do not require approval can be made more efficient, we have listed the reduction of time for document management as an effect.
Member: Firstly, with regard to administrative documents, appropriate and strict preservation and management is a major premise for promoting the disclosure and provision of administrative documents. However, from the perspective of policy evaluation, I believe that it is a major premise to coordinate and collaborate with Cabinet Office on ensuring security, management, and the transfer of administrative documents, while pursuing greater convenience from the user perspective. This is because of the Public Records and Archives Management Act.
On the other hand, after developing this system, as the person in charge has just responded, there is a considerable difference in the progress of digital utilization among ministries and agencies. How to promote this will be a major challenge. Including this point, I would like to see further improvements in cooperation with Cabinet Office and ministries and agencies.
This work may be very difficult and difficult, so I would like you to do your best.
Person in charge: I think you are right, so I would like to work with Cabinet Office.

2. Preliminary Report on Policy Evaluation and Administrative Project Review (Draft)

*The secretariat explained the preliminary report (draft). If there are opinions to be added or revised, it was decided to contact us by e-mail. Revisions based on the deliberations of the Second Advisory Panel were left to the discretion of the chair by unanimous vote of the members present.

3. Selection of Projects Subject to the Disclosure Process

*After confirming the projects that each committee member wanted to recommend, Chairman Sato summarized the opinions and recommended that the "Supervisory and Supervision Support System" be the target project for the disclosure process. Since there were no objections from all the committee members present, the target project was decided.

Greater than or