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) Third Policy Evaluation and Administrative Project Review Panel [Public Process] (held on Friday, July 4, 2025)

Last Updated:

Overview

  • Date: Friday, July 4, 2025 (2025), from 13:00 to 14:30
  • Location: Online
  • Summary of Proceedings:
    1. Opening
    2. Proceedings
      • Control and supervision support system
        • (1) Business Description
        • (2) Questions and Discussions
        • (3) Compilation of opinions
    3. Closing

Data

Related Resources

Meeting video

It will be published later.

Minutes

Sueyama Director for Policy Planning: Well, it's time to start.

We will hold the 2025 Digital Agency Policy Evaluation and Public Administration Project Review process.

Today's proceedings will be led by Mr. Sueyama from Director for Policy Planning, Digital Agency.

First, I would like to introduce you to the outside experts who are attending today.

A total of seven external experts, including three external experts appointed by Digital Agency and four external experts appointed by the Secretariat of the Cabinet Secretariat Office for the Promotion of Administrative Reform, attended today's public disclosure process.

First, I would like to ask Professor and Member Ichiro Sato of the Institute of Information and Social Relations, National Institute of Informatics, to chair this Advisory Panel on Policy Evaluation and Administrative Project Review. As Chair, I would like to ask Member Sato to lead the discussion and finally to coordinate opinions.

Next, I would like to introduce you to the committee members.

Professor, E-Government and Local Government Research Institute, Waseda University, member Naoko Iwasaki.

Professor of Kansei Gakuin Daigaku. Keizai Gakubu, Member of the Committee Toshiyuki Uemura.

Senior Researcher, Economic Policy Department, Policy Research & Business Division, Mitsubishi UFJ Research & Consulting Co., Ltd., Incorporated Administrative

Research Institute Consulting Fellow, Member Yohei Kobayashi.

Professor of Graduate School of Information Science, Hyogo Prefectural University, member Munehiko Sasajima.

He is a professor of the Faculty of Economics, Nagoya University, and a member of the Toshio Nagahisa

Partner attorney at TMI Associates, member Shigeyuki Mito.

In addition, Professor Ryo Kambayashi of the Faculty of Economics, Musashi University, is absent due to business today, but we have received his opinion in writing in advance, so we will introduce it later.

I look forward to working with these seven external experts today.

At the opening of the meeting, I would like to give a greeting from Vice-Minister for Digital Policy Tomiyasu of the former Digital Agency Strategic Organizational Group Director-General.

Vice-Minister for Digital Policy Tomiyasu, nice to meet you.

Vice-Minister for Digital Policy Tomiyasu: Thank you for introducing me. I'm Tomiyasu.

As of July 1, I was appointed Vice-Minister for Digital Policy. Thank you very much for everything you have done for me. I look forward to working with you again.

In the Administrative Project Review, we have received a variety of useful opinions from experts, who have constantly pointed out that we should conduct operations and projects that produce results more efficiently while giving us encouragement and encouragement. We look forward to your continued support.

The supervisory and supervision support system that I will talk about today was originally created when Digital Agency was established. Digital Agency aims to make it more efficient and systematic by supervising and supervising the systems of each ministry. The supervisory and supervision system was started to make various systems and information of each ministry visible.

In the course of that, the system of Digital Agency is different from the one used by users or the one used by the front desk. Since it is used by government officials, it is difficult for them to focus on their work. Even in such cases, the aim is to improve the efficiency of the work of government offices. The aim is to make each system visible and make it better. Although it is a system that is difficult to focus on or attract the interest of everyone, we would like to receive various opinions from experts, and we would like to reduce the burden on each ministry as much as possible and make it efficient and fruitful. Therefore, I would like to receive various candid opinions.

Also, today, my successor, Mr. Morita, has been appointed as the general manager of Digital Agency related to the administrative project review as the general manager of Deputy Director-General, so I would like to say a few words after this. Thank you very much.

Sueyama Director for Policy Planning: Let's start with the general Deputy Director-General.

We are very sorry for the voice trouble.

If it is improved, I would like to greet you again at the end of the meeting later.

Next, I will explain today's progress.

In today's open process, we will discuss the management and supervision support system as a target project.

First, the person in charge of the project will explain the project. After that, I would like to hear frank opinions and questions about the project from the committee members. I will make an announcement about eight minutes before the end of the discussion, so I would like to ask each committee member to give their final comments. After that, on behalf of the committee members, Chairman Sato will summarize the comments, and after receiving the approval of the committee members, I will confirm it.

During the proceedings, in order to prevent noise and howling, the microphone will normally be set to off. When you speak, if you raise your hand or press the raise hand button on the system, the chair will appoint you. Please turn the microphone on when you speak, and turn it back off when you finish speaking.

Now, let's begin our discussion.

First, I would like to ask the person in charge of business to explain the business.

Kitama Deputy Director-General: Administration and Supervision. I look forward to working with you all today.

First, I'd like to give you a little explanation. Thank you.

In explaining the supervisory and supervision support system, I think I need to get into "what is supervisory and supervision", so let me explain a little here. The words "supervision" and "review" have very broad meanings, so I would like to explain what we mean by "supervisory and supervision" first.

As you can see in the PowerPoint, in Act on the Establishment of the Digital Agency, Law No. 36 of 2021 stipulates that one of the administrative affairs under the jurisdiction of Digital Agency is to supervise and supervise the national information systems.

This section is called "Control and Supervision." If you look at the picture below, if you go from the far right, you will see "PJMO." This is the so-called "original division" for system development, which is also found in each ministry. It is the original division that is actually implementing the system. This is called "PJMO." There are people who are developing individual systems.

On top of that, in each ministry, which is also located in Digital Agency, there is a PMO that is positioned as a "PMO of each ministry." The PMO in each ministry is responsible for project management of the many systems in the ministry, including planning management, budget management, and information asset management.

This time, we are going to go one step higher, and on the far left, we are going to use the term "Digital Agency Supervision and Supervision," which means "supervision." This is what I am talking about. With regard to the supervision and supervision of government information systems, we are using the term "centralized project supervision." In each phase of the planning and operation stages of each information system-related project, the main point of view is whether the budget will be used correctly at each timing of the budget request and execution stages.

In that sense, I would like you to understand that the world of project management in the world is, if anything, located in each ministry or a little lower.

Next page, please.

To break it down a little further, in this picture, the life cycle of system maintenance of a project is broadly described. There is a big life cycle such as from service and business planning to requirements definition, design and development, and operation and maintenance.

Against this backdrop, we are in the centralized project management, which is on the far left. In the budget request and execution stage, when the decided budget is actually executed, we check whether the budget is properly requested. Specifically, we check the necessity, effectiveness, and whether the system is really necessary, effective, or urgent, and whether it really needs to be done now. Since it is a budget, there is a basis for estimation, and when the estimate is received, we review it when requesting the budget from the viewpoint of whether it is properly valid, feasible, or cost-effective. Not only when requesting the budget, but also when requesting the budget in FY R8, we are doing it right now, but in the stage of actually implementing it in FY R8, the process has progressed considerably, so after a while, we look back again to see if this is correct, and what is the result of the requirements that are still soft at the time of the budget request becoming firm. This is the centralized project management.

Next page, please.

As you can see here, budget requests are being requested in June, July, and August in the middle of the timeline. However, prior to this, from around January, February, and March, while confirming various directions such as the Architecture of the system and what to do ahead of budget requests, budget requests will be made in spring.

With regard to the Supervisory and Supervision Support System, which will be discussed later, at the end of the fiscal year, in February and March, we were confirming the direction of the system. We are now collecting basic information on each information system, which could be called meta information. Using this information, budget requests and reviews at the execution stage are being conducted later. This is a major trend.

How are budget request reviews and execution-level reviews conducted? As for project plans, I think there are various types of reviews in the private sector. The main focus is on project plans. As shown in this table, project plans are submitted together with budget request adjustment proposals and cost-effectiveness materials. As shown in the detailed table on the right, project plans are submitted together with budget request reviews and execution-level reviews. This is what is called integrated project management.

Up to this point, I would like to explain the first part, "What is centralized project management?"

Next, please.

From here, we will enter a place called the supervision and supervision support system.

As described in Priority Plan and others, Digital Agency has developed and operates a supervision and supervision support system. It visualizes the information systems of each ministry in an easy-to-understand manner, and provides the visualized information to Digital Agency and each ministry.

So, as the person in charge of supervising and supervising Digital Agency, at present, once a year, around the end of the fiscal year in February and March, basic information on each system at that time is obtained and compiled into a database. That is the system.

The PMOs and PJMOs of each ministry and agency can of course participate and view the information. Since it is the basic information of the project and the system, people from various positions, for example, executives from various viewpoints, can refer to the basic information of the project and use it for various management.

Next, please.

In addition to visualizing the execution status and usage status of common functions for each information system, the Supervising and Supervising Support System can also aggregate and display the execution results for each ministry. For this reason, the Supervising and Supervising Support System can aggregate the execution status, improve the efficiency of the work of the Digital Agency's information systems budget consolidation department, and aggregate information such as government information systems software and the security response status and provide them to the security department.

There is basic information and meta information. For example, when there is something wrong with security ware or security software, we can find out who is using it, and each actor is using it in various ways. We use PowerApps, PowerBI, etc. to visualize and provide information.

Next page, please.

This is not all, but here is a summary of what kind of data is managed by the Supervisory Support System. At the item level, there are items 300 and 400. System usage information, whether or not common functions are used, how the usage record is, security, design and development companies, etc. These are written by the companies on the right. System development and operation information, system configuration, security information, more specifically, what kind of contract and how much is the contract price, etc. Such information is collected. This is a database that integrates the entire government system.

Next, please.

As for the picture you mentioned earlier, while using such meta information, at various stages such as reviews, the word "review" is not a policy review, but a system review. As I mentioned earlier, the project plan is reviewed to see if it is really OK to request a budget and if it is OK to implement it. The word "review" here is such a word, and when conducting such a review, meta information and other information are firmly used.

In addition, since I have been asked to submit a project plan, we are reviewing it by adding information collected in February and March, such as the project plan and estimates, and using estimates from new business operators.

Next, please.

Amidst this, I have a sense of challenge. Regarding the documents submitted by each ministry to Digital Agency, we are requesting project plans and other documents. Although we are asking for the content of these documents, at present they are being presented in various formats such as PowerPoint and Word.

What I am writing in the second column is that what is included in the Supervisory and Supervision Support System is, in principle, once a year now. In other words, the freshness of information is the freshness of information at the end of March. For example, if a review of the execution stage is held in the summer, it has been in progress for about half a year, so I have received a project plan once again during that time. I have received a project plan as new information, so the accuracy of information is low with the Supervisory and Supervision Support System alone. This is a sense of challenge.

In the review activities, there are a wide variety of documents to be submitted, including project plans. In addition to the Supervisory and Supervision Support System, we are receiving several types of input information. The information of the Supervisory and Supervision Support System itself is updated once a year, so if there is any information that has been updated since then, it is old information. For example, if there is a system running on the Government Cloud, if it has been delayed for half a year, how will it be in half a year? I think it is a problem that we need to investigate each time now.

Next, please.

For this reason, as for the direction, the project plan is written in the project plan. The data originally used in the Supervisory and Supervision Support System, and in some cases it is duplicated, but the project plan will be centrally managed in the Supervisory and Supervision Support System. Moreover, if it is updated every time instead of once a year, it will put a burden on the people in the original division. Since the people in the original division also update the project plan every time, I think it would be better to incorporate it into the Supervisory and Supervision Support System instead of once a year.

In addition, although there are various formats, machine-readability is enhanced by using a unified format. Therefore, it is possible to use AI to make decisions, or to mechanize areas that do not need to be done by humans.

The second point is to improve the database design so that various information can be updated at any time instead of once a year. The latest information can be viewed by the PMOs of the Digital Agency and each ministry. If you look at the same record, it is always up-to-date. This will contribute to improving IT governance.

By doing so, we will be able to reduce the number of man-hours related to IT governance at each Ministry in the first place. We, as reviewers, will also be able to reduce the number of man-hours related to IT governance at each Ministry, and we will be able to expand and refine the scope of IT governance at each Ministry. I believe that we will be able to contribute to securing QCD and its effects, which were originally our initial objectives.

Let me explain for now. I would like to hear your opinion in a positive way.

Sueyama Director for Policy Planning: Thank you very much.

Now, the discussion will be conducted by external experts, so I would like to ask Mr. Sato, Chair, to lead the discussion.

Chairman, please.

SATO, Chairman: .

I would like to begin our discussion right away. I would like to make a few introductory remarks.

Today is a public review, so it will be the first time for people other than those concerned to hear this story. However, today is the third time, that is, the last two times, we reviewed it behind closed doors, and we were briefed on projects other than the ones you explained today. The discussions have been held closely, so the understanding of the members has already increased considerably, and I believe that the understanding has deepened further thanks to Deputy Director-General Kitama's briefing today.

After this, I would like to hear your frank opinions, including today's explanation and the various explanations you have given us in the past. I have prepared slides of the points of contention, but I don't mind if I am not bound by them, so I would like to hear your opinions.

After this, I would like to ask for your opinions. I received a written opinion from Mr. Kanbayashi, a member of the Musashi University, who is absent today. I will read it out while summarizing it.

In the administrative project review sheet, the target submission rate of the "Information Asset Management Standard Sheet," which is described as an output activity indicator, is not set at 100%. It is hard to imagine that there are projects that can be completed without the sheet. Could you please explain the reason why the target is not set at 100%?

The second point is that the performance target of the medium-term outcome of the administrative project review sheet is "contributing to the upgrading of supervision and supervision," and the performance indicator is "number of accesses." We have received opinions that it would be better to explain whether it is really appropriate to capture the upgrading of supervision and supervision by the number of accesses.

I would like other members of the committee to discuss the two points in the original section.

Kitama Deputy Director-General: I would first like to answer your two questions.

The reason why we don't set a target of 100 percent is that there is actually a time lag. When we specified the systems for which sheets were to be submitted in advance, we initially said that we would submit the sheets, but the number was based on this. However, some of them declined, or in other words, the creation of the system was eventually stopped or postponed. In that sense, the final number is not necessarily 100 every time.

But in other words, I'm doing everything that I'm supposed to do. That's the first answer.

The second part is the number of accesses. We believe that the core of the enhancement of management and supervision is the implementation of in-depth reviews of individual systems. However, it is also true that the time spent on organizing and searching materials has been reduced by accessing the management and supervision support system, so that it can be incorporated into review activities.

We believe that increasing the number of accesses will lead to more sophisticated review activities, and we consider the number of accesses as one of the indicators.

SATO, Chairman: Thank you.

According to Mr. Kanbayashi's intention, with regard to the first indicator, "100%," if you correct it once, it can be done at 100%, so it is strange that it has not been done. The second indicator, "number of accesses," is hard for me to understand. I would say that there is some doubt because the number of accesses does not necessarily correlate with the fact that information was obtained and used as a reference.

Then, I would like to hear the opinions of each committee member. Everyone, I would like to hear from those who are participating freely, online or physically today. Thank you.

Mr. Uemura, you raised your hand first, so please.

Uemura: . I'm Uemura from Kwansei Gakuin University.

It is quite similar to what Mr. Kanbayashi said, but as you mentioned in the point, the second point is how to promote improvement. As you just said, the basic purpose is to make improvements through centralized project management, and the purpose is to measure the effects of QCD, so I think that there is a need for performance indicators that capture this point.

There was the number of accesses, and the next long-term outcome is the number of government offices using the website. I think this means that the number of government offices using the website will increase, but I thought that more indicators to measure the degree of improvement on a project basis are necessary. This is my first question.

The second point is cost-effectiveness, which is the first point of contention. Originally, in the review sheet, it is written that there was an extremely large administrative burden related to the input of the database in the current situation and issues of why such a thing is necessary. I think it is necessary to measure how the administrative burden has been reduced and become more economical. What do you think?

That's all.

SATO, Chairman: section.

Kitama Deputy Director-General: It is the second one, but I understand that you are right about the cost effectiveness. I don't know if it is close to the first one, but in fact, PJMO and PMO are close to directly connected to QCD. However, while we are at the top, I think we can understand that we should of course set up KPI and KGI to improve QCD of each section.

I am wondering if we need to come up with some ideas on how to express this in our index. At the moment, we do not know how effective our layer is for those who access it. However, we have set a goal of raising this and making effective use of it.

Team in charge: I will supplement the current section on QCD.

As you pointed out, when considering QCD, I believe that the ultimate goal of the supervisory and supervision support system is to improve the efficiency of various government information systems in terms of cost, to make them user-friendly, and to efficiently handle data. The ultimate goal is to realize these in each system.

Then, when I think about what kind of goal should be set to improve the supervision and supervision system, if I set too many goals like the upper stage, I am worried that it will be a little far away from what and why I should improve the supervision and supervision support system. Currently, we have set the number of accesses to the supervision and supervision support system, but your point is reasonable, so I understand that we should consider what kind of index can be considered.

As for cost-effectiveness, we are currently taking various cost-effectiveness measures. It is not necessarily limited to the supervision and supervision support system, but we are making efforts to visualize the cost-effectiveness of each system, including the financial authorities, as stated in the Priority Plan Cabinet decision in Digital Agency.

The supervisory support system itself is for internal management, so it is not positioned as a visualization system for the world. For example, the Administrative Reform Secretariat has a review sheet system called the RS system, which is a visualization system. We are currently promoting visualization efforts using such a system.

SATO, Chairman: , are you OK with the answer you just gave? As for the second question, I believe you asked for a clear understanding of cost-effectiveness. As for your explanation, I would like to see other related policies and visualization. Is that OK?

Uemura: Thank you.

In comparison with the situation before the introduction, I think we should show how the cost, including labor, has decreased after the introduction, even if it is an estimate.

That's all for now.

Kitama Deputy Director-General: Thank you very much. I think you are right.

SATO, Chairman: , please.

Thank you, Thank you.

I am sorry to say that there is some overlap with Professor Kanbayashi and Professor Uemura, but I would like to mention a few points that I am concerned about.

I would like to start with the details. Regarding the "number of accesses to each view" of the mid-term outcome, which is currently being discussed, the target value is 14400 per year, and the activity results are 14400. I was not sure if the results and the target match so closely. So, I would like you to tell me the details first.

On top of that, there is the problem of measuring cost, but as Professor Uemura and Professor Kanbayashi said, I think it would be better to rebuild the logic model a little more.

I think that the number of accesses itself is an output figure. If the number of accesses increases, what has been submitted by e-mail will become a system, so the time will be shortened. Since the time will be shortened, the time spent on reviews will increase, or on the other hand, the vacant man-hours of each ministry and agency can be used separately, so I think it is okay to include some estimates here, but ultimately, if the quality of reviews is to be improved by freeing up time, I think it is important to write as much as possible on a logic model or an indicator. However, I do not mean that all working hours should be measured, but I think it is necessary to make an index that meets this purpose while looking at the cost-effectiveness of the measurement.

Third, I would like to know whether there will be both costs and benefits if the system is renewed every year, which was basically once a year until now.

In other words, the fact that it has to be updated every time means that the cost may increase for each ministry and agency, so I thought that we need to consider how much of that cost can be generated as a negative effect.

The fourth and final question is, I understand that the supervisory and supervision system itself is for reviewing the budget and execution, but if the data is updated in real time, it will be as close as possible to the progress management of the system conducted by each ministry and agency. If the unified system of the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications is used instead of the system of each ministry and agency, will it be possible to improve the efficiency? Can such a system be considered?

I'm sorry for the increase, but it will be 4 points.

SATO, Chairman: , please.

Team in charge: Some of the numbers are rounded to 100, but the actual numbers are actually different from the target values. If you calculate the numbers in detail, there are actually more than 14500. They are not just the same numbers, but the numbers are actually different.

Kitama Deputy Director-General: Next, you talked about the logic model. I think you are right. As the number of accesses increases, the time for each other decreases, and the time for reviewers also decreases. The aim is for the reviewers to spend more time on essential reviews. As you said to improve the quality, I think the logic model will be as you said.

With regard to cost-effectiveness, I believe there will be some increases in the number of ministries, but I believe there will be a slight increase in the number of ministries.

However, the project plan is updated not only in March, but also at the time of the budget request review and the execution stage review. Therefore, I do not mean that the project plan that has not been implemented should be created again, but that the project plan that has been provided in Word or PowerPoint should be input into the system in the same way. I believe that the load will increase to that extent.

Lastly, I would like to talk about real time. There is certainly a plan for this, and it is currently made on the assumption that it will be done once a year, so the freshness of information will be once a year. I believe that this will be done once every six months, once every quarter, or once every week or two weeks in the case of progress.

In the future, if we can centralize the management of data including that, it will be possible to centralize the management of all information including annual cycle data and even weekly cycle data by looking at one system, to put it simply, one record, including each Ministry. I think you are right as a picture of the future. It may be possible to get there soon, but once we get there, the progress management of all Ministries will be based on the same data. I will take your opinion. Thank you very much. I hope we can get there.

That's all.

SATO, Chairman: ?

Thank you, It's all right for now. Thank you.

SATO, Chairman: In that case, Sasajima-san, please.

Commissioner Sasajima: This is Sasajima . This is Sasajima speaking.

On page 13 of the explanatory material, I would like to mention that I am not sure whether specific discussions have started yet. However, if you are thinking about improving the efficiency of review activities using AI, and if you are aware of the specific points that checking these items using AI would be more efficient in the future, I thought it would be good to start raising awareness of the use of generative AI with a view to the future. For example, when ministries and agencies submit proposals for projects to be reviewed, I would like them to use generative AI to wall out or review these items in advance.

As is the case with universities, we are in the position of considering how to use the generative AI of students. However, since the teachers are not using it properly, there is a similar problem that it does not lead to the improvement of work efficiency. If the generative AI can already be used in these areas, such as the simple numerical agreement mentioned in the question and opinion earlier, minor changes in the figures over time that people may overlook, consistency in the logic written in the proposals, there are some items that there seems to be no problem in letting the generative AI do, I think. Why don't we give it a try? If necessary, I thought it would be better to consider preparing a customized generative AI that can be used to ensure the security of information leakage.

That's all.

SATO, Chairman: Thank you.

In your opinion, if there is a place where AI can be used, please use it. If you already have a specific plan, please talk to us. If not, we will consider using it. I think that is all. If you have any specific plan, please give us your answer.

Kitama Deputy Director-General: I want to use it positively from now on.

SATO, Chairman: That's the stage.

Kitama Deputy Director-General: Before that, since it is not properly managed as data, the first priority is to properly manage it as data, and I understand that there is a way to fully utilize AI after that.

Commissioner Sasajima: This is Sasajima Thank you.

SATO, Chairman: Then, Mr. Iwasaki, please.

Iwasaki: .

Thank you very much for your explanation.

As you stated in your opening remarks, the Chair has provided us with various explanations and responded to our questions in a careful manner. In addition, I believe that the points for improvement in our response have been included in the items explained this time. On top of that, I would like to make comments and ask questions, although I may repeat them a little.

There are some points that slightly overlap with the opinions of the committee members, but first of all, I would like to ask about the accuracy of the information. I believe it is important that necessary information and data are updated in a timely manner. If there is anything necessary for that, please tell us about the current issues. If there are budgetary issues, please tell us about them as well.

In addition, as Mr. Vice-Minister for Digital Policy Tomiyasu pointed out at the beginning, from the perspective of users of the system, if there are actually the highest demands from users, what would you say?

Regarding the use of generated AI, I have exactly the same opinion as what Professor Sasajima said earlier. For example, looking at the items of stored data at the moment, I understand that sensitive information is also handled, but in the future, when real-time data is handled, the selection of data and where to use it will be a future issue. In addition, handling and measures such as security and permission management will be necessary, and I hope you will take that into consideration.

That's all.

SATO, Chairman: What do you think? If you have any answers?

Kitama Deputy Director-General: The fact that it should be updated in a timely manner is exactly the kind of issue that we have. I believe that there are various types of information that are updated every fiscal year or every quarter.

Currently, it is assumed to be once a year, so even if you really want the information as soon as possible, it is necessarily once a year, so it will be updated at a slightly shorter cycle. By converting this into data, the project plan that you mentioned earlier has become the project bible, and it will be reflected every time it is updated, so I believe that there will be a major first step evolution.

SATO, Chairman: The question you just asked is based on the premise that it should be timely, and is there any budget issue or something to make it timely?

Team in charge: system.

In the current system, Excel is used to import information once a year, but when we need to input information as needed, I think it is necessary to provide it to the user with the opening always open.

If such a system is to be created, there are technical limitations in the current system, and I believe that there are many areas that need to be re-created. I believe that we must consider how far we can achieve such a system while looking at the budget.

Kitama Deputy Director-General: security. Regarding security, at the moment, we can see all the information, but each ministry has its own security authority, for example, the PMO of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare can be seen from the system of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. This is the current system, and if the number of actors in various positions increases, we need to create various security authorities, and I think we need to expand such authority in the future.

SATO, Chairman: , do you have any additional questions? Are you all right?

Iwasaki: I'm fine. Thank you very much.

SATO, Chairman: I have not yet received opinions from the two physical participants today, but I would like to ask your opinion.

Permanent Member: Thank you, .

Even if you use the same word, there are differences, and I was confused. However, I would like to express my gratitude for the clarification you have just given me. Thank you very much.

In that context, it may be the same as what Mr. Iwasaki just said, but if I were to say it in a different way, I would say that PJMO is exactly the front line. I think that the code of conduct for the front line is to consider the system with an emphasis on usability. I think that the control and supervision of Digital Agency, which is at the very top, as written here, the point of view is whether the appropriateness of the budget is clearly expressed.

Usability, validity, and effectiveness can conflict with each other, so the first question is what kind of policies will be used to control and supervise them.

Furthermore, where are the policies and standards decided? Considering that this is a cross-ministerial issue, I would like to ask what kind of decision methods or processes are in place.

Kitama Deputy Director-General: With regard to policies, guidelines have been developed not only here but also in each ministry. There are usability guidelines, and we, as supervisors and supervisors, are following the guidelines, but I think the main point is to follow the guidelines of the entire government.

To be sure, I think that confrontation is a difficult point, but I think it is a challenge.

Team in charge: I think there are many solutions. For example, as one solution, Digital Agency, each ministry, and the private sector may use it, but we are currently preparing a design system. For example, we are preparing materials for the so-called user interface, including source code with special consideration for accessibility of Digital Agency. For example, using such materials can be considered from the perspective of balancing cost and usability.

Permanent Member: Thank you, In other words, is it correct to understand that the policy is to seek a solution that satisfies both cost and usability?

Team in charge: For example, we do not consider that it is okay to spend an enormous amount of money for an easy-to-use system. Therefore, how to strike a balance, or whether it is possible to pursue both, depends on the system, but we will look at the balance.

Permanent Member: Thank you, Ultimately, if cost and usability are not compatible, who decides what direction to take?

Team in charge: In the system itself, which system should be emphasized? So in the end, PJMO is already looking at that.

Permanent Member: Thank you, Certainly. Thank you.

SATO, Chairman: .

Mr. Mito: I think you are aiming to improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of the Then, let me talk a little bit from Mito.

I'm sure some of you are watching for the first time today, so let me just ask you a few general things.

When you submitted the project plan, you mentioned that there are various formats, such as Excel and PowerPoint. Are you thinking that Digital Agency will unify these formats into Excel in the future from the perspective of centralized management? No, I would like to know if you have any thoughts at this point on whether you will be able to absorb information regardless of the format by using the AI that has been released.

In addition, as in the case of the generation AI mentioned earlier, as you are making efforts to improve usability and efficiency, there are of course security issues, and there are trade-offs between security and usability. If you make security rigid, it will become difficult to use, and if you make it easy to use, you will have to turn a blind eye to security. I think you will have a hard time balancing these issues. My second question is if you could share your thoughts on this at this time.

Another thing is that at the moment, Mr. Digital Agency will be under the unified management, so I think all the projects coming up from each ministry and agency are described as the same. However, I wonder if there are differences among ministries and agencies, or differences based on the characteristics of the administrative projects of each ministry and agency. To put it bluntly, MOJ is not very cooperative in such matters, or Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a rigid guard. They may face such differences in the future. They already have such differences, and I don't need to mention their names, but I wonder if they are in charge of projects that would be obstacles to the project in nature. Please tell me about them, though I may sound like an amateur.

Kitama Deputy Director-General: Thank you.

First of all, regarding the format, I believe that there are two steps. For the time being, we have devised a form for filling out the form, and now we are asking for the content to be included. In fact, there is a reason for this. We provide a form for filling out the form, but we have been using Excel for a long time, and some ministries say that this is the easiest way for them to do it. Of course, they want to include it in the form when they create a new one. There are various differences, and I believe that they are not yet complete at this point. On the other hand, I believe that it will be very convenient if the format is unified and the goal line reaches a point like AI.

The second usability is difficult, so I will make it last.

Are there any differences among the ministries? To be honest, there are some. There are some ministries that actively make the various materials shown here easier to understand by saying that they should follow our rules. To be honest, there are some ministries that leave it to us or say that it doesn't matter, but they want us to do it. That is the reality. There is nothing better than standardization, but I think there is still a long way to go in reality.

I skipped. The second point is that it is very difficult to achieve compatibility between usability and security. For the time being, since we are in the position of supervising the government system, I think we need to firmly protect security in the overall supervision or the management of each ministry. However, it is true that it is difficult to make a trade-off, but I would like to systematize it while incorporating the viewpoint of the users.

Team in charge: When considering usability and security, the quality of the information handled varies depending on each system, so I think it is ultimately the world that PJMO says which is more important depending on it.

Mr. Mito: I think you are aiming to improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of the Thank you.

Mr. Digital Agency, you are in charge of managing the information about the projects that are being carried out by each ministry and agency. I imagine that you have a lot of difficulties because you are in charge of controlling the information of other ministries and agencies that are currently being carried out, rather than being your own boss. However, I think that this is a very significant project in terms of policy. I hope you will do your best. Thank you very much.

SATO, Chairman: If you have time later, I would like to make a comment. Do you have anything you really want to say? Is it OK? Is it OK?

Then, I will make a comment.

This project is about the supervisory support system. Therefore, we have to input information and how to display the information. However, from the standpoint of supervising and supervising the system development of each ministry, which is done by the original division, it is related to whether the number of accesses is good as the indicator I mentioned earlier. Originally, Mr. Digital Agency conducted the review, and as a result of the review, it is necessary to show the results such as the improvement of the system of the ministry or the effective utilization of the budget. In that sense, I think that we can understand better if you create indicators in the activities of the original division instead of just focusing on the information systems.

Another thing is, to be honest, the customer can't see this system. At first, there was a time when Mr. Digital Agency was supposed to supervise the systems of each government agency. So, Digital Agency was in charge of the development and left the operation to the government agency. That's why the plan changed. When the plan changed, I can't see how the project changed. However, Mr. Digital Agency's supervision of the development of the information systems of each government agency, especially the unified supervision, and the improvement of the system development of each government agency are compatible in terms of goals. Actually, there are some discrepancies in the means. From the point of view of Mr. Digital Agency's system supervision, to be honest, there should be no need for the unified supervision. Mr. Digital Agency can go to the government agency, interview the situation and comment. Of course, if it is too diverse, it is a problem, but there is a place where a certain degree of diversity can be done by human skills.

On the other hand, when it comes to each ministry looking at the status of other ministries' projects and information systems, the way of entry differs depending on the ministry, so if other ministries had a completely different format, I wouldn't know. Therefore, I think it makes sense to conduct unified supervision. However, according to the explanation I just gave, it is relatively difficult to show it to other ministries. That is true in terms of security, but I think there is a great doubt that centralized supervision had to be done that much in the first place.

What I'm concerned about is that currently, the supervision of the development of the system includes the process control. In fact, on the lower left of page 3 of the material you gave me, it says that it will be conducted in each phase of operation and maintenance. But it's actually one year.

If this kind of lack of granularity has increased because of our insistence on centralized supervision of the system, then, to be honest, it would be better if each ministry conducted hearings with Digital Agency instead of centralized supervision. So, what are the goals? If Digital Agency wants to supervise everything, or rather, to supervise everything, centralized supervision would be fine. But if not, I think it would be an idea to review the system from the perspective of improving the system of each ministry.

That's all.

Then, we don't have much time to answer, so do you have any other opinions?

This time is an open review, so it is almost time to finish according to the progress chart. However, I took an hour and a half at first, so I think there is still some time to spare. Everyone may have some things to say, so I will get your final opinions including that, and then I will compile it later.

Therefore, I would like to ask you to do it in the order of the list, or in Japanese alphabetical order. I am sorry that I always ask Mr. Iwasaki at the beginning of every meeting, but could you please give me your final opinion?

Iwasaki: .

Thank you very much for your very polite answer today.

The Chair mentioned a little earlier, but I specialize in e-government, so I would like to make a few comments based on that point.

Implementing project management in an integrated manner using the integrated management system will create cost effectiveness, which is one of the most important aspects of the digital government, and I believe that its realization will be extremely significant. However, I believe that there will be extremely difficult and complicated tasks, but in order to realize this, first of all, from the users' point of view, we will aim for a user-friendly system design and improve efficiency and production efficiency. On top of that, we will use the necessary technology at the right time and place, and generative AI will play a major part.

There may be some difficult issues in terms of balance, but there is no doubt that this system is a very important system, and I would like to look forward to seeing it in the future.

That's all.

SATO, Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Uemura, please.

Uemura: Thank you very much for everything.

I am a member of the Administrative Reform Secretariat for the Administrative Project Review, so I think it is important to improve the review sheet. In particular, I think it would be better to revise the logic model.

In line with the first point, I would like to point out the efficiency. I think we should show how much time and cost have been made more efficient by the unified supervision, even if it is only an estimate. I think we should show the degree of efficiency not only in the Digi-Agency but also in other ministries.

The second point is in line with the second point. As the chair and other members have said, the final goal is to determine the outcome of the review. I think it would be good to be able to measure the outcome. The current method of setting the outcome is output-oriented, so how to make it an outcome is a very important point.

That's all.

SATO, Chairman: Thank you.

Next, Mr. Kobayashi, please.

Thank you, .

Thank you for your detailed explanation and response.

I would like to make two points that do not overlap with what I said earlier.

In my question, you said that you have a plan to make it real-time as much as possible. On the other hand, I think there are some disadvantages such as time and effort. Therefore, I think it is not a project but a future development. I would like to know how to make such a system and in what steps it will be real-time for the Digi-Agency and the ministries and agencies that use it. I would like you to draw a path that will ultimately be useful for the ministries and agencies. That is my first question.

Second, I think there is one point where we can save a lot of time this time, but ultimately, if the last outcome is that the review will be more sophisticated, I don't know much about the sophistication, maybe because I am an amateur, but I feel that I will ultimately be able to see concrete examples of system improvements and concrete effects.

These are 2 points.

SATO, Chairman: Thank you.

Next, Mr. Sasajima, please.

Commissioner Sasajima: This is Sasajima .

Thank you very much for your thorough explanation.

I have been consulted by local governments, companies, various organizations, and the digitalisation. When I expressed my opinion on the generated AI earlier, I was told that it is important to prepare the AI first.

If we show the users that, for example, if data is collected in this way, they can improve the efficiency of their work, that they can expect such output, and that they can expect such time saving, the data may gradually be collected. On the other hand, if the user side asks them to collect such data as if from the top, they will be opposed. That itself is also a stress for the work, so I thought it would be better to go back and forth to collect the data and show them that there is a possibility that they can improve the efficiency by doing this from our side, in turn, instead of asking which one first.

That's all. Thank you very much.

SATO, Chairman: Thank you.

Next, permanent member, please.

Permanent Member: Thank you, Thank you.

From what I heard from you, I think this job is to improve the three aspects of usability, cost, and security, and at the same time, establish them. I understand that this is a very difficult job, and I think it would be easier to understand if we show the effects of this in a way that matches the three aspects of the logic model and KPI, as Mr. Uemura mentioned earlier.

In addition, as mentioned by the chairman, I thought it necessary to consider whether the centralized supervision method is the best way to establish the simultaneous establishment of these three.

That's all.

SATO, Chairman: Thank you.

Next, Mr. Mito, please.

Mr. Mito: I think you are aiming to improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of the project. As I said earlier, I think there are some trade-offs between usability improvement and security, so I think it is difficult, but I would like you to strike a balance between them. In particular, I would like you to strike a balance when using generative AI.

Another thing is, as I asked earlier, depending on the individuality and characteristics of each ministry and agency, there will naturally be positive aspects and negative aspects to the project itself. I think that there are some difficulties in terms of the extent to which we can work with ministries and agencies from the position of Mr. Digital Agency, but I would like to express my support.

That's all.

SATO, Chairman: Thank you.

Based on the discussions and final opinions of each committee member so far, I would like to summarize roughly.

Today, we received various opinions. First, Mr. Kanbayashi raised the issue of whether the number of accesses is a good indicator. The issue was raised by Mr. Uemura and Mr. Kobayashi. Whether this is really a good logic model when evaluating projects. The number of accesses is a somewhat indirect indicator. I would like you to consider a more appropriate indicator from the viewpoint of improving the system by reviewing this. There is not necessarily an indicator from the viewpoint of cost-effectiveness, as Mr. Uemura and others mentioned. I think you should consider that.

In addition, as for updating each time, as Mr. Kobayashi, Mr. Iwasaki, and others mentioned, it is clear that updating each time is better, but it also increases the time and effort. As a result, if the burden on the ministries and agencies increases, it will be a waste of money. In the first place, in the previous project, according to the review sheet, "The former Government Information System Management Database (former ODB) was conducting a similar project, but there was a lot of administrative work involved in input." This is a serious problem, and it puts a burden on the ministries and agencies. Even if the burden increases, I hope it will have a better effect, but I believe that it is necessary to balance the effect and the burden first. In addition, if individual reviews are important, it is questionable whether it was necessary to centralize the work, which requires time and effort from the ministries and agencies.

Also, as mentioned by the permanent members and the Mito members, some lines conflict with each other. As mentioned by the two members during the supervision, security, usability, and cost conflict with each other.

There was a question from the Mito Committee member. There were various ways of thinking depending on the government and ministries. The final decision was made by the PJMO of the original division. However, from the standpoint of supervising, the permanent committee member asked what kind of policy and decision should be made. After having a policy, examining whether it is consistent with the policy of the system being built is also supervision. In the case of system supervision, it is a little naive, but in the case of construction supervision, it is basically construction supervision to check whether the construction is built according to the design drawing. In the case of system supervision, there should be a policy as a target to compare whether it is actually built to the desired one. If that is not clear, supervision should not be conducted. Because, it is impossible to say anything about what is right. Therefore, the permanent committee member asked how the policy should be decided. That is exactly right, and I think that it cannot be seen unless it is clear.

In addition, as Mr. Mito said, there are considerable differences among ministries and agencies. If you do not take this into account, it is not necessarily desirable to conduct centralized supervision.

As I have already mentioned, from the perspective of improving the systems of the Cabinet Office and each Ministry, it is better to reconsider whether or not centralized supervision is good. Of course, too much fragmentation is not good, but there is a possibility that the requirements of the Cabinet Office and each Ministry mentioned earlier will not be satisfied, and there is also a possibility that the burden on the PMO and PJMO of each Ministry will increase, so I would like you to give careful consideration to that.

With regard to the utilization of AI, Mr. Sasajima and Mr. Iwasaki stated that they intended to use AI to coordinate various information after Mr. Digital Agency received it from the Cabinet Office and Ministries, even if the Cabinet Office and Ministries do not align the information with Digital Agency's format, or to use AI to resolve the issue even if the Cabinet Office and Ministries do not forcibly align the information. I believe that they intended to consider such a direction. AI

I intend to cover most of them, but if there are any missing items, I would like to hear from the committee members. Is it all right?

Thank you.

In that case, I have just finished compiling opinions as a meeting, so I will return it to the secretariat as my role for today is over.

Sueyama Director for Policy Planning: Thank you.

I would like to thank Chairman Sato and all the committee members for their active discussions.

The opinions and minutes that were compiled will be published on the Digital Agency website after they are confirmed by the committee members.

With this, I would like to conclude the process of publishing the 2025 Digital Agency Policy Evaluation and Public Administration Project Review. Thank you very much for today.