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 Expert Meeting for Policy Evaluation and Public Works Review [Public process] (to be held on Friday, July 4, 2025)

Last Updated:

Overview

  • Date and time: July 4, 2025 (2025) (Fri) from 13:00 to 14:30
  • Location: Online
  • Agenda Overview:
    1. Opening
    2. Agenda
      • Management and supervision support system
        • (1) Business Overview
        • (2) Questions and discussions
        • (3) Compilation of opinions
    3. Adjournment

Material

Related Documents

Meeting Video

Minutes

Sueyama Director for Policy Planning: Well, it's on time, so I'd like to get started.

The 2025 Digital Agency Open Process for Policy Evaluation and Public Administration Review will be held.

Today's moderator is Mr. Suyama from Director for Policy Planning, Digital Agency.

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

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

First, I would like to introduce Dr. Ichiro Sato, Professor of Information and Society Research at the National Institute of Informatics, who is serving as the Chair of the Advisory Panel for Policy Evaluation and Public Administration Review. Dr. Sato is serving as the Chair of the Panel to facilitate discussions and to coordinate opinions at the end.

Next, I would like to introduce the committee members.

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

Professor and Toshiyuki Uemura member of Kansei Gakuin Daigaku. Keizai Gakubu.

Senior Researcher, Economic Policy Department, Policy Research and Development Division, Mitsubishi UFJ Research and Consulting Co., Ltd.; Independent Administrative

Consulting Fellow of the Institute, Member of the Committee Yohei Kobayashi

Professor of the Graduate School of Information Science at the University of Hyogo and member Munehiko Sasajima.

Professor and Toshio Nagahisa of the Faculty of Economics, Nagoya University of Commerce and Business.

Partner and attorney at TMI Associates, Commissioner Shigeyuki Mito.

Mr. Ryo Kambayashi, Professor of the Faculty of Economics, Musashi University, will be unable to attend today due to some business, but we have received a written opinion in advance, which we will introduce later.

I would like to welcome these seven external experts today.

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

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

Vice-Minister for Digital Policy Tomiyasu: My name is Tomiyasu, who was just introduced.

I have been appointed to the position of Vice-Minister for Digital Policy as of July 1. I would like to thank you for everything you have done for me thus far. I look forward to working with you in the future.

At the administrative project review, we received various meaningful opinions from experts, and with their encouragement, we have been constantly pointed out that we should conduct operations and projects that produce results more efficiently. I would like to thank you for your support this time as well.

The integrated management and supervision support system that I will be discussing today is a system that was originally started when Digital Agency was established. Digital Agency aims to make it more efficient and systematic by integrating and supervising the systems of each government agency. The integrated management and supervision system is exactly what we started to work on to visualize various systems and information of each government agency.

In that process, the system as a Digital Agency is different from the one used by users or at the front desk, and it is difficult to focus on the work because it is the government officials who use it. In such a case, we will make the work of government offices more efficient, and by extension, the purpose is to make each system visible and good. Although it is a system that is difficult to focus on or attract your attention, we would like to receive various opinions from experts and make the burden on each government agency as small as possible and produce results efficiently. We would appreciate your frank opinions.

Also, today, my successor, Mr. Morita, has assumed the position of General Deputy Director-General as the person responsible for this administrative project review in Digital Agency. I would like to say a few words after this meeting. Thank you very much.

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

We are very sorry for the trouble with the audio.

If there is any improvement, I would like to make an announcement at the end of the meeting.

Next, I will explain today's proceedings.

In today's public process, we will have discussions on the integration and supervision support system as a target business.

First of all, the person in charge of the project will explain the project. After that, we would like to receive frank opinions and questions about the project from the committee members. We will make an announcement about 8 minutes before the end of the discussion, and we will ask each committee member to make a final comment. After that, on behalf of the committee members, Chairman Sato will compile comments and confirm them with the approval of the committee members.

In order to facilitate the proceedings, we would like you to normally turn off your microphone to prevent noise and howling. When you speak, if you raise your hand or press the raise button on the system, the chairperson will designate you. Please turn on your microphone when you speak and turn it back off when you have finished speaking.

Let's begin our discussion.

First, the person in charge of the project, please explain the project.

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

First of all, I would like to explain a little. Thank you.

In explaining the supervision and management support system, I think we need to go into "supervision and management," so let me explain this a little. The terms "supervision" and "review" have very broad meanings, so I would like to first explain what we mean by "supervision and management."

As shown in the PowerPoint you are viewing now, in Act on the Establishment of the Digital Agency, Act No. 36 of 2021 stipulates that one of the affairs under the jurisdiction of Digital Agency is to supervise and manage national information systems.

This is "Supervision and Management". If you look at the picture below, if you go from the far right, there is "PJMO". This is the so-called system development division, which is also in each ministry. It is the division that actually implements it. It is called "PJMO", and there are people who develop individual systems.

On top of that, in each ministry, which is also in Digital Agency, there is a department that is positioned as a "PMO of each ministry." As a system department, the PMO in each ministry manages projects for many systems within the ministry, such as planning management, budget management, information asset management, etc.

This time, we are even further up the ladder. On the far left is "Digital Agency Supervision and Management," which is "Kan" in "Supervision." This is what we are talking about. We use the term "centralized project management" to refer to the supervision and management of government information systems. Our main perspective is whether the budget is used correctly at each phase of the planning and operation stages of each information system-related project, at the timing of budget requests and execution.

In that sense, I hope you will understand that the world of project management in the world is somewhat lower than each ministry or department.

Next page, please.

If you break it down a little more, in this picture, the system development life cycle of the project is written broadly. There is a large life cycle from service and business planning to requirements definition, design and development, and operation and maintenance.

In this context, we are in the unified project management on the far left. In the budget request and execution stage, when the decided budget is actually executed, we look at whether the budget is requested appropriately or not. To be specific, necessity, effect, whether this system is really necessary, effective, urgent, or really something that needs to be done now. Since it is a budget, there is a basis for estimation, and when the estimate comes in, we review it at the time of the budget request from the perspective of whether it is appropriate, feasible, and cost-effective. Not only at the time of the budget request, but also at the stage of actually executing the budget request after eight years, which we are doing now in fiscal year R8, since the process is progressing considerably, we look back a little later to see whether it is correct or not, and at the time of the budget request, when the requirements are still vague and have not been finalized, we look at the result of it being finalized. This is the unified project management.

Next page, please.

This is the current timeline. It is roughly as shown here. As you can see here, the budget request review in the middle is in June, July, and August, and the budget request is being made right now. Prior to that, in fact, from around January, February, and March, the budget request will be made around spring while confirming various directions such as the Architecture of the system and what each ministry should do prior to the budget request.

This time, regarding the integrated management support system that will be introduced later, at the end of the fiscal year, in February and March, when we were confirming the direction, we were collecting basic information, or should I say meta information of each information system, and using that information, we are making budget requests or reviewing at the execution stage later. This is the general trend.

The review of the budget request and the review at the execution stage are conducted in an integrated manner. The project plan is the main part of the review. As you can see in this table, the project plan is mainly submitted along with the estimated budget request adjustment plan and cost effectiveness data. The project plan, which includes the details shown in the detailed table on the right, is also submitted. The review of the budget request and the review at the execution stage are conducted in an integrated manner. This is the responsibility of the project management.

Up to this point is the first part, "What is centralized project management?"

Next, please.

From here, we will move on to the supervisory and management support system.

It is also listed in Priority Plan and others, but Digital Agency maintains and operates a supervision and management support system. It visualizes the information systems owned by each ministry in an easy-to-understand manner and provides the visualized information to Digital Agency and each government agency.

So, for those of us in charge of supervising and managing Digital Agency, at the moment, once a year, around the end of the fiscal year in February and March, we obtain basic information on each system at that time and compile it into a database. That's the system.

Of course, PMO or PJMO of each ministry can also participate and view it. Since it is basic information on the project and the system, people from various positions, such as executives, from various perspectives can refer to this basic information on the project and use it for various management.

Next, please.

In addition to visualizing the status of execution for each information system and the status of use of common functions, the integrated management and supervision support system can also aggregate and display the execution results for each office and ministry. In such cases, the integrated management and supervision support system can summarize the status of execution, improve the operational efficiency of the department that collectively records the Digital Agency's information systems budget, and provide the security department with information such as software for government information systems and the status of security responses.

We have basic information and meta information. So, for example, if something happens to security wear or software, we can find out who is using it, and each actor uses it in various ways. We visualize and provide information using PowerApps, PowerBI, and so on.

Next page, please.

This is not all, but I have summarized what kind of data is managed in the integrated management support system. At the item level, there are 300 and 400 items, which include system usage information, whether or not common functions are used, usage record, security, design and development operators, etc., as stated by the operators on the right, system development and operation information, system configuration, security information, or more specifically, what kind of contract and what is the unit price of the contract, etc. This is a unified or unified database of the entire government system.

Next, please.

With regard to the illustration that came up earlier, using this meta information, at the stage of various reviews and the like, and regarding the word "review," this is not a policy review but a system review. As I mentioned earlier, project plans are reviewed to determine whether it is really OK to make a budget request and whether it is OK to execute it. The word "review" is used here, but meta information and the like are used thoroughly when conducting such reviews.

In addition, we have asked them to submit their project plans, so we are reviewing them by adding information collected in February and March, such as project plans and estimates, and using estimates from new business operators.

Next, please.

Amidst this, I would like to ask about the sense of challenge. Each ministry and agency is requesting project plans and other documents to be submitted to Digital Agency. Although we have asked them to include such content, they are currently being presented in various formats, including PowerPoint and Word documents.

What is written at the second point is that as a rule, as long as it is included in the supervisory support system, it is once a year now. In other words, the freshness of information is as of the end of March. For example, if we review the execution stage around summer, it will be about half a year, and we will receive the project plan again during that period. Since we receive the project plan as new information, the accuracy of the information is low with the supervisory support system alone. This is a sense of challenge.

In the review activities, there are a wide range of documents to be submitted, including project plans. In addition to the supervisory and management support system, we are doing it while receiving several types of input information. The information in the supervisory and management support system itself is updated once a year, so if it is updated after that, the information is old, so for example, when you ask what system is on the Government Cloud, if it is different by six months, you have to check what it will be like six months later, which is a problem.

Next, please.

So, in terms of the direction, in addition to the data written in the project plan that is originally used in the general management support system, which may overlap, the project plan will be managed in the general management support system in an integrated manner. In addition, if it is updated every time rather than once a year, it will put a burden on the people in the original section. The people in the original section also update the project plan every time, so it would be better to incorporate it into the general management support system rather than once a year.

In addition, although there are various formats, machine-readability will be improved by making it into a unified format, so I think that it will be possible to mechanize the parts that do not need to be done by humans, such as making judgments using a moving AI.

So, as for number 2, by improving the database design so that various information can be updated at any time instead of once a year, the latest information can always be viewed by Digital Agency, PMO of each ministry, etc. By looking at the same record, it will always be up to date, which will contribute to improving IT governance.

By doing so, we will be able to reduce the amount of work involved in IT governance in each ministry, and we, as reviewers, will also be able to reduce it, and it will be possible to expand and refine the scope of IT governance in each ministry. We believe that we will be able to contribute to the originally intended goal of ensuring QCD and effectiveness.

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.

I would now like to ask Chairman Sato to lead the discussion among the outside experts.

Please, Chairman.

Co-Chair Sato: After 's National Institute of Informatics.

I would like to begin our discussion immediately. Let me make a few points at the outset.

Since today is a public review, this is the first time for those who are not related to us to hear this story, but today is the third time for us, that is, the last two times, we have had a private review, and we have been briefed on projects other than what we were briefed on today. Since the discussions have been closely held, the members have already gained a considerable understanding, and I believe that they have deepened their understanding after being briefed by Deputy Director-General Kitama again today.

After this, I would like to hear your frank opinions, including today's explanation and the various explanations we have received in the past. I have prepared the slides of the discussion points, but I do not need to be bound by them, and I would like to hear your opinions.

So, after this, I would like to have your opinions, but I have received a written opinion from Mr. Kanbayashi, a member of the Musashi University, who is absent today, and I will read it out while summarizing it.

Among the administrative project review sheets, the target value for the submission rate of the "Information Asset Management Standard Sheet," which is mentioned as an activity indicator of output, is not 100%. It is difficult to imagine that there are projects that can be done without a sheet. The first point is that I would like to know the reason why 100% is not the target.

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

I would like to ask other committee members to discuss, but I would like to ask Hara Section to answer these two questions.

Kitama Deputy Director-General: First of all, I would like to answer these two questions.

The reason why we do not set a target of 100% is simply that there is a time lag. When we specified the system for submitting the sheet in advance, we initially said we would submit it based on the number of cases, but in some cases, we declined, or in the end, we stopped creating the system or postponed it. In that sense, in the end, it does not necessarily reach 100 each time.

But in other words, we're doing everything that we're really going to do. That's answer number one.

This is where the second number of accesses is. We believe that the core of advanced supervision and management is to thoroughly review each individual system, but it is also true that the time spent organizing and searching materials has been reduced by access to the supervision and management support system, and that amount has been made available for review activities.

We believe that increasing the number of hits also leads to more sophisticated review activities, and we consider the number of hits as one of the indicators.

Co-Chair Sato: After Thank you.

Committee member Kanbayashi's intention is that the first 100% is something that has actually been submitted, and if it is corrected once, it will be 100%, so it is strange that it has not been done, and that the second performance indicator is the number of accesses, which I think is difficult to understand, since there is not necessarily a correlation between the number of accesses and what information was used as a reference, so I would like to say that there are some doubts.

Now I would like to hear from each of the committee members. I would like everyone to feel free to, either online or if you are physically present today. Thank you.

Committee Member Uemura, you raised your hand first, so please.

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

This is quite similar to what Mr. Kanbayashi said. As you pointed out, the second point is how to proceed with the improvement. As the chairman also said, the basic purpose is to make improvements through centralized project management. Since the purpose is to measure the effects of the QCD, I think we need performance indicators to capture this.

There was the number of hits, but the next long-term outcome is also the number of ministries and agencies using the service. I think this means that the number of ministries and agencies using the service will increase, and I think that we need more project-based indicators to measure the degree of improvement. This is the first point.

The second point is the cost effectiveness, which is the first point of the discussion. Originally, in the review sheet, it was written that there was an extremely large administrative burden related to entering the database in the section on 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 made more economical. What do you think?

That's all.

Co-Chair Sato: After Division Section could answer this question.

Kitama Deputy Director-General: Second, I understand that you are right about cost effectiveness. I may be close to the first point, but the PJMO and PMO are close to each other in terms of being directly linked to QCD. Although we are at the top, I think it is understandable that we should set KPI and KGI to improve the QCD of everyone in each original section.

I think we need to think about how to express this well with our indicators. At the moment, in our layer, it may be uncertain how effective it was for people who accessed it, but we are setting a goal to raise it and make it effective.

Team in charge: I would like to make a follow-up comment on the QCD section.

As you pointed out, when we think about QCD, the ultimate goal of an integrated management support system is to make various government information systems as a whole more efficient in terms of cost, to make them easier to use, and to handle data efficiently. The ultimate goal is to realize these things in each system.

When I think about what kind of goals should be set to improve the supervisory and management system, if I set too many goals, it will be a little difficult to figure out what and why the supervisory and management support system should be improved. Currently, the number of accesses to the supervisory and management support system is set, but your point is correct, so I understand that what kind of indicators can be considered should be discussed.

In terms of cost effectiveness, various measures are currently being taken, and although it is not limited to the integrated management support system, the financial authorities and others are working to visualize the cost effectiveness of each system, as mentioned in Priority Plan, which was decided by the Cabinet of Digital Agency.

However, for example, the Administrative Reform Secretariat has a review sheet system called the RS System, which is a system for visualization. We are currently working to promote visualization efforts using such a system.

Co-Chair Sato: After , Committee member, are your answers correct? In the second question, I believe you asked for a clear understanding of cost-effectiveness. As for an explanation, I think it would be good if there were other related policies and visualization. Is that correct?

Dr. Uemura: Mr. Thank you.

Compared to the situation before the introduction, I think we should show an estimate of how the cost, including labor, has decreased after the introduction.

That's all for now.

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

Co-Chair Sato: After , Committee member, please.

Dr. Kobayashi: Thank you.

I am afraid that there is some overlap between Professor Kanbayashi's and Professor Uemura's, but I would like to mention a few points of concern.

I would like to ask you about the details. Regarding the mid-term outcome that is currently under discussion, "the number of accesses to each view," the target number is 14400 per year and the activity result is 14400 per year. I did not fully understand why the actual result and the target are so closely matched. First of all, I would like to know the details.

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

I think the number of access itself is probably an output-like figure. If the number of access increases, it means that what has been submitted by e-mail or other means will become a system, so it will take less time. Because it will take less time, it will take more time for review, or on the other hand, each ministry and agency will be able to use their idle man-hours separately. So, I think it would be good to include estimates to some extent, but ultimately, if we are going to increase the quality of review by leaving more time, I think it is important to write as much as possible in terms of logic models or indicators. However, it does not mean that we should measure all working hours, but I think it is necessary to make an indicator that is consistent with this purpose while looking at the cost-effectiveness of measurement.

The third point is that until now we have basically updated once a year, but I think the fact that this will be updated every time means that there will be both costs and effects, and I would like to know about that.

In other words, if it has to be renewed each time, the cost for each ministry and agency may rise, so I thought we should consider how much such cost could be incurred as a negative effect.

Lastly, regarding the fourth point, I understand that the supervisory and management system itself has been designed to review the budget and execution. If the data is updated in more real time, it will be as close as possible to the progress management of the systems of each ministry and agency. I would like to ask if there will be aspects that can be made more efficient in the future by using the integrated system of the Digital TV Agency instead of the systems of each ministry and agency, and if you can consider such aspects.

I am sorry that it is too much, but it is 4 points.

Co-Chair Sato: After , please.

Team in charge: Some of the numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100, but the actual numbers are different from the target values. In detail, there are actually more than 14500 cases. The numbers are not exactly the same, but are actually different.

Kitama Deputy Director-General: Next, you talked about the logic model. I think you are right. By increasing the number of accesses, both parties' time will be reduced, and the reviewers' time will also be reduced, so the aim is for the reviewers to have more time to spend on essential reviews. As you said to improve the quality, that is what you mean by the logic model.

In addition, regarding the cost-effectiveness, I believe that there will be a slight increase, although I was told that some ministries will increase the amount.

However, not only in March, but also at the time of budget request review and execution stage review, the project plan is updated. So, regarding that, I don't mean to ask you to make what you haven't done yet, but to ask you to input the project plan that you used to receive in Word or PowerPoint into the system in the same way. I think the load will increase to that extent.

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

If it becomes possible to manage such data in an integrated manner, in the future, including each office and ministry, if we look at one system, or simply put, one record, we will be able to manage all the information in an integrated manner, including those with a cycle of one year or even one week, as you said in the picture of the future. It may be possible to reach that point soon, but if we reach that point, all the offices and ministries will be on the same data for progress management. I will take your opinion. Thank you very much. We hope to reach that point.

That's all.

Co-Chair Sato: After , are you all right?

Dr. Kobayashi: I'm OK for now. Thank you.

Co-Chair Sato: After In that case, Mr. Sasajima, please.

Committee Member Sasajima: I am Sasajima . I am Sasajima.

On page 13 of the explanatory material, I am not sure if we have started specific discussions on this. However, if you are thinking about using AI to make your review activities more efficient, and if you are aware of the specific ways in which checking these items using AI would be more efficient in the future, I think it would be a good idea to start education on the use of generative AI with an eye to the future, such as using generative AI to challenge or review these items in advance, when each ministry and agency presents materials or project proposals for review.

This is also the case at universities. We are in a position to consider how to use students' generated AI, but teachers are not using it properly, so it does not lead to more efficient work. This is a similar problem. If generative AI can be used in these areas, the simple coincidence of numerical values in the previous questions and opinions, the small changes in numbers that people over time tend to overlook, the consistency of logic written in proposals, I think there are some items that seem to have no problem with generative AI. I think we should try to do these. If necessary, we should consider creating a custom generative AI that can be used to secure information leakage.

That's all.

Co-Chair Sato: After Thank you.

The current opinion is that if there is a place where AI can be used, please use it. If there is already a specific plan, please tell us, and if not, we will consider using it. I think this should be enough, but if there is a specific plan, please respond.

Kitama Deputy Director-General: I would like to use it actively from now on.

Co-Chair Sato: After That's the stage.

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

Committee Member Sasajima: I am Sasajima Thank you.

Co-Chair Sato: After In that case, Mr. Iwasaki, please.

Iwasaki: .

Thank you very much for your explanation.

As the chair of the meeting stated at the beginning, we have heard various explanations and received careful answers to the questions. In addition, I believe that improvements to our response have been included in the explanation. I would like to make comments and ask questions, although I may be repeating myself a little.

There are some points that slightly overlap with the members' opinions, but first of all, I would like to ask about the accuracy of information. I believe it is important that necessary information data is updated at an appropriate and timely time. If there is anything necessary for that, please tell us about the current issues. If there are budgetary issues, please also tell us about them.

In addition, as Vice-Minister for Digital Policy Tomiyasu pointed out at the beginning, when you look at it from the perspective of the users of the system, if there are actually the highest demands from the users, please tell us what they are.

In addition, regarding the use of generated AI, this is exactly the same opinion as what Professor Sasajima mentioned earlier. For example, looking at the data item stored at the moment, I understand that sensitive information is also handled. When real-time data is handled in the future, I think the selection of data and where it will be used will be a future challenge. In addition, I think that handling and response such as security and authority management will be necessary, and I would like you to take that into consideration.

That's all.

Co-Chair Sato: After What do you think if there is an answer?

Kitama Deputy Director-General: The fact that it should be updated in a timely manner is exactly the sense of challenge we have, and I think that there are various kinds of information that are updated every fiscal year or quarterly.

At the moment, it is supposed to be done once a year, so even if it is information that we want as soon as possible, it is inevitably updated once a year. It is supposed to be updated on a shorter cycle, and we will convert it to data. For now, the project plan that you mentioned earlier is the bible of the project, and it will be reflected every time it is updated. I think this will be the first step in the evolution of the project.

Co-Chair Sato: After Committee member Iwasaki's question just now was on the premise that it should be timely, and whether there are any budgetary issues to make it timely.

Team in charge: system.

In the current system, we import information into Excel once a year, but if we need to input information at any time, it will be necessary to provide it to the user with the opening always open.

If such a system is to be created, there will be technical limitations with the current system, and in that sense, I believe there will be many parts that will need to be remade. I believe we must consider how far we can go in such areas while looking at the budgetary aspects.

Kitama Deputy Director-General: Security was pointed out. In terms of security, at the present point in time, we are able to view all information, but at each ministry, for example, at the MHLW PMO, which is closed to each ministry, the current system is equipped with security authority that can be seen from the MHLW's system, so if there are more actors in various positions, we will have to create various security authorities, and we will have to expand that in the future.

Co-Chair Sato: After , Mr. Iwasaki, are there any additional questions? Are you OK?

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

Co-Chair Sato: After I have not yet received opinions from the two physical participants today, but I would like to hear them.

Permanent Member: Thank you very much.

First of all, I would like to thank you for the explanation you just gave me, which made things much clearer, even though I used the same word, there were times when I thought it would be different, and I was confused. Thank you very much.

It may be the same as what Mr. Iwasaki has just said, but if I may speak in a different way, I would like to say that PJMO is truly a workplace. I think that workplace codes of conduct are to consider systems with an emphasis on usability. The perspective of Digital Agency, which is at the very top, is whether or not the appropriateness of the budget is clearly expressed, as written here.

Usability can conflict with validity and effectiveness, so the first question is what kind of policy will govern and supervise these matters.

Furthermore, I would like to ask where the policy and criteria are determined. This is a cross-ministerial issue, so when you think about it, what is the method and process of determination?

Kitama Deputy Director-General: policies, guidelines have been established in each ministry, not just here. There are usability guidelines, and we are also following those guidelines in our supervision and oversight, but I think the biggest point is that we are following the guidelines of the entire government.

Certainly, I think the fact that it is difficult to be confrontational is a challenge.

Team in charge: , I think there are many solutions. For example, as one solution, Digital Agency is currently preparing a design system that can be used by ministries and the private sector. For example, as we are preparing materials for the so-called user interface, we are preparing materials including source codes in a form that takes into consideration Digital Agency's accessibility. Using such materials, for example, can be considered from the perspective of achieving both cost and usability.

Permanent Member: In other words, is it correct to understand that the policy is to seek solutions that satisfy both cost and usability?

Team in charge: We do not believe that it is acceptable to spend a huge amount of money to create an easy-to-use system. Therefore, although it depends on the system, we will consider how to achieve a balance or whether it is possible to pursue both systems while keeping an eye on the balance.

Permanent Member: Finally, if cost and usability are mutually exclusive, who decides where to go?

Team in charge: The system itself is a matter of which system should be emphasized, so in the end, PJMO should look at it.

Permanent Member: I understand. Thank you very much.

Co-Chair Sato: After , please.

Mr. Mito: I think you are aiming to improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of the Then, let me talk a little 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 submitting a project plan, you mentioned that there are various formats, such as Excel and PowerPoint, but are you thinking of making it a unified format in the future from the perspective of centralized management by Digital Agency? No, I would like to ask if you have any thoughts at this point on using the AI that has been released to siphon off information in any format.

In addition, as with the generative AI that you have been talking about, while you are making efforts to improve usability and efficiency, there are of course issues with security. Security and usability are in a tradeoff relationship. If you make security too simple, it will be 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 be struggling to find a balance. I would like to hear your thoughts on this at this point. That is my second question.

As for the other point, Mr. Digital Agency will be in charge of all the projects submitted by the ministries and agencies, and I think they are all the same. However, there are differences among the ministries and agencies, and differences based on the characteristics of the administrative projects of the ministries and agencies. To put it bluntly, the ministry is not very cooperative in these matters, and Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a tight guard. We may have to face this in the future. I have already had some projects, and I don't need to mention their names, but I wonder if there are any projects that are in charge of projects that are obstacles to the projects by their nature. I don't think I am an amateur, but please tell me about them.

Kitama Deputy Director-General: Thank you.

First of all, I think that there are two levels in terms of the format. For the time being, we will devise an entry form, etc., and at present, we are asked to include such content. There are actually reasons for this. Although we provide an entry form, we have been using Excel for a long time, and some say that this is the easiest for our ministries and agencies to use. Of course, if we create a new one, we would like to include it in the form. There are various differences. At present, we do not have a complete set. On the other hand, if the format is unified and the goal line reaches something like a AI, it will be very convenient.

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

Are there differences among the ministries and agencies? To be honest, there is no choice but to do so. Among the ministries and agencies, there are some ministries and agencies that are actively making the various materials shown here easier to understand, like we should do it according to our rules. To be honest, there are some ministries and agencies that say they will leave it to us, or they don't care, but they want us to do it that way. It would be great if it is standardized, but in reality, there is still a long way to go.

I skipped it. The second point is that it is extremely difficult to achieve both usability and security. For the time being, as we are in a position to supervise government systems, I believe that we must firmly protect security in terms of overall supervision or management by each ministry. It is certainly a trade-off, and this is a little difficult, but I would like to systemize it while incorporating the user's perspective.

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

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

I imagine that Mr. Digital Agency must be going through a lot of difficulties because he manages information on the projects that each ministry and agency is doing. I think it is a very significant project in terms of policy. I hope he will do his best. Thank you very much.

Co-Chair Sato: After , if I have time, I would like to make a comment. Is there anything you really want to say? Is it OK?

I would like to make a comment.

This project this time is an integrated management support system. Therefore, we tend to focus on how to input information and how to present the information. From the standpoint of supervising and managing the system development of each office and ministry, which is being done in the original division, it is related to whether the number of accesses is good as the indicator I mentioned earlier. Originally, Mr. Digital Agency should conduct a review, and as a result of the review, we need to see whether the system of the office and ministry has been improved, whether the budget has been used effectively, or other results. In that sense, I think it would be better to create indicators in the activities of the original division rather than just the information systems of this time.

The other thing is, to be honest, this system doesn't appeal to the customer. At the beginning, it was assumed that Mr. Digital Agency would be in charge of supervising all the systems of the ministries and agencies. So, Digital Agency would be in charge of development, and the operation would be entrusted to the ministries and agencies. But the plan changed. When that plan changed, I don't really see how this project changed. Mr. Digital Agency's supervision of the development of information systems in the ministries and agencies, especially the centralized supervision, and the improvement of system development in the ministries and agencies are compatible with each other as a goal. In fact, there are some contradictions in the means. From the perspective of Mr. Digital Agency's system supervision, to be honest, there is no need for centralized supervision. Mr. Digital Agency could go to the ministries and agencies to listen to the situation and make comments. Of course, it would be a problem if they were too diverse, but a certain degree of diversity can be achieved by human technology.

On the other hand, if each Ministry were to monitor the projects of other Ministries and the status of their information systems, each Ministry would have a different method of input, and it would be difficult to understand if other Ministries had a completely different format, so I think it would be meaningful to have centralized control. However, according to the explanation I have just given, it is relatively not shown to other Ministries and Agencies. That is true in terms of security, but I think it is highly questionable whether it was a project that required such centralized control in the first place.

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

If such granularity is increasing due to the insistence on centralized management of the system, to be honest, rather than centralized management, it would be good if Digital Agency would conduct hearings with each ministry, so what is the goal there? If Digital Agency wants to supervise all or want to supervise all, I think centralized management would be fine, but if not, I think it would be an idea to review the system of each ministry from the perspective of improving it.

That's all.

I don't have much time for you to answer. Do you have any other opinions?

This time, the review will be open to the public. According to the timetable, it's almost time to finish. But initially, it was set aside for an hour and a half, so there is still some time to spare. I think everyone may have something to say. Including that, I will ask everyone for their final opinions, and after that, I will compile them.

So, I would like to ask you to do it in Japanese alphabetical order, in order of the names on the list. I am sorry that I always ask Committee Member Iwasaki at the beginning of every meeting, but could you give us your final opinion?

Iwasaki: .

Thank you very much for your very careful answer today.

As the Chairman mentioned earlier, I specialize in e-government, so I would like to make a few comments based on that point.

This centralized project management system will create cost effectiveness, which is one of the most important goals of digital government, and I think it is very important to realize this. However, there will be very difficult and complicated tasks. In order to realize this, first of all, from the users' point of view, we will aim to design a system that is easy to use, and improve efficiency and production efficiency. Then, we will use the necessary technology at the appropriate time and place. I think generative AI will play one of the major roles.

I think there are some difficult issues in terms of balance, but there is no doubt that this system is a very important system, so I would like to see it in the future.

That's all.

Co-Chair Sato: After Thank you.

Commissioner Uemura, please.

Dr. Uemura: Mr. , thank you for everything.

I am a committee member from the administrative reform secretariat of the administrative project review, so I think it is important to improve the review sheet, especially the logic model.

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

My second question is in line with the second point. The Chair and other members of the Council have made a lot of comments on this. The ultimate goal is to measure the outcome of the review, which is the outcome. The current method of setting the outcome is an output, so how to change it into an outcome is a very important point.

That's all.

Co-Chair Sato: After Thank you.

Next, Mr. Kobayashi, please go ahead.

Dr. Kobayashi: Thank you very much.

Thank you for your kind explanation and reply.

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

In my question, you said that making it as real-time as possible is a concept. On the other hand, I think there are disadvantages such as time and effort. So, I think it is a future development rather than an actual project. I would like to know how to make a path to such a system, and what steps should be taken to make it real-time for the Digital TV Agency and each user ministry and agency. My first question is whether you can draw a path that will ultimately be useful to each ministry and agency.

Second, I think there is one thing that will save a lot of time this time, and when I say that the final outcome is to make the review more sophisticated, I may be because I am an amateur, but there are things I don't know much about, and I hope that I will be able to see specific examples of system improvements and specific effects.

These are the two points.

Co-Chair Sato: After Thank you.

Next, Mr. Sasajima, please go ahead.

Committee Member Sasajima: I am Sasajima .

Thank you very much for your kind explanation.

I have consulted with local governments, companies, and digitalisation on the datafication of various areas. When I expressed my opinion on the generation of AI earlier, you explained that the collection of AI comes first. The collection of data by users and the use of generated data to streamline work are closely related.

If we can show the users, for example, that if they have this kind of data, they can improve their work efficiency, that they can expect this kind of output, and that they can expect this kind of time saving, the data will gradually become available. On the other hand, if the users request that they have this kind of data from above, they will oppose it, or it itself can be stressful for their work, so I thought it would be good to alternately go back and forth to show them that if they had this kind of data, they could improve their efficiency.

That's all. Thank you very much.

Co-Chair Sato: After Thank you.

Next, permanent member, please.

Permanent Member: Thank you.

From what I've heard from you, I think this job is to improve and establish the three things of usability, cost, and security at the same time. While understanding that it is a very difficult job, as Mr. Uemura mentioned earlier, it would be easier to understand if we show the effects of this precisely in a form that corresponds to the logic model and KPI.

Furthermore, as the Chairman mentioned, I thought that we need to consider whether the method of centralized supervision is the best way to establish these three simultaneously.

That's all.

Co-Chair Sato: After 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 is a tradeoff between improving usability and security in some cases. I think it will be difficult, but I would like you to keep a balance between them. In particular, if you are going to use a generative AI, I would like you to take it.

As for the other question, as I asked earlier, depending on the individuality and characteristics of each ministry and agency, there will naturally be those that are positive about the project itself and those that are not. I think it will be difficult to determine to what extent I can work with the ministries and agencies from the position of Mr. Digital Agency, but I would like to send my support.

That's all.

Co-Chair Sato: After Thank you.

I would like to make a rough summary based on the discussions and final opinions of each committee member so far.

Today, we received various opinions from you. First of all, Mr. Kanbayashi raised the issue of whether or not the access count should be used as an indicator. This issue was raised by Mr. Uemura and Mr. Kobayashi. Whether or not this is really a good logic model for project evaluation. The access count is a somewhat indirect indicator, and I would like you to consider a more appropriate indicator from the perspective of improving the system through this review. Mr. Uemura and others also pointed out that there is not necessarily an indicator from the perspective of cost effectiveness. That is what we should consider.

In terms of updating each time, as Mr. Kobayashi and Mr. Iwasaki mentioned, it is clear that updating each time is better, but it also requires more time and effort. It would be pointless if the burden on the ministries and agencies increased as a result. In the first place, in the previous project, according to the review sheet, "The former Open Data Base (ODB) was used for a similar project, but it required a lot of clerical work to input data." This has become a serious issue. It will impose a burden on the ministries and agencies. Even if the burden increases, it would be good if it would have a better effect, but I think it is necessary to balance the effect and burden first. In addition, if individual reviews were emphasized, it may be questionable whether it was necessary to centralize the burden on the ministries and agencies.

Also, the permanent members and Mr. Mito mentioned that some of the lines conflict with each other. I mean, what you two mentioned during your supervision and supervision is that there is a conflict between security, usability, and cost.

A member of the Mito Committee said, "There are various ways of thinking depending on the government ministries and agencies, and in the end it is the decision of the PJMO in the original division." However, from the standpoint of supervision, a permanent member asked about the policy and the method of determination. Based on the policy, it is also supervision to examine whether it matches the policy of the system being built. In the case of system supervision, it is a little lenient, but in the supervision of construction, it is basically construction supervision to see whether it is built according to the design drawing. Even in system supervision, there must be a policy as a goal to compare whether it is actually built as desired. If it is not clear, supervision should not be possible. After all, it is impossible to say what is right. Therefore, a permanent member asked about how the policy is decided. This is exactly true, and I think that it cannot be seen unless it is clear.

In addition, as Commissioner Mito said, there are considerable differences among the ministries and agencies, so if you do not take this into consideration, it is not necessarily good to forcibly supervise in an integrated manner.

As I said earlier, from the perspective of improving the system of each ministry and agency, it is better to reconsider whether or not centralized supervision is good. Of course, it is not good to be too scattered, but there is a possibility that the requirements of each ministry and agency I mentioned earlier will not be satisfied and the burden on the PMO and PJMO of each ministry and agency will increase, so I would like you to think carefully about that.

I also heard from Mr. Sasajima and Mr. Iwasaki about the utilization of AI, and I believe that the two of them had the intention that if they receive data from the government ministries and agencies, then after Mr. Digital Agency receives it, various information would be well coordinated on the AI side using AI, even if the government ministries and agencies do not conform to Digital Agency's format, or that the government ministries and agencies would not be forced to prepare the information, and that AI would solve those problems, so I think it would be good if they could consider that direction.

I think I have covered most of them, but if there is anything missing, I would like committee members to tell me. Is it okay?

Thank you.

In that case, since we have just finished compiling the opinions of the Conference, I will hand it back to the secretariat as my role for today is over.

Sueyama Director for Policy Planning: Thank you.

Chairman Sato, members of the Committee, thank you for your active discussions.

The summarized opinions and minutes will be published on the Digital Agency website after being confirmed by the committee members.

This concludes the public process of the 2025 Digital Agency Policy Assessment and Public Administration Review. Thank you very much for your time today.