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 ".

2026 - The 4th Advisory Council for Policy Evaluation and Administrative Work Review (held on August 6 (Thu), 2026)

Outline

For an overview of this Advisory Council, please refer to the 2026 Guidelines for Policy Evaluation and Administrative Work Review .

Event Information

Date and time of the
Thursday, August 6, 2026, from 13:30 to 14:30
Place
Holding of hybrid
Attending committee member
Mr. Satoh (1) - Chairman, Member Iwasaki, Member Ohta, Member Kanbayashi, Member Sasajima, Member Satou (Main), Member Hiruko

Summary of the proceedings

  • 1. Report on the discussions to date
  • 2. Direction of improvement for each business
    • ① Digital marketplace (DMP) catalog site
    • (ii) National qualification information coordination and utilization system

Data

Summary of the proceedings

After the Secretariat declared the opening of the meeting, Minister for Digital Transformation MATSUMOTO gave a keynote address, and the Secretariat served as the moderator.
Subsequently, each person in charge of the project reported on the direction of project improvement based on the report and the disclosure process, and the experts made comments on the reports from each person in charge of the project. Finally, Minister for Digital Transformation Matumoto made a comment on the whole project, and Deputy Director-General Morita, Executive Director, gave a closing address.

Secretariat: Now, I would like to open the fourth meeting of the Advisory Council for Policy Evaluation and Review of Administrative Programs.
Today, it will be held using a web conference system.
First of all, Mr. Minister for Digital Transformation Matsumoto will give an opening address.

Minister for Digital Transformation Matsumoto: Hello everyone. I would like to say a few words at the opening of the Fourth Expert Meeting for Policy Evaluation and Review of Administrative Work.
You have participated in three rounds of discussions so far. I would like to thank you once again for taking time out of your busy schedules to participate today. In the past, this meeting has received various discussions and opinions from experts on the projects implemented by Digital Agency from the perspective of necessity, effectiveness, and effectiveness. Through these discussions, we aim to realize high-quality administration.
So far, we have received proposals for improving two projects: the Digital Marketplace (DMP) catalog site and the national qualification information collaboration and utilization system.
Today I would like to receive a report summarizing the contents of these discussions, and at the same time, I would like to hear your opinions on the direction of business improvement based on your proposals. Thank you very much in advance.

Secretariat: Now, let me explain the flow of today's meeting.
First, on behalf of the committee members, I will have the chairperson report on the report compiled by the committee members. Next, each project manager will report on the measures and status of consideration for project improvement. After receiving the report, I would like to hear comments from the committee members, and finally, I would like to hear Minister Matsumoto's comments.
As a minor supplementary explanation, regarding the report to be submitted later, two projects were selected as part of Digital Agency's initiatives, namely the Digital Marketplace (DMP) Catalog Site and the System for Coordination and Utilization of National Qualifications and Other Information. The committee members discussed the direction of project improvement and other matters, and a provisional version of the report was prepared in May. Subsequently, on June 29, a public disclosure process was held, at which opinions and other inputs received from the committee members were added to produce the final report.
In addition, regarding the reports from personnel in charge of each business, since May, when the provisional version of the report was prepared, we have been considering business improvements to address the issues pointed out, including the disclosure process in each business. In that sense, this will be a report on the current status of measures and considerations in the direction of business improvement, so I would like you to be aware of that point.
Now, the chairman will give us an overview of the report. Thank you.

Expert Panel Chairman: I would like to explain about this report.
The subjects of this year's deliberation were the digital marketplace (DMP) catalog site and the national qualification information collaboration and utilization system. Regarding the disclosure process, we have covered both of these two projects.

○Digital Marketplace (DMP) Catalog Site
In the past, procurement of information systems for administrative agencies was more or less in the form of specifications for development. However, recently, as is also the case in the private sector, so-called SaaS, Software as a Service, has been increasing. This is a form in which software is not operated by the user, but is operated somewhere and used as a service. Even in government, the use of SaaS is spreading very much. However, DMP, the subject of this deliberation, from the perspective of further expanding the use of SaaS in government, it provides a form of a catalog site of SaaS services for government, and national government agencies and local governments see it. To be specific, we search there to see if there is a service you want, and we provide it as a marketplace where you can find a matching service. I think there will be another one later, but there are many similar services in the private sector, and I think the key is that this time we specialize in government.
Now, on page 5. First, I would like to explain how to set numerical targets, so-called KPIs. DMP provides a catalog site, and from there to the actual contract, the so-called procurement record is placed on the evaluation axis. This itself is very reasonable. For example, even if this is posted, it is meaningless unless a contract is concluded. Therefore, this is very reasonable. However, as I will explain in detail later, there are only six cases in which the number of procurements after the start of the project, so-called contracts, have been reached. What do we think about this?
Also, the purpose of this DMP business is not only to provide a SaaS catalog site, but also to provide various SaaS providers. We also provide so-called small and medium-sized enterprises and startups. Since SaaS by such small and medium-sized enterprises and startups are widely known by the government and used, if we have such a purpose, it would be better to provide the procurement results of SaaS created by small and medium-sized enterprises and startups separately in numbers. That is what I pointed out to you.
Then, on page 6. This is also a continuation of the goal. The marketplace will of course be created with information systems. Hara Section has been making considerable efforts, so in a sense, it is not appropriate to say that the cost has been reduced. I understand that you are saving your budget, but it will cost you. Considering that the current procurement record is not so large, if the procurement record does not show much growth compared to the operation and development costs, we will have to consider making a decision regarding the continuation of the project itself. As for us, we would like you to set a target for determining whether or not to continue the project, such as how much results will be achieved by when. That is what I am referring to.
How to improve the procurement results and the results of concluding contracts is described from the latter half of page 6. Several hypotheses can be made, I think. People in Original Division pointed out that the form called SaaS itself may not be recognized particularly by local governments, which are equivalent to the customers mentioned here. However, the number of uses of this marketplace (DMP), or the number of searches is 1,200 per week. This should not be a small number for such a BtoB service. In view of that, there are a certain number of users, but they have not yet entered into a contract, which is considered to be a problem. In this regard, we would like you to dig deeper and conduct a survey from the viewpoint of whether DMP is truly beneficial to people on the ground, such as local governments. Specifically, I pointed out that it would be better to investigate including hearings.
It is on page 7. This time, since we are explaining based on a kind of evaluation frame, I am sorry that similar contents have come up many times, but how do you see the fact that there are six cases? In particular, what do you think about the fact that there is a gap compared to the number of searches? There are several reasons why we have not reached a contract. I think one of the reasons is that SaaS is not recognized, but there may be some reasons for local governments. For example, it is possible that the people in charge of finance and accounting on the local government side are not aware of SaaS. Also, depending on the local government, its own accounting rules may be a bottleneck. It is on page 7 that we should dig deeper into such causes, and if there are any bottlenecks, please make efforts to resolve them.
It is at the bottom of page 7. This is also a point that we discussed a lot, but to put it simply, regarding this DMP, although the government is providing it this time, even if it is not the government, it should be possible to do something similar. There are many actual digital markets for SaaS for the private sector, and there is a point that there is nothing special about it just because it is for government agencies. In that sense, if the private sector wants to provide a similar service, it can do so. According to a person from the Procurement Division, the search site and marketplace for SaaS, which government agencies aim to procure, do not yet exist as a private sector service. In that sense, this is being done in this sense. However, there is a possibility that the government is preventing the private sector from entering the market by doing this. It does not mean that the private sector can do it just because it is not doing it. My request is that the private sector should look at the market trends or the situation of the private sector.
It is in the middle of page 8. This time, 390 services have been registered as of the end of fiscal 2025. I think this is quite a number. However, when government agencies find SaaS, the needs they want may be quite niche, and there may not be many SaaS that meet those needs. In particular, if there is only one case, from the point of view of the local government that is using this DMP, it seems that there is only one similar service. As a result, there were originally several services, but only one was visible, so they ended up signing a discretionary contract. As a result, there is a problem that the procurement price goes up. I think this point may be solved if the number of registered services increases, but I would like you to continue to take measures.
In addition, the latter half of page 8 is about usability. The usability of the dashboard, etc. should be improved for both Digital Agency staff and users.
In the middle of the last page 9, this is written as "Budget and System." There are beneficiaries of this service. Government agencies and local governments are trying to procure resources using this service. It is quite difficult to take money from them. For SaaS business operators providing services there, contracting with government agencies and local governments can generate revenue. Therefore, I would like you to consider asking for a burden or fee from such entities in the future.

○System for linking and utilizing information on national qualifications, etc.
In a nutshell, the current verification process for qualifications is paper-based. Whether it is good or bad depends on the situation, but the main idea is to make My Number System a digitalization for applications related to qualifications and work to confirm whether a person has the qualifications or not. For example, it will be easier for people to hold qualifications and acquire qualifications, and when you change your address, you can apply for multiple qualifications at once. In addition, regarding the confirmation of qualifications, there are many cases in particular, but there are places where construction-related checks are quite frequent, so it may be convenient for those people.
Page 10 is the KPI for this project. The initial KPI here was, as is the case now, the number of qualifications registered in this qualification system. However, from the original purpose, it is not how many qualifications have been registered, but how many are actually used that is important. Therefore, our first request to this project is to set the number of applications and procedures using this system as the KPI.
Next, at present, there are 128 qualifications. We may or may not have registered them, but I think this is quite a large number. There are also various qualifications. Online qualifications like these, some are suitable for digitalization while others are not, so I would like you to consider these factors when selecting qualifications. In addition to the qualifications assumed to be covered by this system, we would like to see qualifications that are in high demand in digitalization actively listed in this system. This is our request.
Then, it is in the middle of page 11. What is written as "approach" is, depending on the digitalization of the qualifications, even if you apply, it will take time and effort on the system side to implement it. However, at present, for example, how much it costs for one procedure or application, and how much it costs per qualification, I would like you to refine the cost model. However, although it may be difficult to understand even if you look at it in detail, there are various types of qualifications, and to some extent, depending on the method of applying for qualifications and the method of confirmation, I think we can divide them into groups. Therefore, our request is that it would be nice if you could analyze the cost a little more precisely.
Next, on page 12. Even if we suddenly ask you to digitize paper, it is not easy to do. At least during the transition period, if paper and digital coexist, it will be a double investment. On the other hand, I will stop using paper and digitize everything. This is because people involved in qualifications, organizations that issue qualifications, and organizations that check qualifications, digitalizing what has been done with paper until now requires a certain amount of capital investment, which costs more. Therefore, the first half of page 12 says that which is better depends on the qualification, so please consider whether to make paper and digital according to the qualification.
In the latter half of page 12, depending on the qualification, the usefulness of this system, or how often it is used, differs greatly. To be honest, I think. As for the civil engineering and architecture qualifications I mentioned earlier, the confirmation of qualifications occurs frequently because many people work for a relatively short period of time, so the confirmation of qualifications occurs each time. On the other hand, when it comes to the qualifications of, for example, a beautician or a barber, the confirmation of qualifications does not occur so frequently. Therefore, since there are people for whom the system is convenient depending on their qualifications and people who have qualifications that do not greatly benefit from it, we will charge some fees to those who benefit from it. For example, how much does it cost to confirm qualifications once, or how much does it cost to register qualifications? Please consider the cost burden. This is the section on page 12.
It is the first half of page 13. In that sense, the person who receives the convenience of this system, that is, the beneficiary, is not necessarily clear. Of course, this depends on qualifications. However, I believe that the beneficiary will be clarified and the beneficiary burden will be requested accordingly. Therefore, we would like you to first clarify the beneficiary.
So, as for the last part, this project is subject to a single-party bidding system, and a single-party bidding system would not be appropriate because of the lack of competition. Therefore, we would like to have as many bidders as possible. However, in reality, I think there are many cases where a contract is signed with a bidder through a single-party bidding system. Considering this, even if it is a single-party bidding system, it is a matter of how much we can prevent costs from rising. Therefore, even if we place an order with such a bidder, we would like to ask the Original Section to devise a little more and make efforts to reduce the cost as much as possible.

Secretariat: Then, the person in charge of the project will report on the direction based on the report.
First of all, I am Director Shimotsu from the digital marketplace catalog site.

Business Contact:
○Digital Marketplace (DMP) Catalog Site
Now, I would like to explain about the digital marketplace catalog site. In the document titled "Direction of Project Improvement Based on Expert Panel Discussions," improvement proposals received from each member of the expert panel so far, measures based on those improvement proposals, and the status of consideration are summarized. In total, there are seven points.
First of all, the materials are the first and second dots of the large black circle on page 2. These are mainly proposals related to KPIs and goal setting. After identifying the types of SaaS that can be introduced, we should set targets for the appropriate number of procurements through DMP and the percentage of procurements by SMEs and startups. Regarding KPIs for judging business continuity, we received proposals such as by when and to what extent KPIs should be set.
Although we have already established some KPIs, such as the target number of procurements, we also recognize that establishing appropriate KPIs is very important for judging how to do with this business in the future. Taking into account the opinions we received this time, we would like to consider without sticking to the KPIs we have already established.
On the same page, from the third bullet on the second page of the handout to the third from the top on the third page of the handout, we have proposals on approaches and policy measures. First, regarding the procurement results, it is the third bullet on the second page of the handout. We will consider a dashboard, etc. to visualize the procurement results through DMP in an easy-to-understand manner. Then, moving on to the next page, the first bullet on the third page of the handout, elimination of bottlenecks, was proposed.
Regarding the preparation of the dashboard and other materials that you pointed out, we have been discussing with the Engineering Department and are already in the process of considering matters such as what information should be posted on the DMP website in what form, in addition to procurement results.
In addition, in considering measures to resolve the bottleneck, we will consider it in the future, including from the multifaceted perspectives you pointed out.
This is the second bullet on page 3 of the materials. We also received a proposal on how to segregate it from private sector services. At this time, it is my understanding that private sector services similar to DMP, including the feature of being able to smoothly conclude contracts using DMP, have not been confirmed. However, we will continue to monitor trends in the private sector market regarding this matter, and we intend to fully consider how to segregate them in response to such changes.
Also, this is the third item. It is a proposal that consideration should be given so that DMP does not induce discretionary contracts. We are currently designing procurement specification check sheets and other measures to prevent procurement candidates from being unfairly monopolized. However, we recognize that ensuring fairness in procurement is extremely important. Therefore, we will continue to consider measures to ensure this.
Finally, the fourth spot. We have also received a proposal that we should consider collecting fees from DMP users. At present, we are prioritizing the use of DMP and are not considering charging fees immediately. However, we would like to consider how to collect fees by comprehensively considering future usage records, benefits enjoyed by business operators, operating costs, and other factors.
It's easy, but that's all for me.

○System for linking and utilizing information on national qualifications, etc.
It will be from page 4 of the same document. First of all, I have summarized the purpose and overview of this system at the beginning. As explained by the chairperson earlier, the purpose of this system is to promote the digitalization of various application procedures, etc., through the utilization of My Number for administrative work related to national qualifications, which are operated based on paper media. The purpose of this system is to improve the convenience of citizens and improve the efficiency of administrative operations.
Amidst this, I understand that there were about seven points pointed out.
First, regarding the qualifications to be covered by the system, you pointed out that priority should be given to those with high usage needs. I will briefly explain the outline and background, but I have summarized them on this page. Regarding the various procedures for national qualifications and certifications of national qualifications, as I stated at the beginning, analog has been the mainstream in paper, in-person, by mail, and visual inspection. In that case, the verification process placed a heavy burden on both the holders and the verifiers, and there were challenges in terms of the certainty and speed of verification.
We have been developing this system to resolve these issues. However, it would be quite difficult in terms of speed and cost if individual systems were prepared for each national qualification, etc. Under such circumstances, based on successive Cabinet decisions since 2020, Digital Agency has been developing and operating this system as a commonly usable system.
On the other hand, based on successive Cabinet Decisions, etc., we, Digital Agency, have taken the lead in steadily promoting the use of national qualifications by relevant parties such as ministries and agencies with jurisdiction. In this process, as of July of this year, 22 national qualifications have started to be used, and another 108 qualifications are preparing to be used.
When making the final decision on whether or not to allow the use of the system for these 130 national qualifications, as well as whether or not to allow the use of the system for national qualifications other than the 130, Digital Agency does not have the authority on this matter, but rather, the decision is to be made by the relevant ministries and agencies. However, Digital Agency has been taking the lead in encouraging the use of the system.
As we have been reaching out to them, we have been particularly focusing on national certifications, which have many holders, and national certifications, which have many opportunities to prove their qualifications. As you pointed out earlier, I believe it is as you pointed out that there are more benefits for the use of those with high usage needs, and we will continue to reach out to them in consideration of such points.
Next, my second point. It is on page 5. It is related to the KPI. It is my understanding that your point was made from the perspective of how much the system is used. Currently, the number of usage qualifications has been established, but I understand that you were suggesting that an indicator focusing on the actual utilization status of the system should be established. In this context, regarding the second point on the arrow feather, based on the points made in the recent meeting, from the Administrative Project Review Sheet for Fiscal Year 2026, in addition to the number of past usage and the number of online applications as KPIs, we would like to newly add the number of My Number information linkage as an indicator focusing on the actual utilization status. For each indicator, I have summarized what each indicator is at the bottom. At the very bottom, I have written the number of My Number information linkage that was added this time. We believe that the number of indicators will show how much acquisition and attachment of copies of residence certificates and family registers were omitted. Therefore, we believe that it is not appropriate as an indicator that focuses more on actual utilization.
Moving on to page 6, it is my understanding that you pointed out that it would be necessary to conduct cost analyses, etc. after dividing them into groups. As for the first arrow feather, the advantages are qualitatively summarized in square brackets below. The advantages for qualified personnel are that they can complete the procedures online, and administrators can take them online. In addition, for those qualified personnel, including a wide range of citizens, I believe that the ability to reliably confirm eligibility using a digital qualification certificate instead of paper documents will be an advantage for each entity.
We believe there are such merits, but based on the points made at the meeting, we would like to consider grasping these as quantitatively as possible as a certain trial calculation for possible matters.
Regarding the second arrow feather, as for cost analysis, as I stated at the beginning, this system is being developed as a shared-use system in some aspects, and we believe that there may be some difficulties due to its nature. However, based on what you pointed out, we will of course quantitatively grasp the direct costs of developing and operating this system, but we would also like to consider a detailed cost analysis.
Next, as you can see on page 7, from the perspective of dual investment, what you pointed out was how you would think about such a method. As for the second point on the arrow feather, regarding the online application and digitalization of national qualifications, generally, while paper-based and online processes coexist, I believe it has become a common practice for certification holders to choose whether to use the conventional method or online for the registration and change procedures. Based on this premise, as the number of certification holders choosing procedures such as online applications increases, I believe that the benefits for both parties will increase. Additionally, since we believe it will also lead to cost reduction, I would like to make efforts so that online applications will be more widely accepted through easy-to-understand explanations of merit methods and proactive explanations to certification holders, led by Headquarters in cooperation with relevant parties.
As an example, in the third part of the arrow feather, new registration applications for qualifications such as Building Standard Conformity Assessment will be made online in principle from December last year due to the start of the use of this system. I am aware that the operation is that if there are circumstances where online applications cannot be made, they will be made on paper. Considering that some people generally find it difficult to complete online procedures, and that My Number Card itself is not mandatory and there are a certain number of people who do not own licenses, it may not be easy in some aspects. However, the Agency will also make efforts to disseminate information in an easy-to-understand manner so that other competent ministries and agencies for national qualifications can also refer to such examples of accepting applications online in principle.
I would like to move on to the next item. It is a summary of the fifth and sixth items. It is about the ideal beneficiaries and the ideal way to collect usage fees. Beneficiaries include a wide range of people, and the advantages are as mentioned earlier. I would like to work together on how to consider this.
In addition, as for the collection of user fees, as stated in the second set of cornered brackets in the arrow feather below, for example, the views of beneficiaries, the difficulty of cost calculation, and the difficulty of setting fair and equitable user fees. In addition, there are concerns that the current situation is that users are not yet fully utilizing the system and that the introduction of user fees at this point could become a disincentive. Under these circumstances, we believe that there may be some parts that are not quite easy. However, we will also continue to consider this matter in cooperation with relevant ministries and agencies, taking into account the points you have raised.
Finally, I am sorry for the long notice. On page 9, regarding the issue of single-bidder tendering, although single-bidder tendering was used in FY 2025, taking into account what you pointed out, we will work toward the realization of multiple-bidder tendering. In terms of procurement in FY 2026, there are multiple options. We intend to continue to advance this initiative in the next fiscal year and beyond, while providing clear and easy-to-understand explanations.

Secretariat: Now, I would like to hear comments from the committee members. First, I would like you to speak in order, and finally, I would like to hear from the Chair.

Member of the Advisory Council: First of all, I believe that both of the two projects have carefully summarized the issues and improvement measures. I would like to see continued efforts to improve the convenience and efficiency of services.
Speaking from the perspective of policy evaluation, I think that DMP is very meaningful in the sense that by promoting introduction support measures such as SaaS products, it can contribute to SMEs support measures that promote the entry of procurement, including SMEs and startups, and by promoting a competitive environment, it can contribute to the improvement of more high-quality and reliable SaaS products.
In addition, national qualifications are meaningful in that they have advantages compared to individual systems, but I hope that you will strive to improve the evaluation, which will contribute to administrative and fiscal reforms in the future, including maintenance and operation from a medium - to long-term perspective.
In terms of policies, especially in times of national emergencies and other emergencies, it will be possible to obtain real data, based on the lessons learned from the novel coronavirus, on issues such as quickly identifying the number of people holding national qualifications, mobilization in emergencies, future population decline, and shortages of long-term care workers in the super-aged society. I believe this point has already been discussed in Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, but I think this information sharing will be very significant in terms of promoting this and reducing the administrative burden on local governments.
In the digital field of the 17 areas of the growth strategy, the growth goals and strategic goals include the realization of a virtuous cycle toward private sector investment and market expansion, such as the construction of AX-DX infrastructure in public sector, the development of domestic AI and SaaS products, and the provision of development environments that make it easy to provide public SaaS to multiple local governments. I believe this point has been summarized under the leadership of Minister Matsumoto. Based on these discussions, I hope that the quality of policies will continue to be enhanced, and that we will move toward good projects that contribute to the growth strategy.

Member of the Advisory Council: , thank you very much for your explanation. As for the report, you have picked up the discussions very carefully, and I think the content is highly complete.
First of all, regarding DMP, I understand that system development by each local government used to be done from scratch, which meant that a large amount of multiple investments were made. I think it is very significant that such a platform is being created to avoid that. However, the track record of its use is very poor, and maintenance costs will be required in the future. Therefore, I think it is important to clarify the line of continuation when the target is reached, and withdrawal when it is not reached. I understand that it is extremely important to clarify the withdrawal line from the perspective of improving administrative efficiency.
This is about the System for Coordination and Utilization of Information on National Qualifications. This has already been pointed out in the report and pointed out by the Chairperson, but this is about DX of procedures that are conducted very rarely. It is not very efficient to do a task that is only done once a year by reading a manual, learning how to use it, and having everyone do it once. Even in such a case, it is fine if it can be done quickly with a very intuitive user interface. However, in many cases, the user interface is very poorly done. In order to avoid having to spend two or three hours learning a non-intuitive procedure and working on it only once, I felt that it is very important to decide whether paper or digital is better, and to optimize procedures such as the frequency of use.

Member of the Advisory Council: : I think there have already been comments from other members on the disadvantages of each project. I would like to conclude my comment by saying that I want you to be aware that there are also advantages.
As for the first DMP, I think it has one meaning that a public organization will create such a matching platform. It will create one standard for what is a fair system and what is a fair system, so in other words, I would like you to operate the system so that there is no doubt that bias is introduced at an invisible point.
As for the system for coordination and utilization of information on national qualifications, I believe that this system was originally designed and operated as a national qualification. However, in the recent Japanese system, for example, what I have in mind is the status of residence for foreigners, but when making public decisions, the qualifications designated by the Minister are often used, which are not national qualifications. The Japanese Language Proficiency Test is a typical example, but if you think about expanding the operation results of such semi-public qualifications to those that are operated in the form of national qualifications, I think that the effectiveness of this system will also increase. In this way, I would like to ask for efficient operation, while keeping in mind that we will operate and expand such a system in an extended manner.

Member of the Advisory Council: : The first one is, as pointed out in the section on information sharing on national qualifications, etc., there were a lot of unilateral bids. After the public disclosure process, we conducted an inspection by external experts, and found that there were still a lot of unilateral bids. This is not limited to Digital Agency, but is the case in Japan in general, but close examination of costs is required, and I think it would be a good idea to devise a payment method such as paying the operators as a performance fee. We paid a high price, but there was no track record of using the system. As we were not actually using the system, I thought it would be good to have a system such as a performance fee.
Next, regarding the information collaboration on national certifications, etc., national certifications are good, but I think it will be required to expand the areas where prefectural and local governments are working, including teaching certificates. Depending on the local governments, efforts have different strengths and weaknesses. If you say the national government should do it, everyone will do it side by side, but local governments have quite different strengths and weaknesses. This is also an era where people will come and go to some extent, so unless all local governments do it, I don't think we can take advantage of the advantages of digitalization. Therefore, regarding this matter, I think fairly strong approaches will be required for local governments.

Member of the Advisory Council: I think that both projects have been addressed on the points pointed out at this point in time. However, I think that there are some things that are not sufficient. Therefore, I hope that this is not the end, and that they continue to be reviewed on an ongoing basis.
As for the DMP catalog site, I think that increasing the number of contracts is a very important output, but I think that the outcome is that it has become easier for various administrative agencies to work on it, so I would like you to develop it to that point.
In addition, regarding systems such as national qualifications, I think it is important to consider the costs and benefits in normal times, but it is also important to consider how to utilize them in times of emergency.
Moreover, in addition to the rationalization of the price, I think it would be good if the system is developed to such a level that those who use the fee are willing to pay.

Member of the Advisory Council: First of all, as you are all saying, thank you very much for very carefully collecting opinions on the two projects and for proposing measures and other matters. I thought the work was very careful.
Having said that, on the whole, I believe it is most important to promote such efforts. However, speaking from that perspective, regarding DMP, the software development environment has been drastically changed by the emergence of generative AI and other countries. I believe it is becoming easier for various business operators to launch new development companies and enter the market. Under such circumstances, I personally expect that by utilizing such a framework, we will be able to reduce the cost of services and software procurement and lead to better system procurement. However, I also personally expect that various technical matters can be verified.
As for qualifications, as I mentioned at the beginning, I think it is important to operate this system in the future. Qualifications such as residence status, which must be verified immediately, or which are quite necessary for employers, such confirmation of qualifications actually occurs in various places, so when we actually start operating this system, if we can see that it has become considerably convenient thanks to this system, I thought we could expect beneficiaries to pay for it.

Expert Panel Chairman: This time, in order for us to make an evaluation, it took a lot of time for the people of the two original sections to compile materials, attend and answer questions. I would like to express my gratitude for that. There were quite a few frank opinions from the committee members, and I think they may have been surprised in various ways, but I hope they will utilize it and make it better.
Also, I would like to make a comment. In the first place, the evaluation of Digital Agency's policies and the review of administrative projects are not so much evaluations as I would like them to be used as effectively as possible. I would like the results of these reviews to be used for obtaining budgets. In the past, I actually stated here that it would be better to increase the number of people or allocate more budget. I think it would be good if we could do it at a slightly earlier timing because we would like it to be used as such a means. In addition, I think it is more logical for us to first request Vice-Minister for Digital Transformation, Chief Officer of Digital Agency to do this, and then report to the three political officers including you. I hope you will consider this point.

Secretariat: Now, I would like to ask Minister Matsumoto for his views on the reports compiled by the Advisory Council so far, as well as on the measures and the status of consideration aimed at improving the project from each person in charge of the project.

Minister for Digital Transformation Matsumoto: Thank you very much to all the committee members. I would like to express my gratitude. Based on the report we received, we would like to further brush up this project.
As for DMPs, when I first saw this project itself, I thought it would be quite useful. The reason why it has not yet become something that everyone actually feels is that clearly the number of people participating in the marketplace is still overwhelmingly small, I think. Since it is a marketplace, even if you go there, if something interesting is not being sold, it will not become a marketplace. Similarly, if there are not many products in a single field, there is no choice. I think it is not easy to procure in such a place. Above all, I think we need to continue our efforts to increase the number of them. I think that the KPI of the procurement rate will have a meaning as a number for the first time in this situation. To be honest, when I heard that there were six cases, I myself thought that was the only case, so I think we need to make more efforts in the future.
As for the system for coordination and utilization of information on national qualifications, etc., I did not say much about it because the person in charge is doing his best, but today, some members of the committee expressed their frank opinions on which points are useful, and I think it is a matter of the frequency of use. It is true that there are national qualifications that are used frequently, and this will be very useful. Since I am a doctor, I would rather say that a national qualification certificate for a doctor is issued only when a doctor submits a copy of his / her medical license to a hospital when he / she moves from one hospital to another. Therefore, depending on the type of business, there are cases where it does not matter whether there are many or few, so we need to add a little color to it, or perhaps it is a matter of advertisement. It may be better to reconsider where we should advertise that such a system exists.
Also, as has been mentioned by the committee members, I think it would be a good idea to expand the qualifications themselves a little more. I don't mind starting with national qualifications, but once the system is established, it is time to start thinking about how to expand it. It is good that we have created it, but there are not many users. It is a waste of our efforts, so I think we need to move forward on this. That is my frank opinion.
In any case, I would like to take the report properly and make efforts to make it a better project, so I would like to ask for the continued cooperation of the committee members.

Secretariat: That's all for today's agenda.
Finally, Mr. Deputy Director-General will give a closing address.

Deputy Director-General: : Once again, I would like to thank you very much for the discussions held four times, the compilation of the discussions, the comments on political affairs, and the report to Vice-Minister for Digital Transformation, Chief Officer of Digital Agency, although the order was changed. In light of the discussions and comments, including the timing of next fiscal year's review, we will continue to strive for improvement based on the direction of improvement measures and improvements reported today.
PDCA will continue to be very important in the future, and the review will of course continue next year and beyond. I look forward to your continued guidance.

Secretariat: This concludes today's meeting of the Panel of Experts.