This chapter provides an assessment of existing mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating digital government investments in Chile. It provides an overview of monitoring tools to reinforce delivery accountability in the Chilean government, as well as evaluation instruments to assess performance and secure the delivery of intended outcomes of digital government investments.
Digital Government in Chile
Strengthening the Management of Digital Investments
Abstract
The OECD Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies (OECD, 2014[1]) calls for institutional capacities to monitor progress and assess the performance of digital government initiatives as critical mechanisms for institutional learning and feedback for decision-making. Monitoring and evaluation are essential components in the lifecycle of digital government investments. Monitoring mechanisms ensure investments are delivered in a timely manner, meet expected outcomes, and maximise efficiency. They enable strategic oversight of the public sector’s digital investment portfolio, therefore helping build resilience and improving risk management. Further, the evaluation of digital government investments contributes to assessing the medium- and long-term impact and intended benefits of investments. It helps inform future policy decision-making to maintain, evolve or decommission investments, or to devise new ones to meet emerging or ongoing policy goals. To evaluate digital government investments, governments should assess policy alignment, measure intended benefits, and benchmark user experience and satisfaction. In addition, both monitoring and evaluation require governments to measure the impact and performance of these investments, enabling iterative learning and continuous improvement.
This chapter presents an assessment of Chile's monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for digital government investments. To conduct this analysis, the chapter follows the OECD Digital Government Investment Framework, with the aim of identifying opportunities to enhance the capabilities needed for greater digital maturity in Chile’s government. The chapter provides an assessment of the existing practices, tools, and policies used to support a sound oversight of digital investments across Chile's public sector. Following the third pillar of the framework, this chapter is structured into two subsections:
Monitoring and accountability: standing mechanisms to monitor progress in the implementation of digital investments in the country, emphasising the importance of accountability in the management and delivery of these investments.
Policy and user evaluation: existing instruments for measuring and evaluating outcomes in digital transformation investments in Chile. This includes the integration of the evaluation results into the design and formulation of future investments, leveraging existing governance tools and mechanisms.
Evidence indicates that there are scattered efforts for monitoring digital government investments in Chile. At present, there is no integrated oversight system over the digital portfolio in the public sector, which results in limited capacities to identify gaps in digital needs or understand the challenges of implementing investments. At present, there is no clear mandate to monitor digital government investments. While DIPRES is responsible for monitoring public expenditure, while SDG oversees the implementation of digital government policies, these mandates do not specifically cover how the public sector is investing in digital government. This gap presents a significant challenge in the governance for digital government and the functioning of digital systems, increasing the risk of potential cost overruns and delays in the medium- and long-term, as well as obscuring the monitoring of outcomes and results. Without standardised oversight, the government is limited in its capacity to track progress, identify areas for improvement, and ensure accountability in the delivery of these investments.
In contrast to the limited whole-of-government approach to monitoring digital investments, most Chilean public institutions declared having some sort of monitoring mechanism for the implementation of digital and ICT projects. Nevertheless, approaches differ in terms of coverage and capacities across public sector institutions. While 38% of surveyed institutions monitor the development of all their digital government investments, 20% focus instead on projects that meet specific financial thresholds or include certain performance features (Figure 4.1). When looking at the human resources devoted to monitoring such activities, only 15% of surveyed institutions declared not having a team responsible for monitoring these investments (Figure 4.2).
Note: Percentages based on 104 institutions. Q11: Does your institution have a monitoring system or mechanism for the implementation of digital/ICT projects?
Source: OECD (2023), Survey on Digital Government Investments in Chile
Note: Percentages based on 59 out of 104 institutions that reported having monitoring systems. Q12: Is there a dedicated team for monitoring the implementation digital/ICT projects?
Source: OECD (2023), Survey on Digital Government Investments in Chile
The absence of a systematic monitoring mechanism is also manifested in the limited data available for monitoring the performance of the portfolio of digital government investments. Currently, there is no robust framework for collecting data, nor a whole-of-government definition of performance indicators for digital government investments. Instead, efforts and information remain scattered and disconnected. This includes value propositions presented to EVALTIC, which are not used to monitor delivery or to guide future decision-making. Further, the monitoring of public expenditure by DIPRES does not inform the implementation of digital transformation investments.
In this regard, Chile could consider developing standardised key performance indicators (KPIs) to monitor and assess the development of digital government investments by introducing comparable investment approaches across institutions (Box 4.1). Similarly, Chile’s existing information and future KPIs could be leveraged to enhance monitoring capacities in the public sector. For example, Singapore has developed the Whole-of-Government Application Analytics initiative, providing real-time data on digital platforms compared to national benchmarks (Box 4.2). Similarly, governments can tap into data-driven approaches to promote transparency when monitoring investments through the use of dashboards for tracking the implementation of digital government investments in Chile. Countries such as France and the Netherlands (Box 4.3) are leveraging open data platforms and data visualisations to foster accountability and transparency in the management of digital investments.
Canada is at the forefront of digital government innovation, as exemplified by its national strategy, “Canada’s Digital Ambition 2024-2025.” Central to this strategy is the articulation of key performance indicators (KPIs), detailed for each outcome, which provide a roadmap for monitoring and evaluating the nation’s digital government investments. For the implementation of these KPIs, Canada will not require public institutions to provide or collect further data, as existing data collection for reporting purposes will be used in the calculation and assessment of these KPIs.
These standardised KPIs include:
Outcome 1: Services are user-centric, trusted and accessible
Percentage of services that are meeting the service standards established
Percentage of clients who are satisfied with the services being provided
Percentage of services with publicly available real-time reporting
Number of privacy breaches per year
Outcome 2: Data and information are foundational to service delivery and informed decision-making
Percentage of services that have used (client feedback) data to improve service delivery
Percentage of plans for digital investments, assets and operations that are maintained, accurate and complete
Percentage of organizations that have data quality controls in place to maintain the accuracy, consistency and reliability of information and data, in accordance with the Guidance on Data Quality
Outcome 3: Technology empowers innovation, efficiency and security
Percentage of low-risk decisions made through automated decision-making systems
Percentage of GC websites delivering digital services to citizens securely
Percentage of GC websites that are accessible to citizens
Percentage of unhealthy applications planned for remediation in the next 12 months, and percentage of unhealthy applications without plans for remediation in the next 12 months
Outcome 4: The workforce is digitally savvy and adaptable to the digital landscape
Number of public servants and number of employees in the digital community participating in digital skills training and development (various sources such as the Canada School of Public Service Digital Academy and IT Training Fund)
Number of employees and departments using the OCIO Digital Community Management services and guidance in line with the Digital Talent Strategy
Percentage of digital job openings filled by TBS digital talent pipelines and mobility pools
Source: (Government of Canada, 2024[2])
With more people interacting with the government through websites and mobile applications, it has become increasingly important for the government to understand its digital services’ user experience and impact.
WOGAA monitors the performance of government websites and digital services in real-time in a convenient and user-friendly manner. It presents key information such as website traffic, user feedback, recommendations to improve site performance, and benchmarks against whole-of-government (WOG) averages in a single dashboard. These useful data points, coupled with a fuss-free user interface, allow public officers to conveniently access the information they need to make effective data-driven decisions and proactively improve their services. Providing this as a central service allows the government to reap benefits from economies of scale, and offer additional cross-agency features such as performing comparisons across other government agencies, sectors and users to cultivate the notion of learning from one another and accelerate improvement.
Source : (Government of Singapore, 2025[3])
France – Panorama of digital investments
DINUM (Direction interministérielle du numérique) publishes an overview of the State's major digital projects every semester through the Panorama of the State's major digital projects. This platform is managed by the consulting and risk management unit within the DINUM and is responsible for identifying and publishing the most strategic or sensitive IT projects within the public sector. The monitoring tool focuses on projects exceeding €9 million. This continuous monitoring allows DINUM to propose security actions and new trajectories for specific projects in a user-centric approach. The information is published online and through open government data.
Netherlands Rijks ICT Dashboard
The Rijks ICT Dashboard provides insight into the digital government efforts of the Dutch government, offering information on key aspects such as the government's digital strategy, major digital government investments, sustainability efforts, and the costs and outcomes of digital transformation investments. By offering transparency on these fronts, the dashboard contributes to fostering an open and accountable government. Users can access details on various topics including the government's digital strategy, major digital initiatives, costs, sustainability initiatives, and accessibility measures. The dashboard aids in understanding the progress and direction of digitalisation efforts within the government, promoting accountability and informed decision-making.
United States – Federal IT Dashboard
The US Federal IT Dashboard, developed by the General Services Administration, enables public agencies, Congress and general public to monitor and understand digital government investments. The dashboard enables users to understand the impact of federal digital government investments portfolios, and to track agencies’ ability to deploy technology that is secure by design, retire legacy systems, and ultimately, deliver a better digital experience for the public. The tool also facilitates financial reporting by leveraging data from agencies across the federal administration and through customised visualisation tools. These approaches allow public official to develop integrated metrics, enhanced analytics, and decision support tools.
Policy evaluation plays a critical role in ensuring that digital government investments deliver the intended outcomes in line with policy priorities and user needs. The OECD Recommendation on Policy Evaluation defines this concept as the “structured and evidence-based assessment of the design, implementation or results of a planned, ongoing or completed public intervention” (OECD, 2022[7]). Evaluation is a key component to safeguard digital transformation efforts, and ensuring that they are effective, sustainable, and aligned with broader public policy goals. By including formal evaluation mechanisms, employing standardised methodologies, and integrating user evaluation, the public sector can maximise the value from its digital transformation investments and deliver benefits in line with the public interest.
Adopted in June 2022, the OECD Council Recommendation on Public Policy Evaluation promotes the use of robust public policy evaluations, based on three mutually reinforcing pillars that aim to:
Institutionalise whole-of-government evaluation, with the systematic evaluation of public policies, and by fostering demand for these evaluations amongst the executive.
Promote quality and fit-for-purpose evaluations through proper planning and management, standards and mechanisms, and developing the skills and capacities needed to perform them.
Conduct evaluations that aim to improve decision-making, including by embedding them into these decision-making processes, and by publicising and communicating their results.
Source: (OECD, 2022[7])
The absence of a digital government strategy in Chile has a direct impact on the evaluation of digital government investments due to the limited policy objectives against which performance can be assessed (see Chapter 2). At present, the Digital Transformation Law 21180 (Ministerio Secretaría General de la Presidencia, 2019[8]) and the Modernisation of the State Agenda 2022-2026 (Ministerio de Hacienda, 2022[9])are the two policy instruments defining activities and goals in relation to digital government in Chile. However, they are not yet leveraged to evaluate policy outcomes in relation to digital transformation in the country. Further, without a dedicated strategy, Chile’s public sector faces challenges in defining a clear baseline to measure and evaluate these efforts, risking the misalignment of digital investments in the public sector with expected outcomes, and hindering the capacity of the SGD and DIPRES to steer efforts towards a whole-of-government, efficient digital transformation. Looking ahead, Chile could explore the alignment of digital government efforts with the Quality of Service and User Experience Performance System, as well as the Performance Management System of DIPRES. To support these efforts and build on the existing guidelines (See Chapter 3), the government could consider the introduction of a benefits management framework specifically for digital investments, integrating the consideration of benefits management at each stage of the investment lifecycle.
Further, Chile could leverage existing efforts in the evaluation of public policies. This includes leveraging the work performed by DIPRES through the evaluation of public programmes (DIPRES, 2024[10]). DIPRES conducts both ex post evaluation to generate timely, independent, relevant and reliable information on the results of different programmes. The underlying methodology of DIPRES includes an assessment of the design, implementation, efficiency and results of public programmes to inform future decision-making. Such a methodology could be leveraged to assess digital government investments, considering the robust procedures and mechanisms in place in DIPRES.
Chile introduced the Programa de Mejoramiento de Gestión (PMG) in 1997 to improve the functioning and performance of the public sector. Led by DIPRES, PMG operates through the achievement of key objectives, rewarded through a financial incentive or ‘bonus’ based on agency performance. For example, in 2008, agencies that achieved 90-100% of their management objectives received a 6.3% bonus.
Since being introduced, the PMG has supported performance improvement in management systems across training, internal auditing, public procurement, digital government, planning and financial accounting, as well as the ISO certification of these management systems. To enable this, DIPRES developed a standardised report that tracks agencies’ performance against their mandate, goals, commitments, and use of resources, which is also be factored into the evaluation of any new programs.
Chile has built a solid measurement system for user satisfaction and service improvement. The Quality of Service and User Experience Performance System (Sistema de Calidad de Servicio y Experiencia Usuaria) was established in 2023, building on both the ongoing User Satisfaction Survey (Medición de Satisfacción Usuaria- MESU) running since 2015, and other administrative data such as complaints and user feedback (OECD, 2024[12]). The newly established system is managed jointly by the Secretariat of Modernisation and the Integrity and Transparency Commission (Comisión de Integridad Pública y Transparencia). Its phased implementation includes building a base line, designing, and implementing improvement plans and an evaluation of the results. In addition, the first phase implements a governance framework including a Committee for Service Experience and Quality with representatives from public sector organisations. The following implementation phases consider the publication of a service quality and user experience policy, including an action plan for continuous improvement.
Based on the Quality of Service and User Experience Performance System, the User Experience and Service Assurance Committees (Comité de Calidad de Servicio y Experiencia Usuaria) have been established to include a diverse sample of public officials, such as financial officers, and digital government experts, as well as representatives from different hierarchical levels. These committees are responsible for assessing the service assurance policy at the institutional level. The evidence gathered by the Secretariat of Modernisation, through a dedicated survey, demonstrates that there is a mature environment to explore further synergies between the Quality of Service and User Experience Performance System and the way Chilean public institutions invest in digital technologies. Concretely, Chile could leverage the system to improve the delivery of future digital government investments by integrating it with EVALTIC. For example, the processes for EVALTIC and measuring user satisfaction could be sequenced to make the most of the existing components of the digital government ecosystem in Chile. By doing so, the government could ensure that digital government investments keep pace with the evolving needs and expectations of its users, in line with results, plans and goals of the broader public service strategy in the country.
The MESU measures user satisfaction with both Chile’s central government agencies and users’ most recent interactions with them. The intent of this is to capture data to inform decision-making around quality improvements, to improve the users’ experience and build citizens’ confidence in the public sector.
It uses a standardised questionnaire to:
identify opportunities for service delivery improvement, based on users’ needs.
understand what drives user satisfaction in each type of service.
The satisfaction metrics for the agency are based on the users’ perception of its public image, transparency, and trustworthiness. The satisfaction metrics for their interactions are based on the users’ experience in terms of its ease, likeability, and responsiveness. These metrics help to build a picture of the users’ needs, expectations, and their experience of any problems encountered.
Source: Improving Chile´s Satisfaction Measurement Survey - OECD Public Governance Committee Symposium, April 2023
References
[4] DINUM (2024), Panorama et avis conformes des grands projets numériques de l’État, https://www.numerique.gouv.fr/publications/panorama-grands-projets-si/.
[10] DIPRES (2024), Evaluación de Programas Gubernamentales (EPG), https://www.dipres.gob.cl/598/w3-article-111762.html.
[2] Government of Canada (2024), Canada’s Digital Ambition 2024-25, https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/digital-government/canada-digital-ambition/canada-digital-ambition-2024-25.html.
[3] Government of Singapore (2025), Whole-of-Government Application Analytics (WOGAA), https://www.developer.tech.gov.sg/products/categories/analytics/wogaa/overview.html.
[5] Government of the Netherlands (2025), Rijks ICT Dashboard, https://www.rijksictdashboard.nl/.
[11] International Monetary Fund (2008), Performance Management – The Chilean Experience, https://blog-pfm.imf.org/en/pfmblog/2008/12/performance-man.
[13] Ministerio de Hacienda (2023), Improving Chile´s Satisfaction Measurement Survey.
[9] Ministerio de Hacienda (2022), Agenda de Modernización del Estado 2022-2026, https://modernizacion.gob.cl/agenda/agenda-periodo-2022-2026.
[8] Ministerio Secretaría General de la Presidencia (2019), Ley 21180 de Transformación Digital del Estado, https://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=1138479.
[12] OECD (2024), Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions in Chile, Building Trust in Public Institutions, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0eb6341f-en.
[15] OECD (2023), Digital Government Review of Romania: Towards a Digitally Mature Government, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/68361e0d-en.
[7] OECD (2022), Recommendation of the Council on Public Policy Evaluation, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0478.
[14] OECD (2020), Digital Government in Chile – Improving Public Service Design and Delivery, OECD Digital Government Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b94582e8-en.
[1] OECD (2014), Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0406.
[6] US Federal Government (2025), Federal IT Dashboard, https://www.itdashboard.gov/.