6. Project Management Office set-up

The Project Management Institute defines the Project Management Office (PMO) as “an organisational body or entity assigned various responsibilities related to the centralised and co-ordinated management of those projects under its domain. The responsibilities of the PMO can range from providing project management support functions to actually being responsible for the direct management of a project.” (Project Management Institute, 2008).

With organisations becoming increasingly complex, and being exposed to pressure to innovate continuously, there is a rise in the number of projects being carried out simultaneously. This required organisations to find new ways to manage such complexity, including the introduction of PMO. The goal of any type of “organisational project management” is not only to deliver projects on time, on budget and within the specific requirements but to create value for the organisation. In this context, strategic alignment emerges as a need to ensure consistency across a portfolio of disparate projects (Aubry, Hobbs and Thuillier, 2007[1]).

Beyond tasks related to co-ordination and strategic alignment, literature suggests that PMOs play an essential role in the management of projects, in particular, in the collaboration and co-ordination of relevant stakeholders. Notably, PMOs allow to exercise management control over the implementation of projects and support a proactive management approach. Furthermore, existing literature identifies several functions related to the PMO, including 1) managing practices, 2) providing administrative support, 3) monitoring and controlling projects, 4) training and consulting, and 5) evaluating, analysing, and choosing projects (Artto et al., 2011[2]). As such, there is significant variation in the role and functions a PMO may fulfil.

The design of a PMO varies depending on contextual factors and organisational needs. For this, the design of a PMO organisational unit should take into account two fundamental aspects, namely the division of tasks and the co-ordination and integration of activities (Artto et al., 2011[2]).

As discussed above, the concept of PMO varies across organisations and depending on the purpose it serves. As such, there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to apply a PMO as part of the governance strategy for the implementation of digital transformation projects. Instead, the PMO should be carefully designed based on critical business needs, the organisational context and environment of MDG and should consider the advantages and disadvantages of various models.

The vision and the operational goals of setting up a PMO should be shared among a wide group of stakeholders to ensure its successful implementation, in particular given that it performs a cross-functional task and it will need to co-operate with several stakeholders across, including those that are external from MDG (e.g. Information Society S.A. and line ministries). The vision and the operational goals should thus inform the operational design of a PMO structure.

Based on the analysis of this report, the rationale for setting up a PMO by MDG is based on the following critical needs, which in turn shape the overall vision and operational goals for the PMO proposal:

  • Overcoming organisational siloes: This entails collaboration within and outside the MDG, including Information Society S.A. and beneficiaries, the supervision of the implementation and procurement process, and the assignment of the procurement implementation body with specific criteria.

  • Improving the delivery of digital transformation projects: shortening the overall project delivery cycle, notably the public procurement process, and enhancing the quality of procurement execution with advanced practices.

  • Monitoring and reporting of results: Following a set of KPIs for individual digital projects and their procurement process, the PMO could have a clear overview of project implementation and regularly report to MDG.

  • Facilitating risk management of project portfolio: Through close monitoring of implementation, the PMO could perform a risk management function by flagging early on bottlenecks in implementation. Better co-ordination, user interaction, and streamlined processes set up with the PMO constitute risk mitigation measures.

  • Identifying capacity gaps and bottlenecks: This entails engagement with project stakeholders during the various stages of implementation to identify capacity gaps and bottlenecks.

It is critical to validate these business needs and the related vision for a PMO with MDG leadership and a broader set of stakeholders to ensure alignment between the functions assigned to PMO, its governance structure as well as the resources needed for its operations (i.e., human resources and skills, financial and infrastructure resources).

The following section elaborates on a proposal for a PMO based on the assessment of this report and feedback received by Greek stakeholders. This takes into account the preference for setting a PMO model that builds on existing structures and functions within MDG, allowing the PMO to have a strong monitoring function in order to provide MDG leadership and its related governance bodies (i.e., the Steering Committee and the Execution Network) with up-to-date information regarding the status of project implementation. Again, validation with a wide group of stakeholders is key to align the proposed structure and functions of the PMO with the Greek legal, administrative and institutional context.

As presented in Chapter 3 of this report, the development of digital projects in Greece presents several challenges. In this line, the adoption of a PMO should not be taken as a silver bullet to solve the stated issues but as a specific tool to streamline the implementation of digital projects. The success of future modifications or reforms regarding the PMO relies on its alignment with the institutional culture and securing a shared vision with all relevant stakeholders. In particular, this entails promoting an institutional culture of co-operation from the top leadership, as the PMO needs to rely on productive working relationships with several parties for its functioning. Finally, a sustainable project management reform calls for political commitment at the highest level to support the transformation process across government.

A successful PMO model should have a clear definition of tasks and responsibilities, identifying the role of each party in the project management process. In practical terms, this implies separating the strategic level task and the policy execution responsibilities. Doing so requires a clear roles’ definition regarding the policy design functions within MDG (strategic level) from those implementation functions that will be the responsibility of the PMO (execution level):

  • Ministry of Digital Governance: The policy setting should reflect the government's priorities concerning ICT/digital projects, reflecting high-level strategic definitions taken ideally with the Steering Committee and the Execution Network. MDG will also be responsible for redefining the approval process, establishing and controlling the ICT portfolio management system and establishing a clear and aligned funding approach for digital projects that mitigates the risks of inconsistency in managing resources. Finally, MDG would also determine the prioritisation criteria, the KPIs for the PMO to implement, and the digital standards needed to guide the implementation of projects.

  • Project Management Office: the PMO would be responsible for approving digital projects following the criteria established by MDG. In addition, this executive arm would be responsible for the implementation oversight of all digital projects through the ICT portfolio management system, meaning that the PMO would track progress of critical projects and secure co-ordination between the different stakeholders involved in the implementation and procurement process. In addition, the PMO office would develop a comprehensive monitoring system to report back on eventual delays, over costs, or any other issues regarding digital projects implementation that serves MDG and the Steering Committee to take timely actions. The internal organisation of this PMO should reflect its responsibilities in the project cycle. The PMO could develop specialised functions depending on the nature of ICT/digital projects (see Box 6.1).

According to their strategic relevance, the PMO will dispatch projects to Information Society S.A. or line ministries (See PMO Process). In this line, MDG could consider the possibility of setting and measuring KPIs for Information Society S.A. to align incentives across the whole project cycle and promote a more coherent and accountable role.

Following digital government principles, MDG could encourage formal and iterative feedback mechanisms between the two bodies, reinforcing co-ordination and communication on the procedures, guiding principles, and standards. Similarly, the system could consider developing continuous feedback from Information Society S.A. and line ministries to gather user inputs and channel them into the policy-setting process.

In terms of institutional responsibilities, there should be a clear approach to define and divide tasks between MDG and the PMO to underline the execution role of the PMO - which implements policy decisions and strategies defined by MDG. Table 6.1 presents a potential division of institutional responsibilities related to the implementation of ICT/digital projects. As discussed above, MDG has responsibilities over the strategic decision-making, while the PMO implements concrete business processes. To limit institutional overlaps, the project cycle could be concentrated as much as possible into the PMO, including the initiation approval of digital projects according to the DTB and the redesigned process for this purpose.

Based on the analysis outlined in this report, there are several concrete areas in which MDG can work to ensure that the PMO can be operational starting from its very inception.

  • First, MDG needs to ensure that the approval and funding mechanisms are coherent, aligned and streamlined. At the implementation stage, the PMO should be able to access a streamlined and coherent process that does not vary depending on the funding source and that provides clear information to approve, prioritise and select funding sources for ICT/digital projects.

  • Second, MDG needs to establish a clear criteria for prioritisation of digital projects in order to guide the decisions and management over the portfolio of digital transformation projects. At the highest level, this prioritisation exercise could follow the strategic priorities established in the DTB, i.e. identifying those digital projects that are critical and transformative for the digitalisation of the Greek government. The prioritisation exercise could also set who will be responsible for the operational delivery for each project i.e., choice based on pre-defined criteria to identify whether the implementation and execution would fall under the remit of the PMO, Information Society S.A. or line ministries. High priority projects should be followed closely by the PMO, while other projects could be tracked on the basis of KPIs.

  • Third, MDG could define digital standards for implementing digital transformation projects (See Box 6.1). These standards could be aligned based on a thematic classification of projects (e.g. projects related to service design and delivery).

  • Fourth, the effectiveness of the PMO also depends on the institutional and individual capacities of the unit. A successful implementation requires a multidisciplinary team, ensuring that the PMO has digital, public procurement, and public sector project management experts. The pivotal role of the PMO in the development of digital projects calls for excellence in these strategic functions. Achieving this goal requires developing an enabling environment within the team, strengthening digital skills in all roles (see competences in the next section). These efforts could consider reviewing recruitment policies to foster talent attraction and ensure retention and promotion in the medium and long term. Similarly, MDG could promote the constitution of diverse and multidisciplinary teams for the PMO functions. This approach allows a better understanding of the problems and favours user-driven approaches.

  • Fifth, MDG is recommended to set up a list of KPIs to track progress across the entire project cycle, including the performance of the public procurement process. The PMO will collect data on these KPIs and regularly report to MDG, the Steering Committee and the Execution Network. KPIs could also track the quality of the procurement execution through a dedicated ‘Procurement Quality Checklist’. This would allow MDG to collect specific data about the procurement process, and its execution.

  • Finally, along with the responsibility of setting up the PMO, MDG could also promote capacity building, notably to ensure the use of more advanced procurement practices suitable to digital projects, as discussed earlier in this report. Through continuous monitoring of KPIs, the PMO is well-positioned to identify specific bottlenecks in capacity and will report this information to MDG. Based on the information collected by PMO from the various project owners, MDG will be able to address specific capacity gaps and devise capacity-building strategies. Data from the ‘Procurement Quality Checklist’ for instance, would give insights into specific areas that need capacity-building (e.g. use of MEAT criteria, agile procurement practices, innovation procurement, etc.)

In line with the fourth area of action for the PMO in the previous section, a correct implementation of this office would require embracing a multidisciplinary approach to foster competencies linked to developing and managing ICT/digital projects. In order to equip public sector institutions to co-lead the implementation of the DTB and ICT/digital projects, these competencies should also be fostered in all the relevant units of line ministries, ensuring a coherent implementation regardless of the institution executing the project. This list of competencies is not an exhaustive review of the skills required to streamline ICT/digital project development but rather to guide the MDG in defining those necessary skillsets to move towards greater digital maturity:

  • Digital and data: To ensure the success of a coherent digital transformation, Greece must ensure the development of digital and data skills across the public sector. Successful Digital skills reflected in a shared vision of digital tools and data presented opportunities. In line with the European digital competencies framework (European Commission, 2016[4]). Greece should strengthen information and data literacy, communication, and collaboration through digital and data capacitiesBy promoting cross-government collaboration, Greece can leverage support and knowledge from digital and data champions within public administration, including regulatory, tax and customs authorities fostering data re-use. Likewise, Greece should encourage digital safety awareness, including personal data and privacy concerns; and promote problem-solving skills to help leverage digital technologies and data to transform processes and products in the public sector.

  • Strategic planning: ICT/digital project management in Greece requires enhancing planning capacities, including a thorough understanding of methodologies to measure value, assess risks and align efforts between different policy objectives, including budgeting, procurement and digital. These functions and in-depth understanding of public administration procedures, including the project approval process.

  • Service design: Greece must develop skills to identify and understand users' needs in digital services and products to achieve a sustainable transformation based on user-driven solutions. Promoting user understanding in the public sector workforce implies developing methodologies and capabilities to understand internal processes, not as isolated phenomena, but as whole problems, which must be addressed end-to-end. Specific capacities in service design, interaction design, content design, and user research can allow the Greek public sector to leverage user experience to drive transformation and improve the end-to-end experience for beneficiaries.

  • Finance and public budgeting: To strengthen ICT/digital project formulation, Greece should foster financial competencies of those professionals undertaking ICT/digital project preparation and formulation to ensure that projects correctly reflect the overall costs and benefits, following the existing budgetary frameworks and the different funding options available at a national and European level. Strengthening these skills in digital project formulation can bring efficiency gains by aligning objectives and bridging the gap between budgeting and digital professionals.

  • Legal/regulatory: teams involved in project development must also include legal and regulatory competencies. These skills can help the government reduce transaction costs in project formulation by anticipating legal restrictions and barriers e.g. by reducing delays related to contract management. Complementing project development teams with legal and regulatory competences will also strengthen the capacity to leverage policy resources at national and European level.

  • Procurement: To streamline ICT/digital projects, Greece must embark on a strategic approach toward procurement skills. Based on the evidence gathered, procurement skills development should focus on building market engagement capacities and fostering the use of quality criteria and functional specifications.

  • Agile Project Management: Agile project management involves developing specific competencies to improve project delivery based on iteration and continuous learning. Similarly, it should promote delivery-driven experimentation reflected in minimum viable product approaches. Several specific methodologies exist to standardise agile management processes and facilitate adoption in organisations, including the public sector. The most commonly used methodologies include scrum, kanban, and lean.

  • Assurance: The process of digital project management in Greece requires improved monitoring and evaluation capabilities, covering the design and delivery of ICT/digital projects. In this line, Greece should develop assurance capabilities to control delivery quality and report gaps concerning standards. These functions should consider mastery of measurement and reporting methodologies, knowledge on testing, and quality control systems in the scope of monitoring and evaluation system framework. Successful implementation also requires that the civil servants responsible for these functions understand the strategic objectives of the monitoring system.

The PMO's role in digital project management starts at the approval stage. As described in Chapter 2, the project approval process seeks to ensure the alignment of each project with the strategy and key priorities set for digital government in the country. The PMO will be responsible for approving all digital projects following the redesigned mechanism.

Once the projects are approved, the PMO should categorise the projects according to their complexity and strategic relevance for digital government. Projects defined as strategic should be managed directly by the office, while line ministries would manage sectoral projects with the advice of the PMO and the support of digital government guidelines and standards.

The classification criteria is fundamental as projects will follow different paths depending on their categorisation: strategical or sectoral. The definition of these criteria is part of the policy-setting faculties of MDG. To operationalise this categorisation, MDG could develop written guidelines for all stakeholders to understand and follow the criteria and procedures. The criteria could include, among others, the following considerations:

  1. 1. National digital strategy priorities: the PMO should directly manage those projects defined as priorities in the national digital strategy, bridging the long-term vision with the delivery of specific and concrete outcomes (e.g. digital talent and skills programmes).

  2. 2. Key shared enablers: some digital projects can systematically transform the functioning of the public sector, enabling the development of new capabilities. These priorities should include the development of building blocks for service design and delivery (e.g. notification and payment systems) and critical digital infrastructure (e.g. digital identity, data governance and sharing, open government data).

  3. 3. Investment volume: The investment volume required in a given project can transform into a strategic project due to its visibility and relevance within the portfolio. The PMO can manage projects above a certain budget threshold.

  4. 4. Number of institutions involved: When a given project involves more than one institution, co-ordination challenges and the need to avoid agency problems may suggest the need for centralised management through the PMO.

While the PMO will directly manage a sub-set of digital projects by the Greek government, it will have a responsibility to assist, monitor and report on all projects to ensure the overall advancement of project implementation.

After the strategic relevance classification, the PMO should allocate funding for each initiative. For this, the office will follow the policy definitions set by MDG. As mentioned in Chapter 3 (Coherent funding management), an effective implementation should ensure that investment decisions are independent of the funding sources. At this stage, the role of the PMO should be fully operational, following the guidelines issued by MDG. Similarly, the PMO is responsible for prioritising projects according to the policies established by the Ministry.

With the classification between strategic and sectoral projects defined, and the funding secured, all projects will follow two different streams (see Table 6.2):

  • Strategic Projects (Stream A): The projects defined as strategic will be managed directly by the PMO (Stream A). In this case, the PMO co-ordinates directly with the beneficiaries, Information Society S.A. and MDG. The PMO should secure user engagement at all stages and safeguard the alignment with the digital standards issued by MDG. Concerning the procurement process, the PMO could provide specific expertise to raise the level of procurement execution. For this purpose, it could use simple tools such as a checklist for quality procurement of digital projects (see Box 6.2).

  • Sectoral Projects (Stream B): In the case of specific sectoral projects, the beneficiaries will be responsible for the management with close advice of the PMO (Stream B). The PMO can issue practical guidelines to advise line ministries on project management following the digital standards set by MDG and the experience gathered in practice. To enhance efficiency, the office can flag management capacity gaps in line ministries (including the procurement process) for MDG to implement capacity-building activities.

In both streams, the PMO is responsible for gathering and timely reporting on the KPIs defined by MDG. Similarly, the PMO will advise and counsel digital project management procedures, standards, public procurement process, and other relevant information to beneficiaries.

In its inception phase, the PMO could work hand-in-hand with a pool of experts who can support advanced public procurement practices suitable for digital projects, i.e. greater use of early and advanced market engagement, quality criteria, and agile methodologies. These experts would be able to provide ad hoc support to both strategic and sectoral projects. The reporting from the PMO on bottlenecks and gaps would allow MDG to inform the Steering Committee and the Execution Network, assess specific needs and take action further action on capacity building over the medium-term, such as the set-up of a more permanent structure to support capacity building on implementation and procurement of digital projects (e.g. competence centre).

To complete the project cycle, PMO is responsible for reporting back to MDG on the implementation status of digital projects. This milestone allows the Ministry to have a complete overview of project implementation throughout their lifecycle and take appropriate measures to address arising bottlenecks. The PMO should be responsible for reporting on the defined KPI (see Figure 6.2). MDG could benefit from adopting open approaches around the monitoring systems. Building on the recommendations mentioned above, implementing dashboards to report on the progress of the digital project portfolio can help MDG foster transparency while enhancing accountability. The use of open government data (OGD) can help MDG foster the engagement of civil society and the private sector in the oversight of digital government investments.

When adopting key performance indicators, MDG could consider the feasibility of collecting quality data in a timely manner. The adoption of data governance frameworks can help MDG strengthen the monitoring system by ensuring mechanisms for collaboration between institutions and developing the necessary infrastructure to ensure reliable and quality data. In this regard, Greece could encourage the re-use of data in monitoring mechanisms to assess digital project development performance and foster open government data publication. Suggested KPIs on digital government and public procurement are presented in Table 6.2 and Table 6.3 respectively.

Based on the analysis, a key element to track is the length of the procurement process. MDG is recommended to track each phase of the process in a very granular manner to identify the key bottlenecks and take appropriate action.

Another key area to assess performance of the procurement process is related to the overall quality execution of procurement, and in particular the use of advanced practices that are suitable for ICT and digital projects. These indicators could be summarised in a “checklist for quality procurement in digital projects” (see Box 6.2). It is important to convey the message to that the checklist is meant as a support tool for procurement practitioners, and not as a punitive tool. It should allow practitioners to request further support or capacity building in specific areas that they currently may not address, or that they wish to develop further. The checklist could be used for strategic projects managed by PMO in the initial stage, and its use could be gradually expanded to all projects once line ministries enhance their own capacity to procure digital projects.

Successfully introducing organisational reforms in the public sector is a complex task, not only related to the complexities of improving a given status-quo, but also because the success of reforms requires the buy-in of key stakeholders involved. As such, it is important to pay careful attention not only to the content of a given reform, but also to its implementation process.

Several high level principles and good practices can serve as guide for MDG in the process of creating the PMO. In particular, the following apply:

  • Create a vision and share it broadly: An important starting point is to devise a shared vision for the changes that will be brought about by the reform, i.e. the introduction of the PMO. This can be achieved through wide consultation processes and communication. The goals of the organisational reform should be clear to internal and external stakeholders of MDG.

  • Ensure buy-in through broad consultation: Concerned stakeholders should have an opportunity to be consulted to secure their buy-in. This could entail the set-up of an inter-institutional working group or advisory group, to bring on board concerned line ministries. Existing structures, such as the Digital Transformation Steering Committee, could be used for consultation purposes. Attention should be paid also to internal consultation and buy-in, as the PMO would require important co-operation with stakeholders within MDG, too.

  • Define an operational plan for implementation including milestones: Typically, the operational plan would entail setting up a dedicated working group or task force for creating the PMO and making it operational. In particular, this entails the definition of critical policies and strategies needed for the PMO to run (as discussed above). The resources needed to set up the PMO would need to be identified at this stage, ranging from human resources and skills, legal and governance aspects, as well as technology infrastructure. To ensure smooth operational set-up it is recommended to set up a project management plan with dedicated milestones.

  • Raise awareness and communicate upcoming changes: Throughout the set-up of the PMO it is important to raise awareness and communicate on a regular basis to prepare concerned stakeholders about upcoming changes. Such change management activities increase trust in the process and thereby increase buy-in.

To successfully implement a PMO model, the MDG could explore establishing a dedicated task force to plan and accompany the implementation of the PMO. A task force would be responsible for implementing this new governance structure, and its main task is streamlining internal processes transformation and the adoption of new practices required to secure agility in the Greek public sector. This task force should be accountable to the leadership of the MDG and should follow clear goals, milestones, and deadlines.

This task force could be created under the following principles:

  • Cross-sectoral: representing the different stakeholders involved in the design and implementation of ICT/digital solutions, ideally including actors within and outside the MDG.

  • Multidisciplinary: reflecting the diverse roles involved in the design and implementation of ICT/digital solutions in the public sector, including financial, digital, legal, and procurement expertise.

  • Accountable: establishing an implementation roadmap that identifies clear responsibilities and deadlines, building ownership over the different tasks.

Due to a natural resistance to change, a transformational process of this magnitude may generate difficulties with the various actors involved. To address these difficulties, this task force must seek endorsement by higher bodies will validate the task force, legitimising its role to stakeholders. Thus, it could be validated by the institutional co-ordination bodies, such as the Steering Committee and the Execution Network, or similar institutions that provide legitimacy to stakeholders. In addition, it is essential to ensure a balanced representation of all relevant actors involved in the development of ICT/digital projects so that the implementation of the transformations reflects the visions of the different parties involved. Based on the evidence collected for this report, the dedicated task force should include the MDG, comprising the Directorate of Digital Strategy, the Directorate of Sectoral Public Sector Projects, and the Department of Procurement and Logistics, as well as Information Society S.A.

As part of its role, the task force could work towards securing a shared vision on the role of the PMO and share it broadly across the public sector, leveraging comprehensive consultation processes and communicating it effectively. To do so, it could organise regular consultation processes with key stakeholders that are impacted by the set-up of the PMO, and involve them closely during the set-up process. Namely, it could involve representatives of and the Hellenic Single Public Procurement Authority (HSPPA), given their role and expertise in public procurement and project development. Finally, the task force could secure a representative sample of beneficiaries of digital transformation projects, including different institutions from the central and sub-national governments. This sample would ensure the representation of all beneficiaries, including large demanders of ICT/digital projects and Greek public sector institutions. By bringing together the diverse stakeholders involved in digital/ICT projects, the MDG can incentivise alignment while promoting ownership of the novel project management governance.

In operational terms, the task force could focus on both short- and medium-term objectives that would allow to deliver the implementation of the PMO:

  • Short-term objectives: Determining the resources and capabilities required to set up the PMO successfully, ranging from human resources and skills, legal and governance aspects, and technology infrastructure.

  • Medium-term objectives: Develop a comprehensive review of the ICT/Digital project approval, prioritisation, and management system, i.e. set-up the business processes that allow the PMO to work. In parallel, the task force could consider devising a capacity-building strategy for addressing major skills gap related to procurement in the context of ICT/digital projects.


[2] Artto, K. et al. (2011), “The integrative role of the project management office in the front end of innovation”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29/4, pp. 408-421, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.01.008.

[1] Aubry, M., B. Hobbs and D. Thuillier (2007), “A new framework for understanding organisational project management through the PMO”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25/4, pp. 328-336, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.01.004.

[4] European Commission (2016), “The Digital Competence Framework 2.0”, https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC101254/jrc101254_digcomp%202.0%20the%20digital%20competence%20framework%20for%20citizens.%20update%20phase%201.pdf (accessed on 6 December 2022).

[3] New Zealand Government (2021), Aligning digital, data and ICT investment to digital public service outcomes, https://www.digital.govt.nz/standards-and-guidance/governance/investment/aligning-digital-data-and-ict-investment-to-digital-public-service-outcomes/#info-and-data-principle (accessed on 29 October 2021).

[5] OECD (2021), “Promoting research and innovation in the Slovak Republic through an effective use of European funds”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 04, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f0e9d786-en.

Metadata, Legal and Rights

This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Extracts from publications may be subject to additional disclaimers, which are set out in the complete version of the publication, available at the link provided.

© OECD 2022

The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at https://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.