Gotze.eu

Author: administrator

  • Openize Denmark, Parliament Orders

    On Friday (June 2, 2006), the Danish Parliament (Folketinget) had its last session before the Summer break, and on a very long agenda, the very last issue (#57) was the second and last reading of Morten Helveg‘s Proposal for Parliamentary Resolution on Open Standards (B103). I posted a bit about it earlier this week, and said then that it was still pending, and that it was opposed by the Government. That was accurate information as of a week ago.

    But politics is the art of changing things, and over the last week, crafty politicians have been at work, and changed things. Morten Helveg pushed for settlement, and then Danish People’s Party’s Morten Messerschmidt and Jørgen Dohrman put their fingerprint on the resolution with an ammendment, so a majority vote would be reached. And to cut a long story (see below) short, on Friday afternoon, the Parliament voted and decided the following resolution (my translation):

    Parliament imposes on the government a duty to ensure that the public sector’s use of IT, including use of software, is based on open standards.

    The Government should adopt and maintain a set of open standards by 1 January 2008, or as soon as technically possible, which can serve as an inspiration for the rest of the public sector. Open standards should be part of public IT and software procurement with the object of promoting competition.

    The Government should ensure that all digital information and data that the public sector exchanges with citizens, companies and institutions, are available in open standards based formats.

    Note that the translation is mine, and might not be 100% accurate. It for example differs slightly from the one provided on Groklaw. Furthermore, the original decision in Danish is actually not now available yet in the Parliament’s public information system (case file here, around 50 documents, in Danish), so be advised that a formal translation of the decision is, well, pending.

    The challenge is not just one of language nuances between Danish and English, but indeed also one of interpretation of the resolution itself, and of its reach and scope in particular. And here caution is an absolute necessity, because we know how distorted things in our field always get.

    A few specific observations:

    1. Anne Østergaard’s Denmark to follow in the foot steps of Massachuchets on open standards is flawed, in my opinion. The decision does not say that the Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation has to make a law proposal in the next session of Folketinget.
    2. Søren Thing Pedersen’s Denmark mandates open standards by 2008 is accurate enough, but only because mandation can mean many things. I do agree with Søren in his assessment, though. Also, check his site for a link to a video with the 30 minute reading in Parliament.
    3. Jeff Kaplan’s Looking for IT Leaders? Try Denmark is a must read.

    At any rate, Friday was indeed a good day for the Danish IT policy, as Morten Helveg also said during the reading in Parliament. On Saturday, he made a post tited Victory! (Sejr!) in his blog. He writes (my translation):

    …
    But it was a bizarre procedure. Wednesday afternoon, the Liberals attempted to outvote the resolution’s formal vote-taking. Completely uheard of! Then the Standing Orders Committee intervened to ensure that I of course could get my resolution to a vote in Parliament.

    A majority without the Government was established with Danish People’s Party, and then the Liberals and the Conservatives turned on a dime. Even if it was a pitiful attempt to demean the resolution made by the Liberals, considering they would vote for the resolution. It didn’t make sense. I think it was pretty clear to everyone who saw the debates that the Liberals were out on a limb.
    …

    On Thursday before the Parliament session, Michael Aastrup Jensen from the Liberals made a press announcement where he announced that the Liberals would vote for the resolution. The argument put forward is that the proposal carries good intentions. But Jensen also argues that the resolution will have no effects, and that the Liberals would have wanted to go even further. During the reading session, his tone sharpened, and he called the resolution “empty symbol politics of the worst kind”.

    Helge Sander, the Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation, is from the Liberals. On August 15, he has invited the IT-spokespersons from Parliament to a meeting, where he according to Jensen will present how the Government wants to proceed.

    In conclusion, the vote in Parliament ended in an unanimous decision, but not in fence-mending. Quite the contrary, actually.

    But at the end of the day, and that’s what counts, Denmark is now a nation who has a parliamentary mandate for open standards. Thank you to the three Mortens: Morten Helveg, Morten Messerschmidt and Morten Østergaard, and to Jørgen Dohrman and Anne Grete Holmsgaard for carrying this through, and thanks also to Michael Aastrup Jensen and Helge Sander, and all other MPs for voting for this historic resolution!

    Bonus news: In the report from the Science Committee, one can read that there’s more to ODF in Denmark: Also the Ministry of Finance will from September 1, 2006 publish its new publications in ODF “unless certain contractual or content-related conditions occur”. The Government aims to have 3-4 or more ministries in the pilot launched by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.

    So, we will have concrete ODF adoption projects in Denmark. Now. Very exciting! Kudos to Helge Sander for rolling that showball! Why didn’t you make decisions like that when I worked for you? Allow me to give you a hint: You know about Massachusetts, right? Did you know that they recently made a Request for Information (RFI) titled “OpenDocument Format Plug-in for Microsoft Office Suite”, and got some very interesting response? You should get your guys to talk to guys in Massachusetts. You could also make your own RFI, of course.

    Danish readers: I posted more over at my Danmark 2.0 blog.

  • 2006 International Enterprise Architecture Survey

    Get the journal article we wrote about this.

    Peter Engelund Christiansen and I are pleased to announce a new report and website: EASurvey.org: International Enterprise Architecture Survey – Trends in Governmental Enterprise Architecture on a National Level.

    The report presents key findings from an international survey about governmental EA on a national/federal level conducted earlier this year. 16 countries participated in the survey: Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nothern Ireland, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, the United Kingdom and USA.

    The survey documents trends in governmental EA and focuses on eight areas:

    • EA motivation
    • Achieved goals and barriers
    • EA measurement
    • EA process
    • EA framework
    • EA tool
    • EA governance
    • Existing EA assets

    The key findings are:

    EA on a national level is emerging fast
     93.3% of the participating governments are already having – or planning to have within the next two years – a national EA program. Only one government does not have any future plans incorporating a national EA program.

    Limited realisation of EA goals
    54% of the governments with national EA programs have experienced the achievement of EA goals.

    The lack of skilled staff is considered as the greatest barrier against the achievement of EA goals
     55% of the governments report “lack of skilled staff” as the greatest barrier against the achievement of EA goals.

    Less than half of the governments are measuring EA program performance
     Accordingly, less that one half of the governments are using key performance indicators.

    Less than one fifth of the governments are calculating the ratio EA benefits to cost
     18% of the governments, Japan and Taiwan, are calculating the total expenditures in EA, the total amount gained from EA and the ratio EA benefits to costs.

    Less than one fifth of the governments have mandated their EA programs via legislation
     18% of the governments, USA and Korea, have national EA programs that are mandated by legislation.

    Less than one third of the governments know whether their publicized EA processes are used
     72% of the participating governments have publicized guidelines describing an EA process. 29% of those governments do not know whether the guidelines are used or not.

    We conclude with some calls to action:

    • Define clear and measurable EA goals
    • Do not uncritically buy the vendors ‘Ten steps to successful EA’ and expect the world to change in any advantageous direction
    • Measure EA performance to ensure progress and ultimately EA success
    • Calculate EA expenses-/earnings to enable communication in a monetary terminology; it becomes necessary
    • Do not make the mistakes of the past
    • Do not isolate an EA team and expect them to generate value-adding EA

    The survey is endorsed by the Association of Enterprise Architects (a|EA), but a|EA does not necessarily agree with our calls to action.

    The bulk of the work was done by Peter in his Master of IT thesis project, which explains the survey in excruciating levels of detail, and which is as clear an A+ as I’ve ever seen and supervised. I helped connecting Peter to the survey I started two years ago, and introduced him to relevant respondents around the world. After the exams, we have worked together on quality assurance and recommendations, but Peter should really get all the credit.

    Get the journal article we wrote about this.

  • WordPressing GotzeBlogged

    Transformation time in Gotzespace! I’ve decided to switch to WordPress, and have nearly finished the transition. This includes the introduction of a new domain for GotzeBlogged, gotze.eu. Existing Gotzespace.dk links should however still work, but redirection of the blog and its feeds is permanent. I have gone through some efforts to not break any links, but do let me know if anything is missing.

    One of the reasons I decided to leave MovableType was that I didn’t feel anything happened to it. Ironically, just as I had made my decision, SixApart announced a new version of MT. It’ll have to be a significant improvement, because I’m very satisfied with WP now, and see no reason to go back to MT.

    WordPress is a very nice product. It being open source is an important criteria, but my choice is based on the quality of the product, and it just simple beats MT on all accounts I have prioritised.

    My Atom feed is a valid Atom 1.0 feed: [Valid Atom 1.0] (thanks to these instructions).

  • ODF in Denmark

    [Note: Almost all links here are in Danish]

    The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation will from 1 September 2006 make its online publications and other written communication available in ODF. That was announced by Minister of Science, Helge Sander, during an open consultation meeting in the Science and Technology Committee of the Danish Parliament held on 23 May. Mr Sander said that “the use of open standards is essential to the development of e-government”, and that the decision to publish in ODF is “a first step”, and will be evaluated after a 6-months trial period.

    Mr Sander and his ministry has been under pressure for a while on the issue of open standards. The consultation meeting was called after the first reading of Morten Helveg‘s Proposal for Parliamentary Resolution on Open Standards (B103) in the Chamber of the Parliament. The second and final reading is still pending. I summarized the resolution here; it basically goes much further in enforcing open standards.

    Mr Sander and the Liberal-Conservative Government has opposed the resolution, which is put forward by the opposition. The resolution does however appeal to not only the opposition parties, but also the Government’s support party (Danish People’s Party, far-right) whose Morten Messerschmidt and Jørgen Dohrman however do hesitate supporting the resolution due to unknown economical effects. Those concerns have been at the heart of the debates, and been Mr Sander’s main argument against the resolution.

    On the day before the consultation meeting, the Danish daily newspaper, Berlingske.dk, published a news story, “Secret Report”, where they revealed the conclusions from an internal report from the ministry. Mr Sander promptly decided to send the report to the Committee and hence make it publically available, in order “to avoid any myth creation”, he said. The report is an initial analysis of the economic effects of enfording the use of open standards, and it concludes that although it is not possible to put an exact figure on the total costs (and benefits) of enforcing open standards at large, there is much reason in making open standards compulsory where interoperability is at stake. The report is dated December 2005, but I can reveal that the bulk text is even older, as I was the main author of the report as one of the last tasks I did before I left the ministry in September 2005. I’m glad the report is now public, so I can refer to it. I just re-read it, and although I personally might not agree to everything in it – it being a product of many opinions and “government speak” – it is still a good read, I’d dare say.

  • ODF – an ISO standard

    It was all over the news last week, but the official word from ISO only just came out: ISO and IEC approve OpenDocument OASIS standard for data interoperability of office applications. A couple of quotes:

    Alan Bryden, ISO Secretary-General:

    “ISO/IEC 26300 is a shining example of what partnership in standardization can achieve for the business community. Its publication underscores the importance of partnership among ISO and IEC and standards developing organizations such as OASIS to craft a common set of standards, and reflects the international community’s recognition of the importance of open formats in enabling business interoperability.”

    Patrick Gannon, president and CEO of OASIS:

    “ISO/IEC JTC 1’s approval of OpenDocument as an International Standard is a major step forward in advancing the adoption of a format that gives all of us the flexibility to select the office application – commercial or open source – that best meets our needs. We are particularly gratified by the broad range of national ballots cast in favour of the standard. This action underscores the international support for the OASIS open standards process that produced OpenDocument and delivers an assurance of long-term viability that is particularly important to governments.”

    Openization vs Deathstars: 1 – 0

  • Assertion of Intent

    IDABCs eGovernment Observatory brought this story out in English yesterday: The Danish IT Architecture Committee has decided to stand firm on SAML 2.0 as the recommended standard for federation.

    Once broken into English, the story was quickly brought around internationally. SecureID News basically copied the IDABC-story, Danish Government says ‘yes’ to SAML 2.0 and encourages Microsoft to support those specifications.. Computer Business Review follow-up and talked to Liberty Alliance: Identity next public sector battleground for Microsoft?.

    There is actually more to the story. First, the decision is actually more than a month old. The National IT Architecture Committee’s decision was made on 21 March. They did send out a Danish press release at that time, but it took a while to get the news out internationally. [maybe I should have blogged it …]

    Anyway, let me dig into the story a bit. Because there is a bit more to it than the international coverage caught. Basically, the committee decision was about an open letter to Microsoft. Written by my former collegue, Søren Peter Nielsen from the IT-Strategic Office in the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, the letter to Microsoft, and sent via Microsft Denmark to Don Schmidt, senior program manager for Microsoft’s Identity and Access group, the letter is worth quoting at length:

    In the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation we have the responsibility to select and recommend IT standards for public sector usage as also create shared services for public sector. This work is undertaken in an open process that involves all levels of public sector institutions.

    The Danish public sector decided early in 2005 to recommend using SAML 2.0 for federated identity and access management. This was among other based on the momentum for the standard in product support from various suppliers, plans for actual usage in public sector solutions worldwide, proofing og interoperability
    through testing, and also very important SAML 2.0 being a ratified OASIS standard.

    We now understand that Microsoft has chosen not to support SAML 2.0 in the add-on to Active Directory that you has brought or soon is bringing to market.

    We would like to understand your motivations for not supporting SAML 2.0 as basically every other supplier of identity and access management solutions support – or plans to support SAML 2.0. So far our only source for information has been news articles (as here) about your decision not to support SAML 2.0. These articles may not contain a valid representation of your message, and even if this is the case really their content doesn’t help us understand the Microsoft motivation. Based on this I have asked Anders to forward to following questions for you:

  • Does the article faithfully reflect the essence of your motivation for not supporting SAML 2.0?
  • Assuming this more or less is true (and I will ask you to respond in all circumstances):
    • You are cited saying: SAML 2.0 protocols are fine for strictly Web single sign-on. In your view is exchange of attributes, and assertions about access rights a part of Web single sign-on? Or do you assert that SAML 2.0 isn’t well suited for these tasks?
    • You are cited saying: SAML 2.0 does not have reliable messaging or transaction support. As far as we can tell neither have WS-Federation, and obviously such functionality should be covered in standards that focus on reliable messaging and transaction, so is your position that SAML 2.0 will not work well with the standards for reliable messaging and transactions that OASIS is working to finalize?
    • What other motivations does Microsoft have for not supporting SAML 2.0 in the currently released product?
  • Assuming the article is not true
    • Can you supply us with the correct information about why Microsoft does not want to support SAML 2.0 in its current product?
    • We understand that Microsoft has a big interest in WS-Federation as Microsoft has been the main driver in developing the specification. However, in the marketplace we see several vendors that in their product supports several standards like SAML 2.0 and at the same time the WS-Federation specification to allow customer choice. This tells us that it is a feasible task to add product support for both SAML 2.0 and WS-Federation. So even though Microsoft may feel that SAML 2.0 isn’t as well suited for the vision Microsoft is having for federation in the future why don’t you support it, and let your customers decide?
  • If you feel Microsoft supports customer choice in the federation space though not supporting SAML 2.0 can you please elaborate on what kind of choice it is that you support?
  • Will Microsoft support SAML 2.0 in future products?

    • ….snip….

    I know Søren Peter is on holiday, so I can’t yet ask him about whether he got a response. I’ll be sure to ask him as soon as I see him.

    [Disclaimers: a. I work for OASIS (SAML is an OASIS standard), and b. I was heavily involved with making SAML a Danish standard when I worked in the ministry.]

  • Harnessing the Benefits of Openness

    The Washington-based Committee for Economic Development (CED), “an independent, nonpartisan organization of business and education leaders dedicated to policy research on the major economic and social issues of our time and the implementation of its recommendations by the public and private sectors”, has published a report called Open Standards, Open Source, and Open Innovation: Harnessing the Benefits of Openness. Also see the CED announcement and the summary., as well as this CIO Update.

    The report is another must-read. The conclusion is worth quoting at length:

    The benefits of openness are becoming more apparent and are likely to grow as we learn to utilize the new capabilities enabled by information and communications technologies. These benefits are challenging our conventional wisdom about innovation and the incentives needed to stimulate it. And, they are suggesting new ways of acting based on the special characteristics of the digital world, which are far different than those that developed based on what we knew of the physical world.

    Years ago, the theory of the tragedy of the commons was developed in economic literature. It argued that users of a commons (such as a grazing field shared by an entire community), who had no particular or individual stake in the success of the commons, might act in such a way as to maximize their own short-term interests at the long-term expense of the commons and the community that used it. Thus, the actions of a few could harm the interests of many, and of society as a whole.

    The digital world provides an opportunity to think of the commons differently. The use of the digital commons by everyone does not necessarily exclude its use by anyone. To the extent that new information and communications technologies allow more and more people to contribute their own genius, the digital world offers new opportunities from the commons and for the commons.

    Openness is not an overriding moral value that must prevail in every circumstance. But, its extraordinary capability to harness the collective intelligence of our world requires us to consider its implications carefully, nurture it where possible, and avoid efforts to foreclose it without compelling reason. We should not miss the opportunity to harvest the benefits openness might bring.

    If you have read our Roadmap for Open ICT Ecosystems and want more, the CED report is a good next step. I don’t know CED, but do recommend reading their report. It is great to have a solid and well-written argument for openization from a business perspective.

  • A Motion, a Bill, and a Policy

    Just in case anyone missed the recent news: There are three new cases of policy movement for openization: Denmark, Minnesota and Norway.

    Denmark
    Morten Helveg has presented a motion in Parliament (Danish version, dated 30 March, 2006). It says:

    Parliament imposes on the government a duty to ensure that the public sector’s use of IT, including use of software, is based on open standards.

    The state should adopt and maintain a set of open standards by 1 January 2008 which can serve as an inspiration for the rest of the public sector. Open standards should be part of public IT and software procurement with the object of promoting competition.

    The state should ensure that all digital information and data that the public sector exchanges with citizens, companies and institutions, are available in open standards based formats.(my translation of B103

    The wording is the same as in his consultation draft, but the remarks have been updated.

    The likelyhood of the motion being passed as a parliamentary decision is unclear. Coming from the minority opposition, it is almost by definition at risk of being turned down by the Government and its support-party, Dansk Folkeparti, which however seems split on this issue (one of their MPs has supported the motion, another rejected it).

    State of Minnesota
    The Minnesota Open Data Formats Bill, House File 3971 has been presented to the Minnesota state legislature by Paul Thissen and Steve Simon from DFL, Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, which is in opposition in the state.

    The bill would require all Executive branch agencies in the state of Minnesota to “use open standards in situations where the other requirements of a project do not make it technically impossible to do this.”

    Andy Updegrove: Bill Introduced in Minnesota to Require Use of “Open Data Formats”

    References:
    Gary Edwards (at Sam Hisers) and Jeff Kaplan

    TechWeb: Minnesota Bill Supports Open Standards

    Norway
    Press release from the Norwegian Ministry of Government Administration and Reform (in Norwegian): Regjeringen satser på åpne IT-standarder

    The press release mentions a cabinet decision about open standards, which contains at least two initiatives. First, Norway will create an interoperability framework, or a standards catalogue, which most likely will contain mandatory standards for state agenices. Second, the government will establish an standardization council with several stakeholders.

    Well done, Norway!

    Essentially, the Norwegian government seems to continue the path towards openization that the former government started about a year ago. The eNorge (eNorway) programme is one of the most ambitious e-government programmes I know of, and it’s good to see it back on track. I’m of course somewhat prejudiced, since one of the major proposals in eNorge is the adoption of an interoperability framework explicitely based on the Danish interoperability framework (disclaimer: I was responsible for establishing this).

    Just in case anyone in Norway reads this: Yes, I’d be happy to work with you, if you need assistance 🙂

    References:

    In English:
    MIT Technology Review: Norway Promoting Open-Source Software
    TMCNet: Norway seeks to reduce dependence on Microsoft, others through open-source programs
    Jeff Kaplan: Norway Out in the Open

    In Norwegian:
    Dagens IT: Vil løsne båndene til Microsoft
    Computerworld.no: Skal bli mindre Microsoft-avhengig
    Digi.no: Vil bli mindre avhengig av Microsoft

    The Meaning of Life
    I have been invited to speak at a Unisys-conference, The Journey to Open Source, held 17 May – 19 May in Saint-Paul-de-Vence, France. The title of my talk is, as suggested by Unisys, The Meaning of Life – An Academic View on Openization. I’m digging through various research databases and journals in the hope of finding academic literature about openization (open standards, open source, SOA), but it is a rather disappointing exercise. I did similar digging about a year ago, and had hoped to find a bulk of new publications, but unfortunately haven’t found much new material.

    One of the most interesting research projects I know of, is the OStEA project at Copenhagen Business School. OStEA (Open Standards and their Early Adoption) is a public university research project sponsored by the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation. The aim of the project is to identify issues related to government policy with regard to open standards. Some of the research questions pursued are:

    • The viable/plausible scope of open standards as pertaining to the government ICT policy.
    • Identification of relevant standards pool and the relevant ongoing standardization in various fora.
    • Identification of perceived needs for open standards and the reasons and opportunities in government adopting an open standards governance policy.
    • Government’s participation in standardization.
    • Conformance to standards in public procurement/ discrimination against non-compliant standards.

    The project commenced on 1st of February, 2006 and will end on June 24, 2006. Mogens Kühn Pedersen and Vladislav V. Fomin, the research team, have made a preliminary report, Open Standards and Government Policy.

  • Successful enterprise architecture

    Vibeke Trolle Hansen has published her Master of IT thesis, Enterprise Architecture – how to establish and sustain a successful EA (3MB PDF).

    Abstract
    Enterprise architecture aims to establish business and IT alignment. EA is often applied to ensure a more central business driven IT portfolio, and make the organisation more agile in managing change. Having analysed the EA discipline including the EA definition, EA frameworks, governance, change management and EA maturity and business value measures from a theoretical perspective, I aim at defining a set of guidelines that will inspire organisations in practice to create a successful EA in a structured manner.

    After I have defined the set of guidelines, I apply them on two cases, SKAT and ATP. The case analyses show that the organisations have established many of the relevant processes necessary to implement and sustain a business driven IT portfolio, but also that both organisations still have a long way to go to fully reach their objectives. SKAT has a very strong project model that already takes the new IT architectures into account and ensure compliance with their IT modernisation project. The main obstacle, however, is that SKAT does not fully appreciate the value EA can generate for them, and even though they are working in the right direction, the approach seems ad hoc. SKAT claims that they are not interested in establishing an EA although this is partly what they are doing. To me this implies lack of structures, which the EA discipline may provide when implementing and sustaining a business driven IT portfolio. ATP, on the other hand, is deliberately conducting an EA. They have thoroughly performed many of the initial EA investigations and are ready to seize the challenge in implementing their EA in the organisation. My main obstacle in this analysis is, however, that ATP ought to put more focus on EA governance as opposed to mainly focussing on IT governance at the top level in their EA. This could ensure more coherent governance structures of the entire framework.

    The theoretical framework and best practise conclusions, thus, lead me to define a set of guidelines that proved very useful in my case analyses. The guidelines consist of four stages:
    1. EA foundation stage
    2. EA approach stage
    3. EA governance and management stage
    4. EA maturity and measurement stage

    The guidelines should be useful in bridging the gap between theory and practise within the EA field, and may, hopefully, assist organisations in creating and sustaining a successful EA.

    I recommend everyone interested in EA to read Vibeke’s thesis. It’s very well written, it’s thorough and it’s an excellent analysis of two major Danish EA cases. Vibeke was offered a job in one of the cases, ATP, and now work for them.

  • Danmark 2.0

    I am very pleased to announce a new blog:

    Danmark 2.0

    Danmark 2.0 (RSS)

    I’m now a resident blogger for:
    Ingeniøren
    [Ingeniøren, Engineering Weekly, is Denmark’s leading publication in the fields of science and technology providing high quality and objective information on a weekly basis.}

    In Danmark 2.0, I’ll be blogging in Danish about the Danish development towards a digital, network society – about e-government, standards, and what-not. I’ve started with an entry about open document standards. In the entry, I point here (check it!) and here/here/here (well, check these too)..

    Update 1: RSS-feed link updated.
    Update 2: My new blog at ing.dk is an addition to my blogging, not a replacement of this blog, if anyone could get such a thought. I’m now blogging in two languages – English here, and Danish there (and here).