Category: eGovernment

  • Castles and cannon balls

    Great one by Alan:

    The real problem is that government (and I’m not singling out any one country here) is fragmented, not given to working in cross-functional, let alone cross-departmental, teams. Government is composed not of silos anymore but of well-defended, heavily reinforced forts. Ever since Cromwell signed away the power of the monarchy in 16 hundred and whatever has this been the case. Breaking down the walls of these forts requires a few hundred cannons and a big stack of balls – not just of the cannon variety either.

    Incidentally (?), the image used by the editor of the printed version of Walls of Government Come Down in Denmark shows a Danish castle, namely Egeskov Slot (slot is Danish for castle):
    Egeskov Castle
    Images from 3DPhoto.net (check for more information about Danish castles).

    I don’t know if they have any castles in Utah, but Dave has some good points anyway:

    I don’t know if we can always break down the walls, but we can begin to network these fortifications together better by understanding their purpose, taking advantage of their strengths and creating constructive communication ties with their defenders. These existing systems become part of the infrastructure. Using XML and web services, we build integrated delivery systems on top of this existing architechture and then redefine it’s role in the enterprise.

    In the work with our upcoming whitepaper on national enterprise architecture, we have also talked about silos, islands, cities, forts, and many other metaphors. I am not sure how many metaphors will make it into the final whitepaper, since people tend to misunderstand metaphors. Especially those living in big castles. They see the outside world through arrow loops, and have a hard time getting the full picture.

    I like the Machiavellian stance Alan takes. That is what we need more of in government. I also like what Dave says about networking the fortifications, and agree that we should use XML and web services to make these connections, although I also think we need to look more carefully at all layers of the architectures, and will need to open up a lot of the various black boxes out there.

    As we have seen only too often, that is a difficult process. I don’t want to make too many parallels, but here goes a dangerous description of the challenges: We risk finding a lot of stuff we really wouldn’t like to know of (we have problems enough as is). We will meet resistance and non-cooperation. We could use a “diplomatic window”. But – and that’s my point – we don’t need to send in the marines; there are and always will be other ways solve problems.

  • Meta-architecture

    Alan points to FCW’s Feds work on melding architectures, which is about the challenges in aligning OMB’s five reference model Federal Enterprise Architecture – the “meta-architecture” for all the agency efforts – with the enterprise architecture work done at agency level.

    Meta-architecture (slide 7). Hmmm. I like the concept ‘meta-architecture’, which incidentally came up the other day, in a slightly different context – since we’re working a lot with Meta Group, our white paper is influenced by them, and our models and concepts were called “Meta-architecture” by someone. Ah, the joy of language. Ah, the joy of layers of meaning.

  • CoPs in standardisation

    I’m afraid I forgot to mention this, but there is still time: My collegues in our XML group have released a public draft of a new Handbook for Standardization. This “cook book” is in English. Comments are invited.

    One of the key issues in the handbook is about communities of practice (CoPs). I personally think the handbook is missing some points about how CoPs work (where is “learning”?).

    On related issues: I would really like to participate in the International Conference on Communities and Technologies to be held in Amsterdam on 19-21 September 2003. Guess I should write a paper …

  • Architecture in the Service of Business

    I have added a lot of links in GotzeLinked this weekend. Among them a link to Interoperability Clearinghouse (ICH) and the Industry Advisory Council Enterprise Architecture SIG Papers, where I found A Business-Service-Oriented Govt. Architecture. Very interesting read. I especially found the Three Levels of Maturity interesting.

  • e-GIF compliance

    The UK last week announced a new e-GIF Compliance Assessment Service (e-Government Interoperability Framework), which is a subscription-based service that comprises:

    • Up-to-date information and commentary about the developing e-GIF as new versions and updates come through – a news and information service.
    • A downloadable, self-assessment questionnaire tool – to help you perform and record a standardised assessment for your project, product or service.
    • An e-mail help service and FAQ – to help you quickly get up to speed on the e-GIF issues that should concern you.

    Over the coming months, I will be responsible for developing a Danish e-GIF, so maybe I should sign up …

    I am the Danish representative in a new (at least for me) European working group in the IDA-programme which will be looking at a Europe-wide (“federated”) e-GIF. There’s a meeting in this group tomorrow, so I’ll go to Brussels for the day. I wonder how many other countries than UK has a e-GIF? I know France and Germany have similar frameworks.

  • Million-dollar architecture

    InformationWeek – Dire States: Homeland security creates the most pressing reason for standardizing systems and architecture at all levels of government.

    According to the article, Utah is spending $25 million to create a more-integrated, cross-agency enterprise architecture so it can eliminate stovepipe systems that keep agencies from collaborating easily.

  • Data Reference Model

    Phil Windley makes some good points about Federal DRM and Web Services. DRM = Data Reference Model, part of the FEA.

  • Open source book

    Bill Gratsch mentions a new book for sale at Amazon: Government Policy Toward Open Source Software, edited by Robert W Hahn and available for pre-order now. Hahn, of AEI-Brookings Joint Center and Harvard University, is known as a sceptic to open source – together with CompTIA and de Tocqueville Institution, Hahn represented the declared sceptics (“con’s”) at the eGovOS-conference.

    I decided to check Google (which BTW already had picked up Bill’s story). I there found out that the book is available for download on the AEI-Brooking’s website.

    The book consists of an overview/commentary by Hahn and then four individual contributions by James Bessen (Research on Innovation), David S. Evans (National Economic Research Associates), Lawrence Lessig (Stanford University), and Bradford L. Smith (Microsoft Corporation).

  • eGov in Denmark, Part 1

    Jeannette Nielsen, first secretary of science and technology at the Royal Danish Embassy in Washington, D.C., has started spreading the word about Danish e-government in Government Technology International.

    Her first installment there is Denmark Provides Secure Electronic Document Storage for Citizens.

    I’m going to help her with her next article, which will focus on our work with XML and national enterprise architecture.