Category: eGovernment

A first public draft version of the European Interoperability Framework (EIF) is now available.

The eEurope Action Plan 2005 calls on the European Commission ‘to issue an agreed interoperability framework to support the delivery of pan-European eGovernment services to citizens and enterprises. It will address information content and recommend technical policies and specifications for joining up public administration information systems across the EU. It will be based on open standards and encourage the use of open source software’ (Action Plan page 10).

I’m the Danish representative in the working group that created the EIF.

Ted Ritzer refers to a new study from IDC that analyzes spending on egovernment solutions in central and local public administrations. The study finds that with a compound annual growth rate of 8.8% from 2002 to 2007, egovernment will be one of the fastest-growing solution areas in Denmark. From the IDC press release:

But there are many challenges ahead before an efficient digital administration can exist in Denmark. These include political challenges such as the Structural Commission and expected changes to government structures. There are also IT challenges such as integrating applications, developing internal organizations and work processes, and getting more Danes to use digital signatures.

The “Structural Commission”, or the Commission on Administrative Structure, according to our Prime Minister, or the Structure Commission, according to Ritzau, who notes:

Not just a battle over lines on a map, Denmark’s sweeping Structure Reform package will overhaul the way this country’s manages public policy.

The more than 1.600 pages long final report from the Commission is only in Danish, and most of the media coverage about it also only in Danish.

ITEK, the Danish trade association for IT, telecommunications, electronics and communication enterprises commented and argued that the public sector needs to define common IT-standards at a government-wide, enterprise-level. ITB, the trade association for IT-companies, has calculated on what the transition will cost, and argues that the IT industry can look forward to around orders worth 20 billion Danish kroner (around US$3b) over the next 5-7 years.

No wonder Denmark came out numer 1 in IDC’s European eGovernment Services – Country Benchmarking and Market Forecast, 2002-2007. On this, ZDNet UK wrote: Scandinavian countries take e-government lead:

Denmark was best prepared for e-government both in the ability of the government to deliver services online and in the public’s willingness to use them. Sweden and Finland were also well-prepared.

I guess IDC wants to expand on the Danish market 😉 If IDC didn’t charge several $1000s for their report, I’d certainly get it and read it. But seriously, and of course very subjectively, I think we are doing quite well here in Denmark, and for the first time in years, I couldn’t think of a more interesting place to work with e-government issues. Thanks to IDC for confirming this.

So, I looked back at 2003, the year of enterprise architecture, in an earlier post. I’m now in the mod for looking ahead and make a few “predictions” for the new year. What will happen in eGov in 2004? I’ll post some more thoughts on this over the coming days. One for now:

2004 E-Gov Challenge of the Year
Digital Identity Management, which might have won the 2003 award for Most Overlooked Burning Issue of the Year, but hasn’t become less important, on the contrary. Governments are poised to be one of the key players in shared authetication services and can play an important foundational role, as Phil Windley points out in his Digital Identity and eGovernment. Alan Mather has also been writing about the issues recently.

In 2003, we in Denmark rolled out the national Digital Signature offering citizens and businesses public certificates for electronic services. The certificates (OCES) are politically mandated for future online public services, but the banks and other players already have own established solutions and are reluctant to move on to OCES, so we’re clearly not done yet, if anyone thought that was the case. The challenge is that digital identity management is about so much more than digital signatures. The Danish Immigration Service is a web service savvy featured case on LooselyCoupled.com, and a good example of the issues faced.

META Group says it’s a longer journey:

Identity management and security needs will cause an increase in enterprise directory services adoption through 2004, as existing federated directories drive more provisioning and directory integration tool use. Enterprise/extranet directory distinctions will blur through 2005 and beyond, as internal/external identity needs converge. Directory use for some application authorization roles will increase as directory functionality expands. XML will enable component databases (as next-generation directories) and better integration capability (2006-08).

I wouldn’t be sorry to see Nikolaj return to his Digital ID Blog.

Anyone at XML 2003? I’m not, but some of my collegues are, so go listen to Naming and Design Rules for E-Government – The Danish Approach tomorrow! I have tried to get my collegues to blog the conference, but had no such luck. Fortunately, there are several others blogging the conference.

Major news today:

Microsoft launches openness initiative from Denmark:

Denmark is the first country in the world where Microsoft deploys an entirely new policy of openness. This means that millions of documents can be easily and effortlessly exchanged between different IT-systems.
– The new openness around the standards are expected to enhance competition in the software field, says Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation Helge Sander at the presentation of Microsoft’s initiative at a press briefing in Copenhagen today, November 17th.

This is a major step for Microsoft, and we’re rather proud in the office to have been helping them take this step. It’s going to be interesting to see how the rest of the world reacts to this news. The Legal Notice is bound to cause some discussions.

In the report from a conference in UK, my collegue Peter noticed a passage where Jim Haslem reportedly said:

“I actually read the eGIF the other day – nice reading on a quiet evening after a couple of beers. The problem is that I didn’t really know what I was looking at – it was not a lot of use to me, it seemed to be trying to be all things to all people.” The government needs to work to make the eGIF more usable, he said, and the standards body could help with that.”

Jim is chair of the new UK Local e-Government Standards Body.

The Local e-Government Standards Body will:

• research and maintain an information repository of e-Government schemes
• assess how these schemes impact on, and contribute to, local e-Government standards
• compile a standards catalogue by mapping existing standards and identifying gaps to be filled
• ensure that effective action is taken to ensure �standards gaps� are filled
• identify and publicise local e-government projects and best practice
• deliver practical support and high quality advice to Councils, their partners and suppliers on the interpretation and adoption of local e-government standards
• establish processes for agreeing and accrediting local e-government standards and projects that complement the national standards framework.

Local government in Denmark does not have anything like this body. It would be good if they had, I think.

Speaking of eGIF, our Danish Reference Profile will be released really soon now. I’ll take Jim’s point about the usability of an eGIF, and have thought about a few things that could be done. I think we might be able to work together across our national boundaries, and perhaps together make our eGIFs more usable. We could:

• Make joint reference implementations, best practice descriptions, guidelines, etc.
• Offer transnational services for communities of practice and knowledge sharing in general
• Together approach industry vendors and standards organsations in shared issues, e.g., document standards.
• Work together on streamlining our national eGIFs. Collaboration also regarding emerging technologies.
• Coordinate work done in international organisations, such as in the EU, as well as in our various networks, on my part especially in ICA and GOL-IN.

To me, it is important to set the right expectations to an eGIF. That is not just because I as the project manager for the Danish eGIF is “measured” on how well my deliverables meet the expectations, but also because an eGIF is not “all things to all people”, and should not be seen as such. First, it doesn’t even try to say “all things” – only a few important things, such as “use this and that standard” or “it’s time to move on from that standard”. Second, an eGIF does not have “all people” as a target group. It is true that the eGIF – a framework – is “universal” in the sense that it covers in principle all government IT solutions, big and small. But “all peole” should not be taken literaly – an eGIF is aimed at specialists, like those who write requirement specifications and those who build systems. But I know, and I think that Jim knows that too, that the eGIF is and will always be too general to be more than a checklist which could and shoudl guide the decision making process, for example by having the vendor spefify any deviations from the eGIF. An example could be an accessibility declaration: By specifying whether a solution is following WAI guidelines and produces valid (X)HTML etc., much is said.
Then it becomes much easier to do the “stay-or-sway”-dance companies like Gartner Group talk about, and perhaps even to do so at a strategic level.

International Government Navigator points to Deloitte Research’s Citizen Advantage^TM: Enhancing Economic Competitiveness Through e-Government. A quote:

“In the private sector, success is measured by how business creates a competitive advantage to fuel profits and increase shareholder value — but the public sector demands a more holistic view. To be successful, governments must transform themselves into streamlined, efficient organizations; but they must also deliver extraordinary advantages to the citizens and businesses they serve through new levels of efficiency, accessibility and responsiveness.”

Steve pointed to a few e-government journals in his latest DO-WIRE: eGovernment Quarterly and Journal of E-Government. I googled around a bit and found a few other journals: Electronic Journal of eGovernment, International Journal of E-Government, and e-Service Journal. I’m in no particular haste to publish stuff myself, but now I have a few references to throw at PhD-students and others who need/want to publish.

I must admit I don’t read any of these journals. Should I?