A Closer Look At Those “Single Standard” Policy Mandates

The ODF Alliance published a report on 20th December last year that puzzled me a little. The document talked about the steps that governments globally are taking in the debate around XML based document formats, and specifically tried to outline a number of geographies where a governments had made a selection of one standard over another.

This is a debate that I have been intimately involved with over the last couple of years, and reading through the report it struck me that the data didn’t match my own experience of what was taking place in several of the countries represented in the document, presenting a slightly more one sided view than I would have expected.

When I talk to ISVs and our customers I get a picture that aligns far more closely to an interview published in Redmond Developer News today with Alexander Falk, the CEO of Altova.

One of the questions in the article does a good job of characterizing the conversations that I have been having in the commercial and public sectors recently;

Redmond Developer News: You mentioned in our previous talk that Altova has had plenty of inquiries about OOXML support, but none at all for ODF. Does that remain the case today? What kind of interest in ODF are you seeing from your customers and the broader industry?

Alexander Falk: That is still largely the case. In terms of actual customer inquiries regarding need for ODF, we have not seen any interest from our customers. What we did start to see — although very rarely — are questions from customers who are already using our OOXML features and have read articles about OOXML vs. ODF in the press and want to know if we also plan to add ODF support. But I would categorize those few questions as more out of interest rather than out of need or actual plans to implement, from what I can see.

Looking at the list of current policy positions at the bottom of this post and aligning them with recent experience, I think the following three points are worth some ongoing consideration;

1.Technology and Standards will continue to evolve, is is vitally important for any government defining policy in this area that all options are open for exploiting any new innovations as they become available to the market.

2. Achieving interoperability is rarely as straight forward as selecting a single technical standard, and many of the policy positions around the world recognize this. Applications need to be designed to work together, groups need a solid framework for collaboration and the standards need to be ready to support these two objectives.

3. There are plenty of examples from history where the selection of a single standard has not worked out well for organizations. I have some personal experience of this having spent a few years during the 1990s assisting with the deployment of several agency wide x.400 email systems.

Nicos Tsilas and I did a little further research into some of the claims made by the ODF Alliance in this document, from what we could find the majority of countries do seem to be supporting multiple standards.

I’m not sure that the ODF Alliance have mischaracterized anything in their report, but they do seem to only be telling half of the story in most cases.

Below is a round up relating to many of the countries listed in the 20th December report, you’ll find more information in a recently published fact sheet over on openxmlcommunity.org;

Switzerland: Standards group includes Open XML and ODF in policy

Switzerland has adopted updated technical guidelines for the implementation of e-government applications and recommends using both ODF and Open XML. The two standards were approved by Switzerland’s eCH expert committee following a public hearing on June 22, 2007.

Denmark: Broad-ranging national agreement embraces both Open XML and ODF

In September 2007, the Danish Government, Local Government Denmark, and Danish Regions concluded an agreement on the use of mandatory open standards for software in the public sector. Under the agreement, all public authorities, starting on January 1, 2008, are to use seven sets of open standards for new IT solutions, including Open XML and ODF for document formats.

Malaysia: Refuses to mandate a document format standard

According to reports, Datuk Dr. Mohamad Ariffin Aton, Chief Executive of the Malaysian standards body, Sirim, said there is no chance of ODF or Open XML being made a mandatory standard in Malaysia, for two reasons. First, a standard can only be mandatory when public health or safety is at stake, which is clearly not the case here, he said. Second, a mandatory standard would constitute an illicit non-tariff barrier against software products using other document formats. Ariffin said this would violate Malaysia’s commitments to free trade under the World Trade Organization. He added, “Ultimately, it is up to the general public and users in both the public and private sectors to decide which format they want to use.”

Sweden: Official inquiry considers but rejects ODF preference

An officially sponsored inquiry into standardization in the IT field resulted in this report which considered but rejected an ODF preference.

Poland: Requires neutrality and prohibiting preferences in technical procurement decisions

The National Computerization Program (“NCP”) for 2007-2010, which is a regulation implementing Poland’s IT Act, establishes technological neutrality as a central requirement. The NCP establishes this key priority to ensure equal treatment of different IT solutions in public administration systems, and to avoid preferences and discrimination among any of them.

Japan: Urges consideration of multiple standards in procurement decisions

Japan issued new procurement Guidelines for IT in July 2007, establishing compliance with “open international standards” as one criterion among others to be considered in awarding government contracts. In a public statement, the government agency in charge of drafting the new rules stated that the Guidelines did not specify one standard over another and that there was no intent in formulating the Guidelines to rule out procurement of Microsoft products.  Separately, the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (“METI”) circulated a draft “framework for interoperability” that lists ODF as an example of an “open international standard,” but the document was not adopted as government policy.  Moreover, the framework specifically urged the consideration of “multiple standards” in reaching procurement decisions.

Italy: Repeatedly rejects preferences in open document formats

Various regional governments in Italy have been looking at open formats generally. None of those bills has gained much support, however. At a central level, there has also been some discussion of the adoption of ODF, but no formal action has been taken. Several organizations in Italy have considered ODF preferences, but decided against them. The National Trade Association recently made a public statement on format neutrality.

Korea: Makes ODF optional

While Korea approved ODF as a national standard, the ODF Alliance has acknowledged that Korea has refrained from making its use by government agencies compulsory.

The Netherlands: Multiple document formats can coexist

In November 2007, the Netherlands announced an inclusive approach to open standards, under which ODF will be used alongside “other document formats already in use.” Specifically, the central government must be able to read, write, and exchange documents in the ODF format by April 2008. However, ODF use is not exclusive, and the government will create a series of lists of recognized standards using a definition that should sweep in competing formats, including Open XML, culminating in the complete list by mid-2008.

Russia: Supports “widely used standards”

Russia has not implemented a national document format, but instead has taken steps to mandate use of software that supports “widely used standards.” Russia’s broad language provides the freedom to allow competing standards to thrive. In this spirit, Russia voted Yes for ISO/IEC DIS 29500 (Ecma Office Open XML) and has also agreed to include ODF as part of an updated National Standardization Program.

Norway: Chooses an open-minded preference for open standards

The Norwegian government has decided to promote the use of open standards in the public sector through a gradual, phased-in implementation and expansion of an “Open Standards List.” While Open XML is not yet included in Norway’s list of approved standards, the government did not mandate the exclusive use of ODF and remains open to evaluating and including other standards. Microsoft is working with the Norwegian government and expects Open XML to join the list of permissible standards by January 1, 2009 (the date when the mandate for use of open standards takes effect).

Belgium: Enacts a transition to interoperability

In Belgium, the government approved use of ODF in July 2006. Since then, the government has been using plug-ins to enable Microsoft Office to read and save files in ODF — an even-handed approach that acknowledges that different formats can coexist and interoperate to meet different needs. Contrary to the suggestions of the ODF Alliance and others, the Belgian government’s decision on ODF is not preferential or exclusive, and Open XML, once standardized by ISO, will be considered as a new open standard and added to Belgium’s list.

France: ODF Alliance mischaracterizes government as favoring ODF

Although the ODF Alliance has claimed that France has established a preference for ODF, this is not true and is just the latest example of this group and other ODF enthusiasts playing fast and loose with the facts. The reality is that, while there is indeed a debate about mandating ODF inside the French e-Government interoperability framework task force, local and state governments and their national professional organizations are deeply hostile to such a policy given its likely negative impact on their total cost of ownership for software purchases. This is why the last meeting of the e-Government interoperability framework committee (10/12/07) ended with a lack of consensus. The next meeting is not expected to take place until the spring of 2008.

Croatia: Is open to Multiple Standards

As part of its eCroatia program, Croatia announced that it will adopt ODF and PDF as a basis for electronic document exchange by public administrations. While Open XML is not yet included in Croatia’s list of approved standards, the government did not mandate the exclusive use of ODF and remains open to evaluating and including other standards. Microsoft is working with the Croatian government and expects Open XML to join the list of permissible standards over the next several months. Croatia’s approach here is consistent with its established policy of technical neutrality and choice in the purchase of open source and proprietary software.

Germany: Allows technology-neutral advancement of standards

In August 2007, Germany voted to approve with comments ISO’s adoption of Open XML. Gerd Schürman, Director of the Fraunhofer FOKUS eGovernment Laboratory, favored Germany’s decision: “The standardization process of Open XML as an ISO standard will start now and result in the technological advancement of both standards, Open XML and ODF 1.0.”

U.S. STATES

Massachusetts: Supports open document format standards without vendor or commercial bias

In August 2007, Massachusetts added Open XML to its Enterprise Technical Reference Model’s (“ETRM”) list of approved standards, defeating calls for an ODF-mandate. In a joint statement, Massachusetts undersecretary of administration and finance, Henry Dormitzer, and the commonwealth’s acting chief information officer, Bethann Pepoli, explained that concerns about competing document standards were “outweighed substantially by the benefits of moving toward open, XML-based” standards. The ETRM articulates a vision of a service-oriented architecture where information can be shared, reused and repurposed based on XML technologies … The availability of open, standardized XML document formats without vendor bias will move us further along in realizing this vision.”

Texas: ODF implementation costs too high and credibility too low

High implementation costs helped to scuttle legislation that would have required ODF for electronic documents in Texas. A Financial Impact Report put the five-year cost of documents and applications connected to ODF in the hundreds of millions of dollars. While press reports indicated that ODF proponents privately relayed “gleaming” reports about ODF implementation in Massachusetts to Texas legislators, the same proponents refused to clarify publicly under oath that only a handful of computers in Massachusetts had actually been converted to ODF. This lack of credibility led Texas legislators, including Jonathan Mathers, chief clerk for the Committee on Government Reform in the Texas House of Representatives, to start to “question the whole bill.”

Florida: Interoperability, not premature snap judgments, should be key

In November 2007, the Florida Senate Committee on Governmental Operations acknowledged that the “most important issue for agencies choosing technology is not whether that system is proprietary or open source but whether that system is interoperable.” The Florida House Committee on Audit & Performance agreed and asserted that it is “premature” to adopt a document format standard “before an industry-wide national standard has been established.”

Minnesota: No standard mandates without careful study

The need for careful study trumped the urge for premature mandates when the Minnesota legislature opted to engage in careful study of document format standards instead of requiring state agencies to use ODF. Don Betzold, an original sponsor of the bill, questioned whether he and other Minnesota legislators had enough expertise at all to choose the technical standard: “I wouldn’t know an open document format if it bit me on the butt,” Betzold said. “We’re public policy experts. [Picking technical standards] is not our job.”

Oregon: ODF is too expensive to implement

The high costs associated with conversion to ODF contributed to the failure of legislation introduced in the Oregon House after Oregon’s secretary of state questioned the cost of converting to applications that support open formats.

Others States: Saying no to document format preferences

Efforts to require use of certain open document formats failed to gain support in California and Connecticut as well.