This week I’ve had the opportunity to catch up with a number of old friends in Redmond. One of them was with Lorenzo Madrid, he was previously the Regional Technology Officer for Latin America and is now Microsoft’s Director of Interoperability for the Public Sector.
Lorenzo is always has a document or two that he is working on and I thought it might be useful to share three of his recent publications here. Prior to joining Microsoft he held a senior technology role with the government of Brazil, so he has a really clear view of the challenges and opportunities faced by public sector organizations.
The first of the three papers is an ambitious endeavor, it takes a stab at defining interoperability in the context of public sector systems;
The objective of this paper is to provide an initial overview of what ?interoperability? is, define some basic concepts, and present how interoperability has evolved over time since the initial stages of computing. We will also present some best-practice cases in which interoperability was a key element for leveraging successful e-government initiatives. Some basic recommendations will also be presented as a result of observing these cases.
Another objective of this paper is to clarify the difference between the meaning of portability and interoperability as seen by Microsoft, thereby serving as a reference to provide a clear understanding of these two concepts.
The second paper is the same sort of flavor as my “Delivering eGovernment” post from last year, but with science involved. He looks at the many elements that need to be measured as we pursue ROI numbers on investments that are made in complex government and public sector computing systems;
This subject has been object of academic studies in several places around the world. Many research centers dedicate considerable efforts in defining methodologies that allow the evaluation of the investments governments make in IT. The works from the Center for Technology in Government at SUNY1 , the Bedrosian Center on Governance of the USC2, the Dubai School of Government, the Networked Readiness Index produced by the INSEAD3 and the WEF4, as well as many other studies sponsored by UNPAN5 and several other institutions, are the proof of this interest.
The final paper shares a concept that Lorenzo first outlined for me several years ago, looking at the beneficial impact on GDP of interoperable and online systems delivered by Government, looking at elements such as hours saved that can be applied back to more conventional productivity;
Throughout the years, the WITSA study results are clear. Spending on Information and Communications Technology (ICT) is a critically important element of the global economy. The ICT industry is among the most significant driver of the global economy, accounting for US$1.8 trillion in spending in 1997, approximately 6 percent of the global GDP. This is greater than the GDP of France and almost twice the size of the GDP of the state of California. In addition, the study findings suggest that national GDP grows when ICT spending increases and that even in the face of worsening economic conditions, the effect on ICT spending is muted.
All three papers make good background reading for anybody interested in this field.
Sphere: Related Content
I don’t agree with the interoperability paper’s open standard definition on page 18. There is a long struggle on the “political layer” about open standard definitions. The European Commission now rightfully defocuses from the unproductive terminology struggles and moves into the direction of openness promotion or an “openness continuum”. Regardless of definitions it is without doubt that RAND standards are unsuitable for egovernment A2C purposes as they equal a private taxation of third party participation in egovernment
As of the open source discussions I don’t believe that its wise to discuss about the merits of the approach there and rightfully deny on the same page that open standards and open source were the same. I understand that Microsoft had a strong ideological position on open source. It is undeniable that full disclosure of source code documents idiosyncratic standards, implementation inherent methods. So to speak open source implies open standard. As of generic open standard implementations and the solutions variety hell we may observe effects on interoperability (the classic is the Unix world). But I can’t see how the fact that source code is disclosed makes interoperability worse as opposed to a non-disclosure scenario. Disclosure of source code is not the same as “open source” but just an element.
As of SOA, while it may be very fashionable as a paradigm, it tends to move into metaphysics and lacks pragmatism. It is advisable to stay with a layer model.
The praise of the network effect in the third paper is inspiring. However governments need to ensure “contestability”. That phrase basically means you may accept a contestable natural monopoly as emerging from a winner takes all scenario. But “contestability” is a condition. Open Standards are a safeguard for that.
Sometimes disagreement is good Andre, used properly it can lead to fruitful debate.
As developers we live in a well defined binary universe, most of the rest of the world does not. (sadly!)
How is Digistan coming along?
Indeed. The foundation of disagreement is an “opinion”. Usually I counter “positions” which is not the same. What I did really like about the papers of Lorenzo Madrid is their style. They are different. They are clear. They are simple but not too simple.
As of Digistan you probably refer to the visible tip of the iceberg. Right now Digistan and the Domino project are mostly below surface. Given that it’s still summer I am surprise about the intensity of discussions. There will be some public deliverables soon. In any case these are just two projects among many others. For instance I expect the EU Telcom package to offer some opportunities for fruitful plenary input, a potential project under a tight schedule. Here even your company is mostly on the right side of the debate.
So right, this week I focus on getting some Digistan “paper work” done. But my good old friend Benjamin convinced me to work on another upcoming campaign and he would eventually leave tomorrow for a biking trip.
The discovery of these papers was fruitful to get my attention back to my own writing.