Study on Good Practice in Interoperability

							Study on Good Practice in Interoperability
Efthimios Tambouris CERTH/ITI

Bordeaux, 22nd March 2006

Contents
•
•

Overview
– – Contents of Study Approach

Analysis so far
– – – – Status of IOP Key factors and Barriers Stakeholders’ needs Statistical facts of selected cases
Status of IOP: other MS Analysis of Cases Your involvement: Feedback

•

Next Steps
– – –

Overview
• One of the project’s objectives is to “conduct a good practice study for interoperability at local and regional level” • The Study is conducted in an incremental manner • A new version is issued every 4 months • So far, the first three versions have been prepared • The fourth version is due at the end of April and will also consider the Workshop results

Methodology
• Iterative and incremental • 4 input streams:
– – – – Bibliography Good practice cases Stakeholders’ needs Stakeholders’ feedback
Status, CSF, Barriers and Recommendations
Bi bl io rg ap hy

Study v. 6 (1/07) 12

s' er hld ack e ak db St ee F

Study v. 4 (5/06) 8

Study v. 2 (9/05) 4

IOP Analysis and Understanding

11

7

3

1

5

9

IOP Analysis and Understanding

2 Study v. 1 (5/05)

6 Study v. 3 (1/06)
e tic ac Pr es d s oo Ca G

Sta

10 Study v. 5 (9/06)

ke Ne hlde ed rs' s

Status, CSF, Barriers and Recommendations Steps and Milestones:  1: Identify IOP levels 2: Overview of CSF, barriers etc  3: Derive Analysis Framework  4: Identify IOP-Specific CSF, barriers etc.  5: Focus on Organisational Aspects 6: Organisational-Specific CSF, barriers etc. 7: Focus on Semantic Aspects 8: Semantic-Specific CSF, barriers etc. 9: Focus on Technical Aspects 10: Technical-Specific CSF, barriers etc. 11 Final analysis of all input information 12: Final Synthesis of Results

Contents of Study • • • • • • • • Introduction Status of IOP in Member States Key Success Factors Barriers Recommendations Conclusions Appendix A: Methodology Appendix B: Case Studies Profile

Approach
• The Study:
– Will be based on relevant bibliography – Will consider good practice cases – Will consider Stakeholder’s needs – Will take into account Stakeholder’s comments

Top-down (literature):

• CSF and barriers in egov environment • CSF and barriers in egov projects • eGov bibliography (one-stop gov, joined-up gov, service delivery models, etc.) • IOP bibliography

Stakeholders:

• Information Needs • Feedback to Study

Study Framework

Bottom-up (cases):

• Analysis of good practice cases

Template for drafting MS IOP Profile Why Who
Strategy
National
Influence

Local

Actors

National, Local, Ministries, Committees, Bodies, Councils, etc

How
What

Methods

Projects, Laws/Decisions, Initiatives, Best Practices

Products and Services

Reports, Guidelines, Web Sites, Documents, Demos, Applications

Contents
• • Overview
– – – – – – Contents of Study Approach Status of IOP Key factors and Barriers Stakeholders’ needs Statistical facts of selected cases Status of IOP: other MS Analysis of Cases Your involvement: Feedback

Analysis so far

•

Next Steps
– – –

Status of IOP in MS • So far, the Status IOP Template (Why, Who, How, What) has been used for the UK • Next versions will include Austria, Cyprus, Greece, The Netherlands and Germany.

An example: UK Why Who
Strategy
“Transformational Government Enabled by Technology” “e-Government Interoperability Framework”

“The national strategy for local e-government”

Actors

Local e-Government Standards Body

Office of the eEnvoy

How What

Methods

Local Authority Smartcard Standards EOrganisation (LASSEO)

Products and Services

Custodian

Local government XML-schemas

Key factors and Barriers • • • • eGovernment key factors and barriers eGovernment IOP definition IOP Aspects IOP key factors and barriers

eGovernment CSF & Barriers
Project level
CSF •External pressure •Internal political desire •Overall vision and strategy •Effective project management •Effective change management •Effective design •Requisite competencies •Adequate technological infrastructure

Environment level
•Vision/political will •Awareness and commitment •Integration •Information society competencies •Common frameworks/collaboration •Harmonisation •Avoiding external barriers •Encouraging collaboration •Customer focus •Customer demand and engagement •Responsibility •Standards •Strengthening privacy and security •Legislative and regulatory barriers, •Financial barriers, •Technological barriers and the digital divide •Differences in administrative structures and procedures •Skills barriers •Language including differences in terminology, and the use of jargon

Barriers

•Lack of internal drivers •Lack of vision and strategy •Poor project management •Poor change management •Dominance of politics and self-interest •Poor/unrealistic design •Lack of requisite competencies •Inadequate technological infrastructure •Technological incompatibilities

eGovernment IOP
eGovernment Interoperability is the ability of public authorities’ ICT systems and business processes to share information and knowledge within and across organisational boundaries in order to better support the provision of public services as well as strengthen support to public policies and to democratic processes

IOP aspects (EIF)
• Technical interoperability
This aspect of interoperability covers the technical issues of linking computer systems and services.

• Semantic interoperability
This aspect of interoperability is concerned with ensuring that the precise meaning of exchanged information is understandable by any other application that was not initially developed for this purpose.

• Organisational interoperability
This aspect of interoperability is concerned with defining business goals, modelling business processes and bringing about the collaboration of administrations that wish to exchange information and may have different internal structures and processes

IOP aspects (our view) • Technical IOP aspects • Semantic IOP aspects • Organisational IOP aspects
– Service/process-related IOP aspects – Broader organisational IOP aspects (political, legal, cultural, skills etc)

IOP CSF and Barriers
Project level
CSF •External pressure •Internal political desire •Overall vision and strategy •Effective project management •Effective change management •Effective design •Requisite competencies •Adequate technological infrastructure

Environment level
•Vision/political will •Awareness and commitment •Integration •Information society competencies •Common frameworks/collaboration •Harmonisation •Avoiding external barriers •Encouraging collaboration •Customer focus •Customer demand and engagement •Responsibility •Standards •Strengthening privacy and security •Legislative and regulatory barriers, •Financial barriers, •Technological barriers and the digital divide •Differences in administrative structures and procedures •Skills barriers •Language including differences in terminology, and the use of jargon

Barriers

•Lack of internal drivers •Lack of vision and strategy •Poor project management •Poor change management •Dominance of politics and self-interest •Poor/unrealistic design •Lack of requisite competencies •Inadequate technological infrastructure •Technological incompatibilities

Semantic challenges
• Different labels (e.g. Name-Surname) for the same content. • Different formats of data or units of measure (e.g. 12/3/2005 versus 3/12/2005). • Different structure for the same content (e.g. Address field versus Str_name, Str_num). • Different abstractions are used to model the same domain (Is Car a top class or a kind of Vehicle?)

Semantic IOP factors
• Semantic IOP factors
1. Develop common and global definitions/ representations for eGovernment semantics (ontology) 2. Use “Citizen-friendly metadata” 3. Maintain the semantic definitions 4. Information modelling based on reality and not on legal concepts 5. One-time data collection 6. Overpass semantic obstacles and mismatches

Organisational IOP factors - 1
• Broader organisational IOP aspects
1. International aspects 2. Intellectual properties 3. Legal alignment 4. Risks for early adopters 5. Adoption of Standards 6. Clear and long term vision 7. National eGovernment strategy and programmes 8. Diffusion of digital signature 9. Partnering with the private sector

Organisational IOP factors - 2
• Broader organisational IOP aspects
10.Public procurement and financing 11.Focusing on business issues 12.Re-invent versus re-engineer 13.Managing interoperability 14.Clear project leadership/sponsorship/ownership 15.Broad commitment, participation and communication 16.Willingness for cultural change at all partners 17.Staff Training 18.Organisational federalism

Organisational IOP factors - 3
• Service/process-related IOP aspects
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Linking service models to business models Service Modelling and Visualisation User involvement Managing the message order (Re-)Using knowledge from the private sector domain Identification of common service functionality and features Multi-channel service delivery Ownership and responsibility for cross-organisational processes Discovering, matchmaking, composing, invoking and monitoring web services

Stakeholders’ Needs

• 67 questionnaires gathered in WP1 from interested parties from:
– Local & Regional Government – National Government – Industry – Academia

• Highest ranking items are taken into consideration

Priorities of Stakeholders
No. of questionnaires marked as most important

Category

State and society (eParticipation, eDemocracy, civil society) Social affairs (health, social security etc.) General purpose Police, security and justice Education, science and research Environment, agriculture consumer protection Economy and labour Infrastructure (transportation, construction and housing) and pensions,

14 11 10 6 4 4 2 1

State and Society Social affairs General Purpose Police, security and justice Education, science and research Environment and agriculture Economy and labour Infrastructure Taxes

Taxes and customs

0

IOP Knowledge Needs and interest in integration
Overall Organisational IOP Semantic IOP
Organisational IOP Semantic IOP Technical IOP

29 29 16

Technical IOP
Overall

Mixed vertical and horizontal Between authorities at the same level of government (horizontal)

34 15

Between authorities at different countries
Between authorities at different levels of government (vertical) No integration, we are interested projects within one authority in

15
14 1
Mixed Different Countries Within One Authority Horizontal Vertical

Interest in IOP projects
Overall

Projects where interoperability is achieved between different stages of a service that involve different authorities
Projects aiming to data sharing by different authorities Projects where the aim is to build common repositories of services, meta data, directories etc.

24

17 15
Different stages-different authorities

Projects where auxiliary services (e.g. payment, authentication) are integrated that are common to many authorities
Projects aiming to data sharing by same authorities in different areas (or regions)

8

Data sharing by different authorities Common repositories Integration of auxiliary services Data sharing by same authorities

6

Organisational Model

Overall Direct bi-lateral or direct multilateral communication between authorities according to standardized interfaces and procedures

28

A central unit which defines the protocols and procedures for communication with many local units
A clearing house (or broker or intermediary) which transforms and adapts different formats and procedures between the units involved

Direct communication Central unit Clearing House

21

21

Other concerns to IOP

Overall Security, e.g. encryptions etc. signatures, 24 19 15 8
Security Legal Cultural Social

Legal, e.g. changes in laws, regulations etc. Cultural, e.g. resistance from public servants etc. Social, e.g. social inclusion etc.

Interest in IOP projects
Overall Between authorities from all three sectors (public, private and third sector) Between public authorities only

32 18

Between public authorities and the private sector
Between public authorities and the third sector, e.g. non-public and nongovernmental organisations

16
9
Between authorities from all sectors Between public authorities

Between the private sector and the third sector, e.g. non-public and non-profit including non-governmental organisations
No partnerships, we are interested in projects within one authority

0 0

Between public authorities and the private sector Between public authorities and the third sector

Interest in phases of IOP projects
Overall

How to conceptualise an IOP project, e.g. what to consider, potential, objective, barriers How to implement an IOP project, e.g. technologies, issues to consider, risks etc. Strategic plan, e.g. benefits, policy etc. How to disseminate and promote the results to politicians and decision makers How to set up an IOP project, e.g. guidelines, resources, support, business plan etc. How to create awareness of users and take-up

23

16 15 11
Conceptualisation

8

Implementation Strategic Plan Dissemination Set up Create User Awareness

4

Statistical Facts about Good-Practice Cases

• So far, 109 good practice cases have been collected • Information on each is available about:
– – – – – – – – Whether they involve Cross-border services or not Category of Public eServices for citizens Category of Public eServices for businesses Level of organisations involved Main layers of IOP covered IOP requirement Organisational model Service provision model

Levels of organisation involved
Levels of organisations involved

local national regional ministry company educational establishment

86 72 67 47 33 21

Local National Regional Ministry Company Educational Establishment Health Care Pan-European Not-for-profit organisations Standardisation Bodies Non-European

health care
pan-european not-for-profit organizations standardisation bodies

12
12 8 6

non-european actors

4

0

20

40

60

80

100

Cross-border and IOP layers

Percent Not cross-border Cross-border 90 10
Not CrossBorder Cross-Border

Main layers of IOP covered
organisational IOP 75 68,8%
Organisational IOP

technical IOP
Semantic IOP Syntactic IOP

65
63 57

59,6%
57,8% 52,3%

Technical IOP

Semantic IOP

Syntactic IOP

0

20

40

60

80

Service Provision Model and Organisational Model
Service Provision Model Front-office / Back-office Back-office / Back-office Front-office / Front-office 72 65 29 66,1% 59,6% 26,6%
FrontOffice/Backoffice Backoffice/Backoffice Frontoffice/Frontoffice 0 20 40 60 80

Organisational Model

Standardised workflow
Centralisation Clearinghouse Not Clear

34 31,2%
33 30,3% 33 30,3% 6 5,5%
Standardised workflow Clearing house Centralisation Not Clear

Interoperability Models
Interoperability model
1a - IOP between different services referring to the same customer and resorting to common data (within the same public administration) 1b1 - IOP between different services referring to the same customer and resorting to common data (within different public administrations on same gov. level ) 1b2 - IOP between different services referring to the same customer and resorting to common data (within different public administrations on different gov. levels) 2 - IOP between different stages of a supply chain producing one or more services 3a - IOP between same agencies in different geographical areas providing the same service (between 2 agencies) 3b - IOP between same agencies in different geographical areas providing the same service (between several agencies) 3c - IOP between same agencies in different geographical areas providing the same service (between all agencies) 4 - IOP between directories of services or documents 5a - IOP supporting auxiliary services. One auxiliary service is applicable to different services or to one service provided by different agencies 5b - IOP supporting auxiliary services. Different auxiliary services of different services or the same services of different agencies are interoperable

Cases
10 18

Cases for each main category

%

63

57,8%

35

43 0 12 10 17 26

43

39,5%

22

20,2%

17

15,6%

38 12

34,9%

Contents
•
•

Overview
– – Contents of Study Approach

Analysis so far
– – – – Status of IOP Key factors and Barriers Stakeholders’ needs Statistical facts of selected cases
Status of IOP: other MS Analysis of Cases Your involvement: Feedback

•

Next Steps
– – –

Future Work • Next version (D25) will include:
– Categorization of key success factors and barriers – Update on status of IOP in MS: Analysis for further Member States (e.g. the Netherlands, Austria, Germany, Greece, Cyprus, …)

Your involvement • You are invited to download the current version of the Study from the eGovernment Good Practice Framework Web site • The next version of the Study will also include a short questionnaire • Feel free to contact us for comments/ ideas/ suggestions etc.

Thank you

Thank you for your attention!

Efthimios Tambouris tambouris@uom.gr