the governance of interoperablity in intergovernmental ... · • civil registration in austria •...
Post on 23-Mar-2019
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
The Governance of Interoperablityin Intergovernmental eServicesg
Towards an Empirical TaxonomyTowards an Empirical Taxonomy
Prof. Dr. Herbert Kubicek
University of Bremen, Germany
PISTA 2008
Outline
• Defining Concepts: interoperability (IOP), integration, centralization standardization interorganizationalcentralization, standardization, interorganizational information systems (IOS)
• Different layers of interoperability in IOP FrameworksDifferent layers of interoperability in IOP Frameworks
• Heterogeneous definition of organizational IOP
• Differentiations of three distinct dimensions• What, Who and How: Governance of negotiations and
tioperations• Empirical Indicators
Application to Good Practice Cases collected in the EU
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 2
• Application to Good Practice Cases collected in the EU Modinis Study on IOP
Importance of Interoperability p p yin eGovernment
• High consensus among eGOV-practitioners and researchers that:researchers that:• Interoperability (IOP) between different systems and
applications is a crucial factor for improvingapplications is a crucial factor for improving effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery,
• More comfort for customers at the front-office and more efficiency require linking different systems at the back-office
• For example One Stop Service Portals• For example One-Stop-Service Portals
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 3
Definition of IOP• Interoperability means the ability of information and communication technology (ICT)
systems, and of the business processes they support to exchange data and to enable the sharing of information and knowledge. [ref. EIF v.1.0]g g [ ]
• Interoperability is the ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged [IEEE 90].
• In Telecommuication• In Telecommuication
• 1. The ability of systems, units, or forces to provide services to and accept services from other systems, units or forces and to use the services exchanged to enable them to operate effectively togetherexchanged to enable them to operate effectively together.
• 2. The condition achieved among communications-electronics systems or items of communications-electronics equipment when information or services can be exchanged directly and satisfactorily between them and/or their users. The degree of interoperability should be defined when referring to specific cases.
• Source: from Federal Standard 1037C and from the Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms in support of MIL-STD-188.
• Klischewski and Scholl suggest to call the condition achieved interoperation“
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 4
Klischewski and Scholl suggest to call the condition achieved „interoperation
Three Basic Situations WhereThree Basic Situations Where Interoperability Is Needed
• Between different servicesreferring to the same customer
• Between different stages of a• Between different stages of a supply chain producing one or more services
• Between same agencies in• Between same agencies in different geographical areas
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 5
Importance of Interoperability p p yin eGovernment
• Traditionally each governmental unit runs its own ICT system more or less governed by some commonsystem, more or less governed by some common rules within certain domains of jurisdiction
• Achieving the objectives of eGovernment requiresAchieving the objectives of eGovernment requires linking these autonomous systems to a larger intergovernmental ISg• either by integrating them into one big system
(centralization) or• by connceting them to a federated system by adhering
to certain standards
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 6
Modes of Linking Formerly g ySeparate Systems
??
Integration bycentralization
Direct
multi-
lateral
exchange
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 7Standardization
Process And Data Integration
IOS for Process-Integration Data-Integration
by
(Supply Chaines) (Information Sharing)
Centralization
Standardization IOP in a more narrow sense
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 8
Interoperability FrameworksInteroperability Frameworks
• IOP Frameworks shall provide guidance of what has to be made interoperableto be made interoperable
• Most IOP Frameworks structure the whole field in different layers:different layers:• E.g. Technical, Semantic and Organisational IOP
• The quality of knowledge about IOP varies strongly• The quality of knowledge about IOP varies strongly for the different aspects of IOP
• Considering barriers and success factors experts• Considering barriers and success factors, experts agree that achieving organisational IOP is the biggest challenge
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 9
challenge
Four Layers of IOP
Layer of interoperability
Aim Objects Solutions State of Knowledge
Technical i t bilit
Technically d t
1. Signals Protocols of data t f
Fully developed Signalsinteroperability secure data
transfer transfer
Syntactical interoperability
Processing of received data
Data Standardized data exchange formats,
Fully developed
g
p y ge.g. XML
Semantic interoperability
Processing and interpretation of received data
Information Common directories, data keys ontologies
Theoretically developed, but practicalreceived data keys, ontologies practicalimplementation problems
Organizational i t bilit
Automatic li k f
Processes ( kfl )
Architectural d l
Still lack of t l l itinteroperability linkage of
processes among different systems
(workflow) models,standardized process elements
conceptual clarity,vague concepts with large scope of interpretation
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 10
y pTable 1: Four Layers of Interoperability
Definitions of Organizational IOP (1)
EUROPEAN INTEROPERABILITY FRAMEWORK (IDABC )(IDABC )
• Organisational interoperability is concerned with "defining business processes and bringing aboutdefining business processes and bringing about the collaboration of administrations that wish to exchange information and may have different internal g ystructures as well as aspects related to requirements of the user community" (p. 16).
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 11
Definitions of Organisational IOP (2)EUROPEAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION NETWORK (EPAN)• Organisational interoperability "is concerned with the
di ti d li t f b i dcoordination and alignment of business processes and information architectures that span both intra- and interorganisational boundaries [...] It is suggested that administrations could develop an exemplar scheme that wouldadministrations could develop an exemplar scheme that would define standard approaches to each of the main requirements of any public service […]; that common functionality could be provided on a shared basis through a broker service to reduce d l t d l t d ti l t t th blidevelopment, deployment and operational costs to the public administration and to each service fulfilment agency, and to ensure consistency of experience for users of services across all agencies in the public sector through the use of agreedall agencies in the public sector through the use of agreed standards across all services; […]; and that each administration could develop a central programme of organisation development assistance and funding to bring this change about " p 5/6
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 12
change about." p. 5/6.
Definitions of Organisational IOP (3)
EUROPEAN TELECOMMUNICATION STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ETSI)( )
• "Organisational interoperability, as the name implies, is the ability of organisations to effectively communicate and transfer (meaningful) data (information) even though they may be using a variety of different information systemsvariety of different information systemsoverwidely different infrastructures, possibly across different geographic regions and cultures. O i ti l i t bilit d d f lOrganisational interoperability depends on successful technical, syntactical and semantic interoperability" (p. 6).
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 13
(p )
Problem of Definitions of Organizational IOP
• Definitions for organisational IOP in Frameworks, White Papers etc are much more heterogeneousWhite Papers etc. are much more heterogeneousthan for semantic or technical IOP,
• The assigned issues of organizational IOP are muchThe assigned issues of organizational IOP are much more vague, and
• There are almost no classifications of options• There are almost no classifications of optionsavailable for solving these issues.
This is the objective of an ongoing research project funded by the German Research Association, building on previous data collection within studies for the European
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 14
building on previous data collection within studies for the European Commission
Evolution of Interoperability p yFrameworks (1)
ORGANISATIONAL IOPLegislationContracts
Supporting infrastructure
Concepts and methods are still
Simple 3 or 4 Layers
SEMANTIC IOP
Coordination of business processesSupporting infrastructure
Concepts and
not specifiedFrameworks
(interpretation of exchanged data, e.g. EDIFACT invoice, UBL invoice)
Concepts and methods available,problems in implementationSYNTACTIC IOP implementationTECHNICAL / SYNTACTIC IOP
(linking of computer systems, e.g. HTTP, SMTP, HTML, XML )
SYNTACTIC IOP(standards for data exchange
formats, e.g. XML, HTML, EDIFACT)
TECHNICAL IOP(standards, protocols for data
communication e g HTTP SMTP
Well developed and implemented
EDIFACT)
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 15
communication, e.g. HTTP, SMTP, ISDN, GSM, UMTS)
Evolution of Interoperability F k (2)Frameworks (2)
ORGANISATIONAL IOP
Coordination of business processes
Contracts
WHO WHAT
The EPAN ORGANISATIONAL IOPWorkflow integration,
web services
CE
Legislation Framework introduced „Governance“ Governance of
SEMANTIC IOP(interpretation of exchanged data,
e.g. EDIFACT invoice, UBL invoice)RN
AN
C „as a separate, cross-cutting dimension
IOP is concerned with political, legal and
TECHNICAL / SYNTACTIC IOP(linking of computer systems, e.g.
HTTP SMTP HTML XML )
SYNTACTIC IOP(standards for data exchange
formats, e.g. XML, HTML,
GO
VE
dimensionstructural conditions, which are
TECHNICAL IOP(standards protocols for data
HTTP, SMTP, HTML, XML )formats, e.g. XML, HTML, EDIFACT)relevant for
developing and using i t bl
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 16
(standards, protocols for data communication, e.g. HTTP, SMTP,
ISDN, GSM, UMTS)
interoperable applications
Governance of IOP
basic forms of governance
for semantic, syntactic, technical
for organizationalIOP
governance
MARKETS
IOPindustry standards, bi-/multi lateral contracts
MARKETS
HIERARCHIES
de facto standards
legislationnew institutions by legislationHIERARCHIES
NETWORKS
legislation
standardisation bodies
legislation
new (voluntary) institutions by written orNETWORKS standardisation bodies institutions by written or de facto behaviour
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 17
Governance of IOP StandardsGovernance of IOP Standards
O G f
ORGANISATIONAL IOPW kfl i t ti
user/expert/industry associations,
WHO WHAT Governance of IOP Standards is different for the
Workflow integration, web services
CE
,negotiations, legislation
four layers, i.e. the kind of standards.
SEMANTIC IOP(interpretation of exchanged data,
e.g. EDIFACT invoice, UBL invoice)RN
AN
C user/expert/industry associations, legislation
Again: What happens with
TECHNICAL / SYNTACTIC IOP(linking of computer systems, e.g.
HTTP SMTP HTML XML )
SYNTACTIC IOP(standards for data exchange
formats, e.g. XML, HTML,
GO
VE telecom. standard./ Internet bodies, industry associa-
regard to the two lower layers is well understood,
TECHNICAL IOP(standards protocols for data
HTTP, SMTP, HTML, XML )formats, e.g. XML, HTML, EDIFACT)tions, legislation
telecommunication t d di ti d
but not so regarding semantic and
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 18
(standards, protocols for data communication, e.g. HTTP, SMTP,
ISDN, GSM, UMTS)
standardisation and Internet bodies
semantic and organizational IOP
Empirical Investigation
Based on Good Practice Cases in 2 Studies on IOP for the European Commission
drawing from 3 eEurope Award nominees plus
a survey among national eGovernment experts in member states proposing cases which have been checked by a research team
33 cases have been written up (http://www.egov-iop.ifib.de)
9 are cases of integration by centralization24 f IOP b t d di ti24 are cases of IOP by standardization
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 19
Esxamples of IOP Cases
• e-enabled Irish Child Benefit Service• Social Security Benefits for Citizens in Belgium (Crossroads
Bank)Civil Registration in Austria• Civil Registration in Austria
• Company Registration in Sweden• eProcurement and eInvoicing in Denmark• eProcurement and eInvoicing in Denmark• eInvoicing in Finland – the Region of South Karelia• Kadaster-on-line: Direct Access to Land-registry Products Kadaster on line: Direct Access to Land registry Products
in The Netherlands• Interoperability in Electronic Identification eID in Estonia
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 20
Basic Insight From Case I tiInspection
There is not one governance form per case.G f IOP i h d d
Conceptualization
Governance of IOP is phase dependentp
LegitimazationWhat kind of rules is
What has to be made interoperable, how and by whom ? ImplementationWhat kind of rules is
appropriate and feasable to enact the architecture
y- architecture,- stakeholders
ImplementationWho is to put the plan into operation, who shall be responsiblethe architecture
and get units to adhere
shall be responsible for theoperation and maintenance of the
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 21
maintenance of the IOS
Governance of IOPConceptualization Phase
ConceptualizationLegitimi ationWhat has to be
made interoperable, how and by whom ?
hit tImplementationWho is to put the plan
LegitimizationWhat kind of rules is appropriate and feasible to enact the architecture- architecture,
- stakeholdersWho is to put the plan into operation, who shall be responsible for the
to enact the architecture and get units to adhere
for theoperation and maintenance of the IOS
WHO Existing institution
New
institution IOSinstitution
Permanent
Temporary
Degree of represenation
of different stakeholers
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 22
of different stakeholers
Governance of IOPConceptualization Phase
ConceptualizationLegitimi ationWhat has to be
made interoperable, how and by whom ?
hit tImplementationWho is to put the plan
LegitimizationWhat kind of rules is appropriate and feasible to enact the architecture- architecture,
- stakeholdersWho is to put the plan into operation, who shall be responsible for the
to enact the architecture and get units to adhere
for theoperation and maintenance of the IOS
WHO Existing institution
New
institution IOSinstitution
Permanent 15 2
Temporary 1 5
Degree of represenation None 3
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 23
of different stakeholers
None 3Pilot 9All 12
Governance of IOPLegitimization Phase
Conceptualization
N e g o t i a t i n g
Legitimi ationWhat has to be made interoperable, how and by whom ?
hit t Implementation
LegitimizationWhat kind of rules is appropriate and feasible to enact the architecture- architecture,
- stakeholders
ImplementationWho is to put the plan into operation, who shall be responsible
to enact the architecture and get units to adhere
s a be espo s b efor theoperation and maintenance of the
Mandatory (Obligation)
Optional (Recommendation)
IOSLaw, Ordinance
Contract,
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 24
,agreement
Governance of IOPLegitimization Phase
Conceptualization
N e g o t i a t i n g
Legitima ationWhat has to be made interoperable, how and by whom ?
hit t Implementation
LegitimazationWhat kind of rules is appropriate and feasible to enact the architecture- architecture,
- stakeholders
ImplementationWho is to put the plan into operation, who shall be responsible
to enact the architecture and get units to adhere
s a be espo s b efor theoperation and maintenance of the
Mandatory (Obligation)
Optional (Recommendation)
IOSLaw, Ordinance
6 3
Contract, - 13In 2 cases differentiationIn government mandatory
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 25
,agreement
13 In government mandatoryFor private partners optional
Governance of IOPImplementation phase
ConecptualizationLegitimi ationWhat has to be
made interoperable, how and by whom ?
hit t Implementation
LegitimizationWhat kind of rules is appropriate and feasible to enact the architecture- architecture,
- stakeholders
ImplementationWho is to put the plan into operation, who shall be responsible
to enact the architecture and get units to adhere
Public Private PPP s a be espo s b efor theoperation and maintenance of the
Public Private PPP
Operation 20 1 3 IOSOperation 20 1 3
Maintenance of 17 1 3
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 26
standards
Evolution stage 3:Separation of governance of IOPSeparation of governance of IOP and operation of IOP
ORGANISATIONAL IOPWHAT? BUT
HOW?Conceptualizationb t
WHO?
Workflow integration, web services
Supporting infrastructureby permanent or temporary govern-mental bodies
E
SEMANTIC IOP(interpretation of exchanged data)
Operation
=
Legitimazation by law/ordinance and or contract / tR
NA
NC
TECHNICAL / SYNTACTIC IOP(linking of computer systems, e.g.
HTTP SMTP HTML XML )
SYNTACTIC IOP(exchange of data)
providinginteroperation
Operation and maintenance by
/aqreement
GO
VER
TECHNICAL IOP
HTTP, SMTP, HTML, XML )(exchange of data) interoperationpublic or private bodies or PPP
Negotiating/
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 27
TECHNICAL IOP(linking computer systems)
g genacting interoperability
How to Achieve and Maintain Interoperation
• Scholl and Klischewski distinguish between Interoperability and Interoperation (state achieved)p y p ( )
• Interoperation refers to the day to day service provision and data exchange
• This is provided by different bodies than governance• It is a matter of coordination of operationsIt is a matter of coordination of operations• Organization-/Coordination theories distinguish two
main mechanisms• Standardisation and Centralisation• and some point to the roles of mediators, in IOS in
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 28
particular clearinghouses or broker services
Organizational Models gof IOS
Centralization Standardization
DirectDirect
multi-
laterallateral
exchange
Mediated
ExchangeExchange
via
clearing
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 29
clearing
houses
Standardization
• What has been standardised in this service (considering that directories are the least and workflows are the highest degree of standardisation)?
• directories (i e access to different services is organised via• directories (i.e. access to different services is organised via directories, e.g. a (linked) index of services)
• data interchange format (i.e. an agreement on an exchange format has been taken like EDIFACT or XML-schemes)
• data sets (i.e. the data sets of information to be exchanged have been standardised in format and meaning e g samehave been standardised in format and meaning, e.g. same definition and notation of data fields in forms)
• workflows (i.e. the whole or a part of the service workflow h d t b d t d f thi i )
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 30
had to be adapted for this service)
Centralised functions of clearing houses
Which functions for supporting data exchange are provided by one or more central units?
• routing of data (e.g. via a central directory) or regrouping of incoming data for different receiving authorities
i f d t f t ( i f d t• conversion of data formats (e.g. conversion of one data format into the format of the receiving authority)
• central provision of selected data (e.g. some relevant data p ( gare made available and kept up to date in a central database)
• central provision of all necessary data and functions for• central provision of all necessary data and functions for service provision are centralised in one ore more central units (can also exist in parallel in existing decentralised
it )
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 31
units)
Modes of providing p ginteroperation in 24 cases
Standardization of
(1) Directories 24
• Central provision of• Routing 11
(2) Data exchange formats 23(3) Data keys and
ontologies 21
• Conversion of formats 4• Access to selected data 11• Maintenance of directoryontologies 21
(4) Workflow defenitions 14
Maintenance of directory data 15
• Workflow control 16
There‘s the necessity for a more detailedThe four items fit for a more detailed empirical analysis and theoretical classification
The four items fit to a cumulative scale
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 32
Three Dimensions of Organizational lOP
WHAT?
ORGANISATIONAL IOPConceptualizationb t
WHO? WHAT? HOW?
ORGANISATIONAL IOP(Processes/Workflows)
by permanent or temporary govern-mental bodies
E
providing interoperationby
SEMANTIC IOP(Information)
Legitimazation by law/ordinance and or contract / tR
NA
NC
y• directories,• conversion of
data formats,b ffering
SYNTACTIC IOPOperation and maintenance by
/aqreement
GO
VER • buffering
messages,• routing of
messages,(Data)public or private
bodies or PPP
TECHNICAL IOP
g ,• through
clearinghouses,• and other
mediatorsNegotiating/
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 33
TECHNICAL IOP(Signals)
mediatorsenacting Interoperability
Three Dimensions of Organizational lOP
WHAT?
ORGANISATIONAL IOPConceptualizationb t
WHO? WHAT? HOW?
N t St ORGANISATIONAL IOP(Processes/Workflows)
by permanent or temporary govern-mental bodies
E
providing interoperationby
Next Step:
Looking for relationships
SEMANTIC IOP(Information)
Legitimazation by law/ordinance and or contract / tR
NA
NC
y• directories,• conversion of
data formats,b ffering
Which mode has been selected for which kind of IOP requirement
SYNTACTIC IOPOperation and maintenance by
/aqreement
GO
VER • buffering
messages,• routing of
messages,
q
on which level of government (national vs. regional)
(Data)public or privatre bodies or PPP
TECHNICAL IOP
g ,• through
clearinghouses,• and other
mediatorsNegotiating/Unfortunately it will not be possible to relate to any
success measurements
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 34
TECHNICAL IOP(Signals)
mediatorsenacting Interoperability
success measurements
Cases and More Cases a d o eInformation
http://www.egov-iop.ifib.de
33 d t il d t di33 detailed case studies72 deeply analysed cases120 cases altogether
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 35
Thank you for thinking about it
As these considerations are part of anAs these considerations are part of an ongoing research project we very much appreciate your comments and questions.appreciate your comments and questions.
Please contact:
Prof. Dr. Herbert Kubicek
k bi k@ifib dRalf Cimander
i d @ifib dkubicek@ifib.de
+49 (0)421 218 2830cimander@ifib.de
+49 (0)421 218 7375
PISTA 2008 Orlando FL 37
top related