The Governance of Interoperablity in Intergovernmental ... · • Civil Registration in Austria • Company Registration in Sweden • eProcurement and eInvoicing in Denmark • eInvoicing

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


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“


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


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


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


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


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


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).


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


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).


(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


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)


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 )


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


(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


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




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


(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


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


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


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



Governance of IOPConceptualization Phase

ConceptualizationLegitimi ationWhat has to be


hit tImplementationWho is to put the plan


- stakeholdersWho is to put the plan into operation, who shall be responsible for the


for theoperation and maintenance of the IOS

WHO Existing institution

New

institution IOSinstitution

Permanent 15 2

Temporary 1 5

Degree of represenation None 3



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


- stakeholders

ImplementationWho is to put the plan into operation, who shall be responsible


s a be espo s b efor theoperation and maintenance of the

Mandatory (Obligation)

Optional (Recommendation)

IOSLaw, Ordinance

Contract,


,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 ?


LegitimazationWhat kind of rules is appropriate and feasible to enact the architecture- architecture,

- stakeholders



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


,agreement

13 In government mandatoryFor private partners optional

Governance of IOPImplementation phase

ConecptualizationLegitimi ationWhat has to be




- stakeholders



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


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



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/


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


particular clearinghouses or broker services

Organizational Models gof IOS

Centralization Standardization

DirectDirect

multi-

laterallateral

exchange

Mediated

ExchangeExchange

via

clearing


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 )


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 )


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


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)


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/


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)


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


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


MODINIS Study on IOP


http://www.epractice.eu/document/3652

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 [email protected]

+49 (0)421 218 [email protected]

+49 (0)421 218 7375


The Governance of Interoperablity in Intergovernmental ... · • Civil Registration in Austria • Company Registration in Sweden • eProcurement and eInvoicing in Denmark • eInvoicing

Documents