Open Source Government Software Suite

[Wayne Eddy]

It seems to me, that if even a fraction of the money currently being spent by Councils and other levels of Government on proprietary software systems was channeled into developing an open source software suite for Government, it could result in huge savings and a software solution that actually meets user needs.

To be clear, I'm visualizing a system that would eventually contain; asset management, document/records management, finance, GIS & property modules, and any other functionality required by Government.

If anyone has any thoughts on how to initiate the development of an open source Government Software Suite, or what sought of functionality such a system should have, I'd be very interested to hear from you.

[Darren Sharp]

Just read a story on Slashdot about the City of Vancouver recently adopting open standards:

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/24/1851226&from=rss

"Vancouver, Canada's third-largest city, has adopted a policy of 'open standards, interfaces and formats' for all public data. They will also consider open-source software on an even footing with proprietary for all new software purchases. Fifteen of the fifteen people who signed up to speak to city council on the topic spoke in favor. Their only criticism was, 'can't you do more?' with one advocating that free and open source software be given preference, not equal footing."

Related article on the city's decision to share its data online:

http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/local/article/232953--vancouver-t...

[Miriam Lyons]

Interesting idea! But are there no open source projects already in existence that perform those functions? What do you think of the govdex experiment with confluence btw?

[Mark Parker]

Wayne, interesting thought and one that inspired me to kick around some ideas and blog about the possibilities as we've moved into the Open Source world quite heavily over the past two years (we abandoned a number of proprietary vendor partnerships and went with companies like SugarCRM, Talend, Atlassian)

The Barriers

I hate to start on a negative but I have to as I think the barriers to making this happen are quite significant.

1. The major software giants have deep pockets and will spend a lot of money to kill off an initiative such as this. SAP, Oracle, Microsoft et al all have a vested interest in keeping open source in its cute cubby hole.

2. Add to this the threat O/S poses to the big system integration vendors (i.e. Accenture, CGEY, IBM, Logica). That's a pretty big bear you're stealing cake from...

3. How do you distinguish between raw open source and commercial open source? Or are we simply shifting the customer/vendor paradigm?

4. The Culture of "nobody got fired buying IBM". There's safety in dealing with global giants - though I bet there are a few GOC’s and Departments around the country who beg to differ...

5. The inherent disorganisation of the open source crowd. Let's face it, O/S people are well... different. I'd argue it'd be a bit like herding cats

The Opportunity

Depending on how you approach this I can see merit in this idea and I can see an attractive model being developed.

I view this as an ecosystem of solutions that can be tied together with a common glue. Realistically we’d need to have a panel of O/S vendors for each core area along with an agreed set of protocols as to how data and integration is managed. You would also need to create a certification program so that any vendor wanting to be part of the panel has to meet a minimum set of standards with these standards covering core areas such as stability, documentation, development standards etc.

The real opportunity by doing this is that Government fosters broad collaboration as listed vendors can co-create solutions amongst themselves and in conjunction with Government. For example, a group of vendors could collaborate to create a small council business system – where the functionality is pared back such that the ‘product’ suits many of the smaller regional councils in Australia where resources and budgets are limited.

I think the ecosystem would also be attractive for the SI vendors. It gives them a chance to foster innovation and sponsor development that is owned by the Government and O/S community and is there for the benefit of Government. This shouldn’t be new for some of the major SI companies given the likes of Cap Gemini and Logica already have relationships with leading O/S vendors like Talend.

Most importantly, you start creating an IP pool that remains in Australia and is there for everyone in Government to benefit. Any international vendor wanting to utilise IP overseas could be expected to pay a royalty back to the Australian ‘pool’. Now this is what I call investing in Australia's future.

The question now is whether the Federal Government would provide funding for a feasibility study to be undertaken? I guess I can only live in hope

[Pia Waugh]

Hi all,

Just thought I'd expand on a few points Mark raised:

Mark Parker said:

I hate to start on a negative but I have to as I think the barriers to making this happen are quite significant. 1. The major software giants have deep pockets and will spend a lot of money to kill off an initiative such as this. SAP, Oracle, Microsoft et al all have a vested interest in keeping open source in its cute cubby hole.

Nowadays I think this is less the case, because most of the big companies with deep pockets (IBM, Sun, and also Oracle :)) who are now seriously invested in Open Source, and in making it succeed while capturing the related hardware, services and support revenue.

2. Add to this the threat O/S poses to the big system integration vendors (i.e. Accenture, CGEY, IBM, Logica). That's a pretty big bear you're stealing cake from...

I agree the large integrators are blockers, but the weird thing is they have everything to gain from FOSS. I worked at a major Australian integrator and we could offer equivalent services for slightly less while making a higher margin. They are starting to tune in, but often enough, even when a gov dept/agency has a tender where Open Source fits, and where the gov people are even hoping to see some Open Source solutions, the industry doesn't respond to the tender with Open Source solutions.

3. How do you distinguish between raw open source and commercial open source? Or are we simply shifting the customer/vendor paradigm?

Yeah, this can be confusing. I think this comes down to both good relationships with open source service providers, and to learn from the successes of other governments and agencies/departments. There is a lot of open source used in many government agencies in Australia, so share the knowledge.

4. The Culture of "nobody got fired buying IBM". There's safety in dealing with global giants - though I bet there are a few GOC’s and Departments around the country who beg to differ...

This is definitely an issue. Plus the government stance of "informed neutrality" however most decision makers are not actually informed about open source, and as such are not in a position to make a decision of informed neutrality. In Malaysia, they had a govv policy of educating all CIOs in government about open source. Not mandating it, or pushing it, but ensuring decision makers were well informed about all the options so they could make the best decision.

5. The inherent disorganisation of the open source crowd. Let's face it, O/S people are well... different. I'd argue it'd be a bit like herding cats

This is something I disagree with in general. Government agencies don't have to deal with open source developers any more than they have to deal with proprietary software developers. The technical people implementing in gov will deal with technical people from a support company regardless of whether the software is open source or proprietary. There are some advantages in dealing with open source, in that you can if you choose engage directly, or look at the project roadmap, or leverage the community support or knowledge, but most agencies will engage with a support company (such as IBM) and get their open source software support there.

The Opportunity Depending on how you approach this I can see merit in this idea and I can see an attractive model being developed.

I really liked some of your ideas. You should (all) definitely check out the newly announced "Open Technology Foundation" which is about sharing knowledge, about sharing expertise, and providing a support base for government in dealing with open standards, open data, open source and other open technology challenges. The IP clearing house idea is also great, not least of all to better share IP amongst government agencies which is also very hard at the moment :)

http://www.cio.sa.gov.au/business/projects/open-technology-foundation

The question now is whether the Federal Government would provide funding for a feasibility study to be undertaken? I guess I can only live in hope

There have been heaps of feasibility studies done in Government about open source, not least of all the AGIMO Open Source study which looked at open source in gov in 2007. It was a great study! http://www.finance.gov.au/e-government/infrastructure/docs/Open_Sou...

But I'm not sure about a feasibility study for the kind of support org you've mentioned. Definitely check out the Open Technology Foundation project.

[Wayne Eddy]

I've been thinking about this a bit more lately, and I believe that it is not only software that could benefit from the open source philosophy. I read an article recently about Open Collaborative Design, which is about applying the open source concept to the design of physical assets. I'd like to see an "Australian Open Design Library" created. A place where the design offices of councils and government departments across Australia could publish and share standard drawings & specifications of physcial assets. Many designs are necessarily one off designs & not resusable, but I believe a library of designs for bus shelters, toilet blocks, sewerage pump stations, drainage pits, etc, etc, would lessen the load for design offices around the country & result in far less duplication of effort.

If you are interested I have compiled a list of links relating to Open Collaborative Design here.
http://lgam.wikidot.com/open-collaborative-design

And I am going to try and start trying to build a case for an Australian Open Design Library here.
http://lgam.wikidot.com/australian-open-design-library

Regards,

Wayne

[Mark Parker]

Pia,
Great feedback and thanks for taking the time to pull my points apart. You made some good counter points. I'm not sure I share your confidence in the big vendors and SI companies supporting O/S - I'm still very dubious of Oracle's pending acquisition of Sun - the thought that Oracle could kill off MySQL worries me greatly. But I'll hold those thoughts and work on the assumption that Oracle is wanting to play in the O/S world and wants to allow ideas and IP to flow back and forth

Thanks also for the link to the Open Technology Foundation Project. I'll definitely wander over there

cheers

Mark

Pia Waugh said:

Hi all,

Just thought I'd expand on a few points Mark raised:

Mark Parker said:

I hate to start on a negative but I have to as I think the barriers to making this happen are quite significant. 1. The major software giants have deep pockets and will spend a lot of money to kill off an initiative such as this. SAP, Oracle, Microsoft et al all have a vested interest in keeping open source in its cute cubby hole.

Nowadays I think this is less the case, because most of the big companies with deep pockets (IBM, Sun, and also Oracle :)) who are now seriously invested in Open Source, and in making it succeed while capturing the related hardware, services and support revenue.

2. Add to this the threat O/S poses to the big system integration vendors (i.e. Accenture, CGEY, IBM, Logica). That's a pretty big bear you're stealing cake from...

I agree the large integrators are blockers, but the weird thing is they have everything to gain from FOSS. I worked at a major Australian integrator and we could offer equivalent services for slightly less while making a higher margin. They are starting to tune in, but often enough, even when a gov dept/agency has a tender where Open Source fits, and where the gov people are even hoping to see some Open Source solutions, the industry doesn't respond to the tender with Open Source solutions.

3. How do you distinguish between raw open source and commercial open source? Or are we simply shifting the customer/vendor paradigm?

Yeah, this can be confusing. I think this comes down to both good relationships with open source service providers, and to learn from the successes of other governments and agencies/departments. There is a lot of open source used in many government agencies in Australia, so share the knowledge.

4. The Culture of "nobody got fired buying IBM". There's safety in dealing with global giants - though I bet there are a few GOC’s and Departments around the country who beg to differ...

This is definitely an issue. Plus the government stance of "informed neutrality" however most decision makers are not actually informed about open source, and as such are not in a position to make a decision of informed neutrality. In Malaysia, they had a govv policy of educating all CIOs in government about open source. Not mandating it, or pushing it, but ensuring decision makers were well informed about all the options so they could make the best decision.

5. The inherent disorganisation of the open source crowd. Let's face it, O/S people are well... different. I'd argue it'd be a bit like herding cats

This is something I disagree with in general. Government agencies don't have to deal with open source developers any more than they have to deal with proprietary software developers. The technical people implementing in gov will deal with technical people from a support company regardless of whether the software is open source or proprietary. There are some advantages in dealing with open source, in that you can if you choose engage directly, or look at the project roadmap, or leverage the community support or knowledge, but most agencies will engage with a support company (such as IBM) and get their open source software support there.

The Opportunity Depending on how you approach this I can see merit in this idea and I can see an attractive model being developed.

I really liked some of your ideas. You should (all) definitely check out the newly announced "Open Technology Foundation" which is about sharing knowledge, about sharing expertise, and providing a support base for government in dealing with open standards, open data, open source and other open technology challenges. The IP clearing house idea is also great, not least of all to better share IP amongst government agencies which is also very hard at the moment :)

http://www.cio.sa.gov.au/business/projects/open-technology-foundation

The question now is whether the Federal Government would provide funding for a feasibility study to be undertaken? I guess I can only live in hope

There have been heaps of feasibility studies done in Government about open source, not least of all the AGIMO Open Source study which looked at open source in gov in 2007. It was a great study! http://www.finance.gov.au/e-government/infrastructure/docs/Open_Sou...

But I'm not sure about a feasibility study for the kind of support org you've mentioned. Definitely check out the Open Technology Foundation project.