Early eGoverment systems represented a small revolution for many governments, providing ways to increase levels of administrative efficiency while at the same time providing services that were much more broadly available than in previous years.

However, if we turn and look specifically at agencies responsible for archiving governments information then the shift to digitally delivered services also brought some new challenges. Archiving paper is well understood, archiving digital records adds complexity that is still being worked out in many jurisdictions. Only now are we starting to see standards emerge for storage and maintenance of these digital records, over ten years after we saw the mass shift to digital by governments all over the world.

The issues will be obvious to many, governments have a decade wide void in the records that they have managed to keep, information has been simply lost as individual computers and email inboxes have been redeployed or the hardware has been recycled.

At this point in time we are witnessing a second iteration of that revolution, governments, citizens and businesses are collaboratively talking about Government 2.0 (or gov20), examining ways that they will use microblogging, social media and the publishing of massive government datasets to find new ways for government to interact with citizens and for developers to deliver a range of tools that could not be developed by government alone.

Within these gov20 conversations we are seeing more than just the digitization of government services, politicians are finding new ways of communicating directly with their electorate and senior departmental officials are finding new ways to more deeply understand the people that their services ultimately serve.

So once again we are seeing a massive shift in the technology that is being used to run the business of government, and once again we don’t yet have the standards to retain the conversations that take place over microblogging services, or the huge amount of inbound information that departments will eventually use as part of their decision making processes that they collect from an array of social networking tools.

As a standards community, in support of the ongoing evolution of eGovernment, now is the time for us to start to think about how we will solve these complex challenges. Work needs to begin on archiving standards that will retain the information that is driving decisions today and as technology plays an increasingly larger role in the business of government archiving standards needs to be a core part of systems design, not a problem that we try and solve after the fact.

Interoperability has implications for competition policy because interoperable systems imply low barriers to market entry for innovative suppliers, as well as for innovative products and services. Competitive pressure for established companies increases, pushing innovative reactions in return. If one or several companies succeed in sealing off complex systems through limiting interoperability, monopoly or oligopoly-like structures can evolve, which are characterized by inhibited innovation. The challenges in establishing a framework for securing a framework of interoperability lie in the equality of all business models, neither favoring one model nor putting it at a disadvantage. After all, innovations are also driven by companies that finance their investments in innovation through the thereby created intellectual property rights.

Finally, the various strategies and instruments for securing interoperability have to be assessed regarding their impact on innovation enhancement. Apart from companies publicizing their own interfaces and open source codes, standardization constitutes an important and efficient instrument in transparent processes. A balance has to be kept between the interests of companies actively participating in standardization processes by publicizing technical knowledge and corresponding intellectual property rights, and the organizations which use these standards. Monopolization of standards by individual companies using restrictive licensing practices and disincentives for innovative companies that introduce their knowledge in standardization processes are to be avoided. Standardization should be promoted by innovative companies, while at the same time the interests of users have to be recognized and integrated. Because the government is an important user of information and communication technology and products established thereon, representatives of corresponding institutions should actively participate in standardization processes and – if possible – abstain from regulatory intervention.

Originally published as a part of  “Schriftenreihe Politik”, page 23-24, avaliable from BITKOM at this page (in german)