On first impressions, it seems odd to be speaking of a “Post China World” – but upon reading, the article makes some interesting points.

The synopsis of the argument is that China is growing through an internal investment equal to 45 percent of the economy. But that is not sustainable. Normally, consumer spending is an economic driver after internal investment. But consumer spending is already at 9 percent and not likely to grow further. With rising wages, the drivers for growth are increasingly limited. As such, double digit growth may slow to a more modest 6 or 7 percent.

So, we could ask: Where would the growth come from and would it be export led or internally focused?

In either case, ICT will play an important part. By extension, so will standards.

Under this situation, how will Chinese companies interact with the Global market?

Firstly, as the Newsweek article demonstrates, China has its own need for engaging with Standards bodies i.e. it is not only a case of the western companies benefitting from access to the Chinese markets but also the need for Chinese companies to grow beyond their current growth, driven by lower cost labour, towards a labour market driven by a more advanced skill-set.

If we accept this rationale, then what would the focus areas be within technology?

I think it will be the new areas, since western companies are well entrenched in existing areas. For instance, China’s premier Wen Jiabao sees IOT as the next vehicle for China’s growth, penning the following interesting equation: “Internet + Internet of Things = Wisdom of the Earth”.

So, to address the question – How will Chinese companies interface with global ICT standards? – the answer seems to be with an increased emphasis on new domains but also with some pragmatism since the need is not just one sided (i.e., access to Chinese markets) but rather to use technology to drive export drive high tech growth which needs a pragmatic engagement on the standards process with other global companies.

Stacy Baird stressed the key role played by those who implement eGov strategies, i.e. government employees. He argued that training is critical for the success of new e-services. Workers may otherwise not have the right skills to undertake the needs and not find their place in the new organizational.

Ajit Jaokar pointed out that “Open Government”, a new buzz phrase, does not necessarily demand the implementation of open standards and open source software. Rather, Open Government is Government as a Platform or Government 2.0 which in itself is a philosophy. What is important is not the code but the philosophy of openness. The technology on which eGov services is built could vary.

Steve Mutoski drew some lessons from a recent review of eGovernment Interoperability Frameworks (eGIFS). He argued that many policy makers have an ineffective and misplaced focus. Technological interoperability, which is the main focus, is to a large extent an issue already taken care of by the marketplace. eGIFs deserves further attention.

Tore Hoel took a special look at Learning, Education and Training (LET), which is an emerging domain where the use of standard catalogues is a primary form of governance. He argued that the idea of standards catalogues is flawed. In emerging domains it is difficult to determine the optimal candidate for recommendation, therefore eGovernment standards boards should focus on semantic, organizational, cultural, political and legal interoperability. Then, the LET domain might innovate by the implementation of ‘unstable’ standards.

Oliver Bell went on to point out an important ‘glitch’ in the innovation process of data exchange. The 1990’s switch towards electronic handling of data brought measures to digitally handle information but not to archive it. This has resulted in a decade without appropriate government records. As we now stand before the next step into Government 2.0, we must not make the same mistake. The further digitization of services, communication and interaction needs to be matched by the development of archiving standards. The key is to include archiving standards as a core part of system design, not to try and solve the problem after the fact.

Mattias Ganslandt highlighted some experiences and lessons from Sweden, the number one country on the UN eGovernment readiness ranking. The government’s willingness to use ICT as a means to distribute individualized information and collect information from citizens has resulted in a number of very successful eGov services, e.g. eIdentification and online filing of tax returns. The Swedish experience shows that a pragmatic, value-oriented and neutral approach to eGovernment and procurement of ICT and software works well when applied in an open economy with a good basic ICT infrastructure. It also shows that adoption and development works well if applied on a limited scale.

A common theme for the discussion is the challenges presenting eGov policy makers in the process of creating a decentralized, open and interactive government. Although innovation has taken development of the public sector quite a bit already, much work remains to be done before the vision of trans-nationally interoperable eGov systems is realized.

Join the discussion: Click here to go to the forum!