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!

The European Interoperability Framework (EIF) 1.0 was first introduced in 2002, along with the eEurope Action Plan 2005, in purpose to provide recommendations concerning technologies and further information which could facilitate pan-European eGovernment services.

The EIF is directed towards the Member States’ public authorities, setting guidelines as to how ICT services should be designed and implemented and how the procurement process should be handled to ensure future trans-national interoperability and cross-border mobility.

The EIF was originally founded on eight fundamental principles; Accessibility and Multilingualism-services should be available and accessible by all, Security and Privacy- online solutions should have a maximum level of security and transparency, protecting user information, Subsidiarity- each Member State and EU institution is responsible for achieving interoperability, Use of Open Standards- use of open standards is recommended, Assess the Benefits of Open Source Software (OSS)- OSS should be considered when constructing an ICT solution, Use of Multilateral Solutions- on single solution implemented in several areas result in multilateral interoperability.

In 2008, an official draft version of the EIF 2.0 was made available for public comments. The Commission expresses the need for updating the EIF 1.0 definition of interoperability, which simply meant that ICT and business processes enabled the sharing of data, information and technology, since different aspects of the meaning of Interoperability has been found. Therefore, a broader definition has been introduced describing interoperability as the ability of diverse organizations and systems to work together and thus increase efficiency.

EIF 2.0 recommends that public policy should Support Standardization and Innovation and Ensure Administrative Neutrality. The idea is that public administrations should ensure that the standard selections process is fair to all vendors and make sure that the fee to be paid is not prohibitively expensive. Although the EIF 2.0 still states that open standards should be preferred and open specifications implemented where possible, the direct referencing has been replaced.

More lately, an unofficial draft of the EIF 2.0 has leaked (the exact source and status of this document is disputed), in which the wording on openness differs from EIF 1.0. First, openness is merely seen as the willingness to share knowledge. Second, no direct referencing to open standards or OSS is expressed. Third, the document refers to an “openness continuum” between open and closed. Fourth, the draft refers to interoperability can be achieved if all actors are using identical technology.

The Commission has declined to confirm that the leaked draft reflects the opinions or views of the EU.