Tuesday, December 31, 2002
True words tracked down by Tony Bowden.
At the end of each year lots of lists come out. You know the kind of things, "top 10 shameful video games", "top 10 innovators for 2002" or the "top 10 alabama sports stories for 2002". I guess it's traditional now. I thought I'd do some lessons learnt, with a twist. Some of the lessons are things that we knew in 2001 that proved ever truer in 2002; some are brand new things for 2002 and the rest are things that I expect we'll learn in 2003. So, to kick off, here are the things that we learnt again - e-government is hard. Not just hard in fact, but brutally hard. Few countries around the world have made the leap from the usual offline/online switch to delivering genuinely new services. In the UK we spent 2001 doing the former and carried on in 2002. This may not be a bad thing - in early 2001 the 4 stage model that I displayed at conferences predicted that we would do that. But, to paraphrase the PM at the e-summit - we've done ok, but not nearly well enough. - The press have an eye for this stuff and tend to spot something going off the rails before anyone else. The press were quick to spot the PRO 1901 Census problems in January, quicker still to spot the Inland Revenue issue early in the Summer and have, at various times, pointed the finger at my own team for things that we've not got quite right. More power to them. I don't always agree, but I do appreciate that this ensures that what we do remains in the spotlight, which means that we have to get better - because none of us can endure that kind of coverage for much longer! When we do get it right, I'm hoping that we'll get the same kind of coverage for the good news as we did for the bad (on this note, check out Scott Loftesness' good/bad/sad/great news searches on google). - Innovation is hard to come by. Getting anyone to think outside of the box and figure out how to do something genuinely new and then encouraging them to take that risk is a serious challenge. There are many downsides to taking big risks in the public sector, and few upsides. When there is every chance that you will be reviewed by the OGC, the NAO, your own departmental audit team and then pilloried in the press, let alone by the PAC, it's easy to see why innovation is rare. That attitude must change if we are to genuinely make a difference. Doing it the same old way will ensure that government looks the same to the population 50 years from now as it does today. Some new things that we learnt - The right service can generate enormous demand. The PRO's 1901 Census service may have fallen over in January, but it fell over under the weight of several tens of millions of users trying to access it. Few would have predicted that kind of load on opening day. Fewer still would have had a system in place that could have handled it and, yes, I accept that we should have prepared for it. The PRO is back and working now and generating good traffic. Similarly, the Pathe film library is online - 250,000 users accessed it in the first 3 days. Hundreds of people have access the new Child Benefit service despite it having minimal publicity (just a link from the DWP home page); hundreds of thousands have visited the Inland Revenue's Tax Credits site. So, we learnt that people will come, if the offer is right, if there is value there and if it all works. In 2001 we were guessing that would happen; 2002 proved it. - Digital certificates moved from an interesting idea to an interesting idea on life support. Demand was stunted at best. In year one, it could have been just that they were knew and people were unfamiliar, but two years in it's unlikely to be that anymore. They're hard to use, don't work on all browsers or all operating systems, aren't portable and cost money. The value proposition is not yet there. Once an equivalent service is supported by both the private and public sector, there might be something there - because that will help encourage standards to be developed that remove the problems between browsers and will give people a reason to have them, because they'll be multi-functional (if it was part of the widget that you used when travelling on the tube in London, why would you not use it for e-commerce too?). But, it's still touch and go. Things that we will probably learn again in 2003 - The right service generates demand. If we can develop e-government services that deliver value, are focused on the customer and their needs right at the moment they're looking for something, then traffic will grow to government sites. - As we develop more of these services, we'll see that we need to stay pretty close to what, for us, is the bleeding edge of technology. We will have to implement complex integration layers to open up the backend, deploy CRM systems that operate across several channels and combine increasingly involved content management and transaction systems to present useful things to the customer. Many of these won't work reliably either because of poor implementation at the supplier end, changing requirements mid-project at the customer end or just new technology that hasn't quite grown stable. The Press will be bad. But the progress will be upwards. - There has never been a stronger need than the one we have now for Government to have its own base of "intelligent customers" who are focused on managing suppliers, delivering to budget and to specification and driving the vision forward. This is a dramatically under-appreciated role in government and one that doesn't fit well with the traditional policy route to the top. Sir Andrew Turnbull is delivery focused, so let's hope that he encourages more recruits of his type, more incentives for them to progress within the hierarchy and a greater share of power for delivery instead of policy. - Outsourcing or using a prime contractor is not, was not and will not be the best way to get your projects delivered. Period. - We'll have more bad news stories, more outages, more problems with demand (whether it be predictable or not); we will learn a lot about managing complex Internet systems, just as much (in fact) as we should have learned last year and the year before but probably didn't. Things that we'll learn for the first time - When it works, it's great. And we will deploy services in 2003 that are genuinely innovative and make a difference. And that will be great. - We'll learn a lot more about personalisation and multi-channel delivery. We'll start to see e-government services prompting you via your mobile phone, e.g. "you have an appointment at the fracture clinic tomorrow at nine, please confirm you'll be there". We'll see the first services that ask you to volunteer a little information and then present a menu of interactions that are specific to you. This will draw people to use e-government services in far greater numbers than before. - There is light at the end of the tunnel, and it's not a train rushing towards us.
Monday, December 30, 2002
Web design is more than quite important, it's vital that we get it right. Jason Kottke summarises the few key principles that you need to know ... "Use CSS and XHTML to make your pages clean and fast-loading. Use a database or XML to store your data so that it can be easily output into multiple formats for different devices & programs. Put the most-used tasks right on the front page of your Web site. Make sure your server is up most of the time. Think about what you have to offer to people and give it to them in the most useful way. Make it easy for people to contact your company in a variety of ways". That's a great start; do that in government and you are a long way to what your customer wants. Do it the same way on lots of sites and you are nearer still. Don't have too many sites in the first place and you are close to the end game.
Scott Loftesness (who I met a few weeks ago at a meeting in San Francisco, albeit too briefly) has picked up on a patent filed almost a year ago by Amazon. It covers personalisation, of all things. When I talk about personalisation, I nearly always use the 'Amazon' quote - people who bought this book also bought this one; not because it works well all the time, but because I figure most people know about it. But the idea that I now, in theory, wouldn't be able to implement that in a website is bizarre. But, on the upside (for us in the UK), I don't think patents for what is, essentially, a business process are valid in the UK - such a patent would never be granted which means as long as I don't launch a takeover of the US e-government initiative (not something I'm planning right now), we should be ok. For UK government personalisation, we ought to be able to get a lot closer than "people who wear clothes often buy ..." (which seems to be the line Amazon is taking with its recommendations for apparel). Given we already have a population of 60 million people we ought to be able to establish a rough model that links related benefits (some of these are easy - if you have a child less than 18, then you get child benefit; that means you might be due child tax credit, depending on your income - and I don't have to know the latter to suggest that it's worth looking). It might be possible to map it by postcode, but I doubt that there's enough data there to do something truly personal. Over on Slashdot there are a lot of comments about this patent application, most of which say Amazon's recommendations aren't all that great. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't - it may all be a question of data. If I knew which of the 1800 government websites you looked at, maybe I could build up something that was useful - but perhaps I couldn't because no matter how many you look at, you never find the one that has what you need? Maybe if I tracked the things you searched for on ukonline? The real deal here will be how much of this data will you want me to use, how much will you give me voluntarily if it gives you a better service and how much will you let me extract from the backends to really give you what you need. The answer to those is probably not much, a little and none for now - but if the intial "not much" and "a little" start to make a difference to what you see on government sites, then maybe you'd be persuaded to volunteer a little more?
Oh. Another one. I see that James over at VoxPolitics has stopped posting for the holidays so I thought I'd sneak in with this one. Hedra, the management consultants (and one of the biggest suppliers of 'consultant bodies' to government) have been doing some surveys on government websites. The results are not encouraging - only 1 in 20 Internet users regularly use any of the 3,000 government websites; the survey of 600 (which, they say, is statistically valid) couldn't find anyone over 65 or from social groups DE that used any of the sites regularly. The press release on the Hedra site concludes with this piledriver quote "Hedra Deputy Chairman Stuart James said: The Government needs to look carefully at ways of driving more traffic to its sites, such as discounts on taxes, like those already available to those who pay Council Tax by direct debit. Design and functionality are also important issues. The Government needs to find ways of managing relationships with IT suppliers to get the most from the Internet". The BBC also picked up the story and added a few gems from the recent PAC report that's been covered elsewhere. I'm on the record here and in a variety of other places with my thoughts on government websites. Indeed, I've been speaking at conferences since January 2001 and have often talked about what I think is wrong with what we do, what we need to do about it and how we might do it. I've done this in front of audiences anywhere from 50 people to 6,000 people; in countries as diverse as Japan, Romania, the USA and, of course, many times in the UK itself. So, don't for a minute think that I am shying away from this issue. But also, don't for a minute that I think another survey list this adds any value at all. - I'm no expert on statistics, so I can't guess whether 600 is statistically valid. Instinct says it isn't. But that's hardly the point. I do know that there aren't 3,000 websites though, so if they've got this wrong, I start to question all the numbers. When I checked at the end of November, there were around 2,200 registered domain names for government. Stripping out duplications (e.g. inland-revenue is not a different site from inlandrevenue) gives us about 1,800 sites. There are a few (but not many) .org, .com and others, so maybe we have 2,000 sites. So the survey is 50% high. But that's still not the point. - The figures I have seen, that are from samples far in excess of 600 (and I will track down the sources when I am back in the office) tell me that, in aggregate, government websites attract about 5,500,000 individual visitors per month from the UK - that would be (by my maths anyway) about 10% of the total UK population and about 18-20% of the online population (a bit more than the 5% claimed). This is something close to Amazon and also to the BBC (for UK visitors only) so I'm told. Two thirds of that traffic is garnered by about 20 sites - the top 2-3 usually have about 10-12%, but which ones they are vary. So during the exam problems this summer, DfES was high; during September, the Inland Revenue is high because of Self Assessment. Before any of my colleagues accuse me of hypocrisy, I'm not a fan of research - I like cold, hard numbers like visitor counts because as long as I always count the same way, I can tell what's going on. I know, for instance, that traffic on ukonline has increased by 10x this year (end January to end November) - from a low base to be sure, but still a 10 fold gain is impressive. Ukonline is now one of those top sites. My usual quote about research is that it "is like a drunk with a lamp post - more for leaning on than for illumination". But that's still not the point. The real point is that government's progress with websites, whilst enormously beneficial in terms of the potential for the citizen to access raw information, has not been sufficient, has not driven the usage that it should have done (versus the pounds spent) not has it directly benefited the citizen in terms of faster processes, better services or, more aspirationally, transformed government. I haven't met the deputy chairman of Hedra and I'm sure that he doesn't write the quotes that are attributed to him, but he should probably check them before issue. All of these surveys usually come up with some inane recommendation, a snappy one-liner about how government could overnight improve its web offering - in this case, all we have to do is give some discounts on taxes. Oh, he says, and by the way, design's quite important too. So maybe we should do something about that. Oh and lastly, perhaps we ought to manage our relationships with suppliers. And none of those are the point either. So strike three for another survey that adds data to support a well known conclusion but adds zero value to the debate on how we should progress. So, let me get to the point at last: - Government's web presence is designed around government. That's fine for government, but not much use to the citizen. Noone knows or cares how to navigate around the 700-odd entities within government. Why should they? Do you know that the Inland Revenue administers Child Tax Credit, but the Department of Work and Pensions administers Child Benefit? No? Thought not. What you want to be able to do is go to a site, tell it a few things about yourself (either anonymously or not, as you wish) and then have the site tell you what you need to know. That is pretty achievable today - but it would mean linking to lots of different sites for you to get the information you need and each of those sites looks different, works differently and doesn't know who you are (even though you told the first site a little). This makes it hard to gain "mind share" (and I'm grateful to colleagues in Opta for putting this concept firmly in my mind). The average person has room in their favourites menu or their links toolbar for perhaps 10-12 sites - the ones that they visit regularly. One will be google, one yahoo, one the bbc, one Amazon, one the local football team, one perhaps tesco.com and so on ... that doesn't leave a lot of space for "government", especially when it is so fragmented on the web (by the by, ukonline could be a nice placeholder in this space as it will get you to all the others). - Because our web presence is designed around government, every website looks different. By that I mean the search button is in different places, the menu buttons aren't always where you think they should be (can you imagine trying to use Word and Excel and having to remember where "save" was because it moved each time?) and so on. But, worse still, each site will have a different view of who you might be - some will be structured around the departments within the department, some will have gone so far to think about you as a customer, some will just be lists of items. So you'll have to spend time on each thinking about how to use the site rather than thinking about how you get what you need - which is, after all, what you went there for. - Your interactions with government are probably pretty rare as it is - maybe you pay Self Assessment, you probably have a council tax bill, perhaps you claim child benefit. But it's quite rare that you actually deal with government - you probably renew your tax disc at the post office, your garage sorts out vehicle registration when you buy your new car, your doctor's known you for years and so doesn't ask for your NHS number (and you're not often sick, so you don't go to hospitals) and so on. So what you need is for most of the other interactions to be taken care of for you - just the way the post office deals with the DVO (bet most of you don't even know that DVLA is DVO now. Why should you?). And they ought to be taken care of, in many cases, by intermediaries that you already deal with - the banks, the building societies, the post office, the Citizen's Advice Bureau and so on. That's a big step for government, but one that is coming. What seems like a long time ago I published a graph of how I thought goverment's web presence will go - it will shoot past the present 1,800 odd, then level out and start to reduce rapidly. The mid end-point is perhaps a dozen sites. The end end point is none - because everything will be dealt with as you need it through a variety of intermediaries. At the time, I don't think I made the "end end" point clear, but that's where I think it will go in the very long term. - Because we don't treat "you" as an individual, it's hard for you to figure out what exactly it is that government can offer you. So, unless government knows something about you and how it can contact you (so that when something changes - like a new tax credit being introduced) it can contact you, it's hard to see why you would even visit more than a few government websites. This is an argument for personalisation - the kind of thing that Amazon already does ('people who bought this book also bought this one' - although Amazon persists in recommending me every new edition of something called Farscape, even though I keep telling them that I don't want them). Personalisation is hard. Hard because you need a big store of data that is stored with information that lets you break it into individually relevant pieces of information; hard because you need some pretty standard definitions (a child must always be a child - but different bits of government use different threshholds which makes life complicated for the technologists); hard because content syndication and aggregation is not yet mature enough to do this well (more on this another time); and hard because it requires a full rethink of the way government manages its web presence - it would mean individual departments giving up control of some aspects of their world and handing them over to central administrators. - Once the information is there and personalised so that you know what government can do for you, the next stage is to deliver transactions (obviously these happen in parallel in an ideal world, but some things are harder than others). Transactions is where things get messy - you have to open up those nasty old backend systems and tinker with them so that people on the "outside" can put things in them. That exposes all kinds of new weaknesses about business rules, availability of the systems and so on. Transactions are hard. When the Government Gateway launched, there were 3 - PAYE, VAT and IACS. Today there are over a dozen (with some transactions having several parts to them - e.g. PAYE is not a single transaction but about 30). By the end of Q1 2003, there will be about 30. Simply, this is happening faster now because departments have spent time opening up the backends to support these new ways of working. It's by no means done. But it is working. - Finally, to my earlier point about who owns Child Benefit versus Child Tax Credit, without a single brand that everyone knows (that mindshare point again) - so one that is marketed, advertised, linked to, referred to, referenced in the press and so on this won't happen. Where "this" is online take-up. It doesn't matter if there is more than one site after the intial entry point (at least initially), but if I (as a citizen) have to decide which government site might do what I am looking for, then all is already lost because I don't speak "government", I only speak "I want" or "I need to". So I need a place to go, that is on my favourites or my Links toolbar, that will help me get around the rest of government. That already exists today - it's ukonline - and maybe that's the right place for this ubersite to be in the future, or maybe not. But there does need to be one such place. Underneath that single entry point is all of government, with its own brands and specialisations - because we know that individual departments already have their history, credibility and brand presence online and should not disturb that. But we do need to bring people to a place where they can find those specialists. The benefits that come from doing all of this are that people find information quickly, get access to services that they need when they need them, gain real financial benefits (in the shape of tax credits or whatever) that they didn't know they were entitled to etc. Gradually, government transforms its backends, reduces its cost of handling, delivers more efficient government and then the benefits flow from that transformed government. That latter point isn't a 2005 goal, indeed it will take many years to achieve fully. But it will happen. On my watch too. Rant over. Nearly. One last thing, the supplier community (as I will soon outline in my "Seven Deadly Sins of Suppliers") does its level best, for the most part, to persist this state of affairs by failing to leverage solutions already developed (often within any given supplier let alone when two suppliers are involved); by failing to deliver robust and reliable services (think PRO, think Inland Revenue, think all the others that you've heard about); and by failing to take the business side of implementation - because nearly all the issues that I outline above are about business, not technology. Dealing with government is not easy, I know that, but the lack of creativity, vision and capability within large numbers of suppliers to the public sector is not helping. Of course, to use a quote from before, "a consultant is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today" ... and who did I say was one of the largest supplier of such to government?
Back at the end of 1959, Richard Feynman gave a lecture at CalTech covering, principally, why big things can get a whole lot smaller. He talked about how we could easily envisage writing all of the Encyclopaedia Britannica on the head of a pin, how we could have an electric motor no bigger than 1/64 of an inch cubed and how we could build a computer that would recognise someone's face (without the machine being the size of the pentagon). He could see no reason why we couldn't do any of these things. I've been a fan of Feynman since I studied physics at school - I wish I'd had him as a lecturer, my grades would probably have been a lot better. So 43 years and 1 day ago, Feynman was thinking of the world the way it would likely be in the future - as he did with so many of his ideas. It seems to me that there is a lack of vision in many things today, that people are focused on the short term - on the financial results of the next quarter, on the housing market during the next 6 months, on the Nasdaq at the end of 2003. The big picture needs to be reiterated so that we can aspire to it, break it down into smaller steps and then start to live up to the dream that it inspires.
On Thursday I was wondering about the data protection problems that local councils have and how they could look at what the banks have been doing with their account aggregators for some support. Friday's Wall Street Journal had a feature in the "Personal Journal" section titled "Weighing the Pros and Cons of Grouping Accounts Online" (I'd link to it but (a) I'm not a subscriber to the online version and (b) you're probably not either, although I do hear that they have some 10s of thousands of online readers, I know that there are only 100,000 readers in Europe). It's a good article. It talks about both client side aggregation and server-side aggregation - and how the UK banks have pursued the former (because of those dratted data protection issues) and the global banks have gone for the latter (including my own bank, Citibank). The banks thought that this was going to be the killer app (the El Dorado the article says) of online banking, but so far it hasn't worked out that way, but it is, apparently, picking up. There are something like 150,000 to 200,000 users in the UK. Citibank's lawyers say that as long as the client initiates the aggregation and the client's data is in safekeeping and not used by the aggregator, there is no breach of the rules. Egg uses the client-side method. The only issue with this latter approach seems to be that if you regularly use different PCs, you'll have to install the plugin on all of them to allow you to see the details - something you might not want to do. But it still strikes me that there is something in this. This approach ought to be applicable in lots of scenarios where data protection might otherwise be a problem. For instance, we've long talked about the idea of a "citizen vault" where commonly used data resides so that you don' t have to keep filling in your name and address on government forms, for instance. There's nothing to stop this data being on your own PC for now and then you can grant or deny access as you wish. Some may worry that "government" will take this data and do things it's not supposed to do. Believe me, people I work with in government spend enough time agonising about doing what they can do and are allowed to - the idea that any of them would knowingly create a process that broke the law or even bent it is just not real. Government strives to be whiter than white in applying its own laws - to the outside world it probably doesn't always look that way but on the inside, that's what's going on every day, all the time. Here's a case where government can still be white but can make life easier for people ... the only step that they have to take is to be clear what it is that they want to happen, a simple change of address process; and then make it so. The flaw in the "citizen vault" process above is that it doesn't help government get it right in the various back end systems with which the citizen hasn't chosen to interact or doesn't know about. That means it doesn't revolutionise what we do in government, but it does kick us a step nearer the end goal. It also doesn't require a whole heap of new backend code to be written. I've been thinking a lot about the "backend" problem and will be writing some more about that soon. I've got a few things I want to write: my 7 deadly sins of suppliers and customers; the legacy problem and how we might address it; some stuff on single signon, including the problem of "digital identity"; a view on syndication and why it's not yet what it needs to be (coupled with a piece on the end of the hyperlink in government) and then (sooner than the others I hope), a year end wrapup.
Sunday, December 29, 2002
I was prompted by a note chez Dave Winer that the Pathe news articles are online. I wanted to look at anything they had on Neil Armstrong ... the website intro works fine ... but then I get this (and this is a straight cut and paste, with the line breaks deleted): "Error Diagnostic Information.An error occurred while attempting to establish a connection to the server. The most likely cause of this problem is that the server is not currently running. Verify that the server is running and restart it if necessary. Unix error number 111 occurred: Connection refused" .... Verify the server is running and restart? How on earth would I hope to do that? This ought to be a 1901 Census type site - one that drives a lot of traffic from all over the world as it's the only source of a huge range of broadcasts that many would find interesting - whether for old time's sake, academic interest or just plain fun. Eventually the site works, but it gets confusing. It pops up with an "invoice", but the amounts are all zero, and then you have to type in a bunch of personal data, but it's not really clear why or what will be done with the information. That's a shame, but it's worth persevering - like I said, where else are you going to find this? I just checked the Wired article that Dave W refers to ... it says 250,000 users tried it out in the first 3 days. Definitely in the killer app territory! But it also says only 50,000 films were downloaded by those 250,000. I wonder if the other 200,000 were put off by the registration process? I can't believe that they didn't find anything they didn't like. There's so much there!
Posted by Alan at Sunday, December 29, 2002
Friday, December 27, 2002
I've been catching up on my reading over the holiday. December's Government Computing has "Changing address - The data sharing dilemma" as its front cover and feature article. It seems (and this is backed up by legal advice from at least two sources, stimulated by a request from Shepway District Council) that if I want to tell my Local Council that I've changed my address, then I have to tell all the individual departments within the council because, if I just tell one, they're not allowed to tell any others. Now I can't imagine that this problem has just up and arisen today - this must always have been an issue but somehow we've been ignoring it. Now that we've got e-government, it must seem like a good time to raise the data sharing spectre. Apparently 12% of local councils (that would be about 55) are already risking legal challenge by circumventing this ruling, so Shepway have asked to be able to use a law known, pleasingly enough, as the "power of well being" that would allow them to share this data. I can think of a bunch of things that a law with that kind of name could be applied to and data sharing would be nowhere on the list, but there you are. It seems a government minister must ok such a request. What I don't follow is why we don't use technology to solve the problem and not share any data at all. As far as I read the law (and I have, several times) there ought to be a simple way around this. Suppose the website (and Shepway's is a nice site, by the by) offered the "change of address" service (I couldn't find it there today, so can't tell how they would have implemented it). You type in your old address, your new address and some identifier that makes sense to the council ... and the site then send X different messages to the council, each of which are individually addressed to different departments. The customer is oblivious to the fact that it's X different messages, whether X is 1 or 1,000 makes no odds - it's all XML schemas whizzing to the backends. This doesn't mean that all the backends need to be connected to the Internet - the messages can be routed through a hub (like our own Gateway) or even printed off in the post room and mailed using the address in the GovTalk envelope. I honestly don't see that this is an issue. The banks that are doing the "screen scraping" account aggregation would have faced the same issue, but they do all the aggregation on the client PC, so there is no point in the network when the data is shared with anyone other than the client - isn't this just the same thing. If it's a real problem, then the customer can tick a check box for each department that she wants to update and messages will only go to each of those. I suspect though that there is another underlying problem, to do with the reference number that is used to indicate who the customer is. In the central government world, we have the NINO, the UTR, the VAT number, the PAYE number and so on; the NHS has 20 numbers. I don't know how many the local world has, but I bet lots of money its not one for most councils. That would mean that there would have to be some kind of mapping service to match reference "N" to "M", "O" and "P" or whatever. That's a more interesting problem - but, again, the problem exists today. Every address in the UK has a unique number, but it's not something we make a lot of use of. So matching the addresses to the unique Post Office number might be a quick way to get around it - all you have to do then is make sure that the address change is genuine. A quick phone call, a text message maybe, an email even. Or maybe just another letter. I can't believe that this is stopping progress. The article goes on by saying councils don't know "whether to be brave or cautious". Always the former. Always, always, always. As John Dryden said, "None but the brave deserves the fair". One other thing from the same issue of the magazine caught my eye. Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council are implementing SAP (in fact mySAP.com) and the article notes that 150 consultants are "adjusting [the] platform to fit the council's needs". That's a startling, scary idea. If it's true (and who knows) then there are two things wrong. One, 150 people doing anything isn't going to work too well, will be expensive and will not give what you need. And second, far more importantly, I can't believe it isn't cheaper and easier to adjust the business processes to match to mySAP. What are they going to do when the next version comes along and they have to retest all the changes made to make sure that they still work? What happens if there's a bug in 6 months, are the 150 consultants still there? The motto of every government IT department ought to be "configure, not customise". Unless you absolutely have to, because you are doing something that noone else has done, you should only tinker with an off the shelf app, not make wholesale changes.
Posted by Alan at Friday, December 27, 2002
Thursday, December 26, 2002
So Boxing Day dawns and I've got Office XP installed on my tablet, via the WiFi link. I was idly wondering last night if it might be something to do with the "WEP" that I on my LAN here, so I took the key out (so that the network was, effectively, insecure - I can see Simon Moores is already digging out his Pringles can!). For whatever reason, it worked fine after that (I wonder whether it's something to do with the overhead of handling the encryption? I would have thought that's done by the card, but maybe not). What was nice to see was that XP asked me if I really wanted to connect to the network, even though it wasn't deemed secure. I don't remember that happening before. That worked for a while, then it stopped again - and when it crashes, I mean that it just stops. Everything freezes. So now I've taken out the extra memory that I installed a day or so after I got it and I'm running it on 256MB instead of 784 or something. Maybe that will work - it's been a long time since dodgy memory caused me a problem with a PC (I used to see ZX81 16KB - not a typo - ram upgrades and they would quite often fail the same way my tablet is today. Full circle maybe). A while ago I was asked to look at WiFi networks for government, particularly where they might be used in, say, hospitals or prisons. Places where the cost of ripping walls, floors and ceilings apart to install cables might be prohibitive or might cause too much disruption. I spoke to a very smart guy at BT Exact who had obviously spent far longer thinking about it than I had and knew pretty much everything that would need to be done to put together a defense class, confidential environment. But something in me wonders how much of that we need. If the scenario is a nurse wandering through wards with an Ipaq making sure that patients are ok, logging changes in conditions, maybe logging dietary requirements of new entrants, how secure would that need to be? If it's a doctor/consultant with a tablet logging case data (and so, finally, preventing it from disappearing down to the basement to be classified, lost or misinterpreted by the poor folks who have to put up with endless bits of paper down there) - would we need to worry about anything more than the basics? I know that Microsoft has deployed WiFi all over its Seattle campus, so maybe there is something in it. Or is that the wrong logic? If Microsoft have done it, it can't be secure? There's something here that we need to prod - WiFi has gained massive traction in the last year and yet almost noone in government is using it; or if they are, they're not owning up to it for fear of being busted. With the right basics (and tablet PC idiosyncracies not withstanding), surely there are some great apps that could be put in the hands of untethered workers?
Posted by Alan at Thursday, December 26, 2002
Wednesday, December 25, 2002
My gift to myself this holiday was one of the new tablet PCs, from HP (although it's branded Compaq). It's the one with the detachable keyboard, so you really can use it as a tablet as opposed to always carrying the keyboard around. It's not bad ... downsides are that it gets hot after an hour (battery life is about 3 1/2 hours it seems) and that's even though it runs on a Transmeta chip; it seems to crash when I try and use my home WiFi link to install software (it doesn't come with a CD so the only way to install stuff is over WiFi, but I haven't had it go long enough without crashing to do that). Still, early days; I'll try and fix the crashing problem. This stuff is though, I think, going to drive some great new apps - ones that realise that you have an interactive screen and then help you use it.
"The e-government campaign has taken us all onto new ground and it was inevitable that some of the early steps would be in the wrong direction. Acknowledging this and acting on it is crucial towards finding the right way". That's an extract from January's Government Computing (which I don't think posts its stories online) commenting on the Booze Allen report that placed UK 2nd in the world for e-commerce, but much nearer the bottom in e-government (principally because usage of services is low). Couldn't agree more ... the stakes are high, they can only get higher; if that survey rating shows us in the same position in 2005 (with 100% or near enough online), we're all going to look immensely stupid. And worse, someone will ask how many hospitals we could have built with all of that e-government funding.
Tuesday, December 24, 2002
I'm flattered to see that Simon Moores pointed to this site in his Computer Weekly column. He's making a general point about blogging (Simon and I started blogs at about the same time) and how blogs are creating an alternative to the usual news sources. I was nowhere near the beginning of this trend - Dave Winer was there about a hundred years ago (give or take) and others were doubtless alongside him, John Gotze got to government blogs before me too. But what we're seeing now, as Simon points out, is a network of inter-related sites that feed from each other, open up issues and provide (hopefully) insightful commentary on what's going on. There is a risk in this as Chris Gulker (another long time blogger) pointed out yesterday in an assessment of blogging versus journalism. He notes that blogs succeed "in Darwinian fashion, by drawing readers in and back again. They do this by being interesting, and believable even though they lack the credibility and marketing budgets of big-brand media" but cautions against those who "just shoot from the hip". Another article, in Wired, adds further to this angle noting some of the stories that were broken (or pursued ardently) via Blogs ... but also notes that many bloggers are merely "navel-gazers". Meanwhile, Blogger (the people who manage the software that produces this blog) have just under 1,000,000 users!
Posted by Alan at Tuesday, December 24, 2002
Friday, December 20, 2002
I met with Angela Vivian today. finally. this is a lady with a lot of energy to say the least. Angela runs "IT for the Terrified" and also "Wired Wedmore" - both of these will be familiar to you if you are in the technology industry as doubtless Angela has badgered and cajoled you to support the initiatives. Count me as one of her supporters - I think she's doing great things for a small community that some describe as the Knightsbridge of Somerset but, nonetheless, she's making a difference. And that is all that counts.
Posted by Alan at Friday, December 20, 2002
Wednesday, December 18, 2002
"The law requires the Office of Management and Budget to establish an Office of E-Government and appoint a director. It authorizes Congress to allocate $45 million in fiscal 2004, $50 million in 2005 and $250 million over the following two years for an e-government fund. The measure also institutes tighter IT security standards for agencies that OMB will establish with the help assistance of the National Institute of Standards and Technology" ... the USA have completed, I think, the final legal step in establishing an OeE equivalent - with some pretty serious money (can't quite tell why it is so backloaded, most of e-government implementations are front loaded hump costs with long tails for running costs). Now it's down to getting the right person in place to run it, allying them closely with Mark Forman (unless, of course, Mark is going to run it too) and giving that person the authority to get on with it.
That certainly is going for it ... Steve Marsh at OeE wonders whether government is expecting a miracle to ensure that we meet the 100% by 2005 target. This story got broad coverage, in Computing, but also most of the other online journals as well as some of the mainstream press (I happened to see it in the Telegraph). First off, I'm pleased that Steve managed to fit in a little quote on PKI and how it hasn't been quite the hit that some people thought it might have been (30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago or 1 year ago - the longest time spent getting from launch to plateau of discontent in the history of the Gartner hype cycle). But, more importantly, is a miracle either needed or on the cards? I think it was needed but the right kind of actions have been taken to make it unneeded (which is a relief, they're in pretty short supply these days as Internet Magazine notes). Steve is right to say that some of the easy stuff has been done - but that's what you expect, noone starts with the hardest thing (unless they have no downside, and there's definitely lots of that in government). Steve's comments chime in many ways with a recent PAC that was covered by the BBC, that noted that an insufficient number of highly usable services were online and that progress was not as fast as needed. But lots of bonus points to James Crabtree at VoxPolitics for picking up on the inconsistencies in this story. I think this story is turning - and six months is a long time in Internet politics (some of the samples that they took for the PAC appear to date back to June). There's a lot going on, a lot of progress being made and I, for one (maybe the only one?), remain very optimistic - backed up by a strong sense that a difference can be made here. That's not to say that I am forgiving all the caveats that I have laid out in the past on these pages, just that I see a real chance to grab victory here - a big chance, backed up by desire, increasing capability (this capability, which translates into risk aversity, is one of the reasons why delivery of e-government is backloaded - people want as long as possible to get the thing working!) and commitment (you only had to see the line-up of people at the e-Summit to know that commitment is one thing we're not short of). There is no doubt though, that there is a lot to do, a lot of barriers to overcome and some significant projects to implement. There is no excuse for complacency or for waiting for that miracle still.
Sunday, December 15, 2002
Will people playing the "Sims Online" game have to use e-government services to pay their housing tax, liaise with their local council for planning permission and report noisy neighbours? No, didn't think so. Not much of a game in doing that, is there?
When I was over in San Francisco last week one of the main themes of my meetings was how to improve the manageability of the various systems that I run for the UK government, whether it's the Gateway (probably north of 200 servers by now), UKonline (probably about 40 including the test environments) or any of the others. It seemed to me that although we were making great strides in increasing CPU power, adding wonderful new functions and ever increasing storage amounts, life was getting harder for the operations people, the systems engineers and so in the end, for me, the customer. In the recent past lots of people have wanted to sell me "blades" - lots of processors packed into a rack. I think I could probably get the whole Gateway into perhaps 2, maybe 3, racks (excluding the comms front and back ends) if this stuff really worked. But, I've been sceptical (partly because they're new and partly because having more CPUs in a smaller space increases the risk of cockup - and, per Blackadder, "We're not at home to Mr. Cockup", but seem to spend our time endlessly preparing the spare room). So, I was keen to see people who could do something to help - whether it was better management tools, software that would help deploy common configurations, systems that would reduce our dependence on adding every patch that's necessary (and reduce the risk of being caught out by something that exploits a patch that's not yet available) and so on. To that end, Bernie Frieder (late of San Francisco, the dti and now, I'm delighted to say, at OeE) set up some sessions for me, Simon Freeman (the most technically capable person I've met) and the e-Envoy himself, Andrew Pinder. - Naturally we went to see Marc Andreessen at Opsware along with Insik Rhee (who founded Keva before it was bought by Netscape and knows a thing or three about software) and Ben Horowitz (who ran Loudcloud with Marc and Insik and now is the CEO at Opsware). Marc and I have shared a stage in the past and also had dinner a couple of times. He's got some good insights into what's coming next and also keeps a wider brief - from whether the UK will form a department of homeland security equivalent, to a story about how he's just installed 3 terabytes of storage at home so that he can keep a library of HDTV programmes available! Since EDS bought the hosting arm of Loudcloud, the Opsware folks have been busy making the software deployable on a disk (similar to my plans for 'DotP on a Disk', which I ought to cover another time). They already have their first few customers and will be adding more with subsequent releases - progress looks good; the company is well-funded (probably better than almost every other 'startup' in the valley; the people motivated and they have lots of ideas, with the track record to back them up. We already use Opsware to manage UKonline and I was keen to see how it would evolve, to also support Linux and Microsoft platforms. There's a lot coming. Marc is also focused on the issues of how to manage large configurations (as you'd expect given what Opsware does) and recently went to print to state his case, some quotes that stuck out ... "Servers and applications are glued together using piece-parts, bailing wire and chewing gum ... With today's Web applications requiring dozens, and in some cases hundreds, of servers to run, IT just can't keep up. The solution is going to be found in automation and utility computing to make IT as easy to use and run--and as hands-off--as the phone system ... Those that don't take action today, when they have the luxury of taking the time to do it right, will find themselves unable to keep up with their competition when the economy starts to grow again" - Later in the trip we went to visit a "new" company or, at least one that has recently emerged from stealth mode. The new name for the company (the old name was "company 51" which I thought was way, way better) is Sana Security. The very smart people there want to make other security systems obsolete - by preventing any attack, whether it is known or unknown. The founder, Steven Hofmeyr, had the idea that if the human immune system worked the same way today's security systems work then we'd all have been extinct long ago. So he set out to apply some of the same principles and has come up with software that watches what's going on and determines whether it's part of the "normal" behaviour for a system - anything that is abnormal can be shutdown, alerted, quarantined etc. I'm purposely saying little here - I've checked the website and it is similarly vague. The software is still in its early days, but I think Steven is onto something - I will be waiting eagerly for something that we can try out on our systems. - We also saw a more mature company, Gilian, who's main product is the "G-server". Their game is not so much in preventing hacks (they reason that, one way or another, there's always a chance someone will get through - whether from the outside or (more likely) the inside), but in making sure that the hacker cannot change the website and post defamatory or misleading information. Clever stuff and, arguably, essential for any site, whether they think they have security nailed down or not. How much is your reputation worth as a company? The hacker boards are full of examples of sites that have been "updated" maliciously, so here's a way of managing that risk. That's a quick sample of some of the stuff that I saw last week. I've got lots more on my mind following the trip and I'll post that between now and the end of the year.
Thursday, December 12, 2002
There's a view, widely held in government, that centralisation means "everything's the same". It's wrong, but it's not an easy thing to change. Back in 1908 when Ford started shipping the Model T, Henry figured out that the cheapest way to produce cars would be to standardise everything - over the next 20 years or so he shipped more than 15,000,000 proving his point, and rarely changing the design throughout its life. Alfred Sloan, at GM, realised that this wasn't really the point - that you could, in fact introduce changes in design at a minimal cost and that customers would actually be prepared to pay for those changes so that they could be different. Sloan developed a series of models using the same chassis, drive train, wheels and so on but offering all kinds of colours and shapes - and then charged customers 15-20% more than Ford was charging. The customers loved it. Still centralisation, but centralisation with differentiation. This is the essence of our theme of government websites being "consistently different". You know it's a GM car, you know that it's based around some pretty standard components, but you've chosen the colour, the shape, maybe the interior trim and you think you've got a car that is special to you and you alone. In 1924, the slogan "A car for every purse and purpose" was published in the GM annual report. By the way, there are some other firsts in the GM history - the first car designed by a "stylist" was in 1927, the GM Java office was opened in 1927 (beating Sun to the word by about 70 years). Today GM, is worth about 20% more than Ford - but is making a positive return on equity versus Ford's far worse negative return. More than 75 years ago, car manufacturers realised how to deliver economies of scale while giving customers differentiated products. I've heard it said (but I can't find the source that in the 20s there were 100,000 types of cars and 100,000 car companies. Now there are the same number of car models available but only about 35 manufacturers - whether those numbers are right or wrong, the order of magnitude is probably right. Today, government is grappling with how to deliver web services that are "consistently different", but that make economic sense, deliver value (to government and the consumer) and that make a real difference.
Posted by Alan at Thursday, December 12, 2002
Monday, December 09, 2002
What a shame. I've just seen from John Gotze that Phil Windley has resigned. I've read a lot of Phil's stuff. His strategy for e-government was pretty much down the same path that we're following in the UK, although I think Phil had pushed it along further than we have so far managed - you can see some of that by visiting the Utah website. Many of the services are delivered in a consistent way, design of sites is simple and also consistent etc. I wish Phil well in his quest, I will be watching with interest for more detail on his version of events versus those of his "critics". My sense is if something would make me resign, it's similar issues to the ones that he lays out in his letter - I will bang my head against a wall on those for a bit longer.
Posted by Alan at Monday, December 09, 2002
Sunday, December 08, 2002
Tuesday, November 26, 2002
I'll be out of town the rest of this week and all of next week. I'm going to take some time out to come up with some new ideas, talk to some interesting people about what's new in technology and innovation and get some rest. I might post from where I'm at if I get the chance, otherwise I'll put what's new up week of the 9th December. To the Americans out there, have a good thanksgiving; the rest of you take care.
The e-summit last week prompted coverage across most media, including a pretty good piece in Tthe Guardian. I say pretty good, because it essentially rehashed old ground - the Self Assessment problems, the PRO problems, Iraq dossier and so on. All of those are good and true things, but they're a bit tired - it's not as if every time I read the Guardian (which is not often) I lambast them for being wrong so many times - wrong at spelling, wrong on opinion and wrong on page layout or whatever. The article did give some options for the future - a weekly webcast for the PM or a new hompage for No10. If that's the limit of innovation in the Private Sector who are so hot to trot on this stuff, then really we should be worried. People don't come to government sites to see the PM and they don't particularly go to No10's home page (although it is one of the more regularly visited sites, partly because it has regular news updates, speeches from the PM, briefs from Alistair Campbell and partly because it's a good tourist site) - they come to government for help in solving problems that only government can help with. So information on tax, setting up companies, claiming benefits, finding a job - those are all common search terms on ukonline. Now more importantly I suspect, over time they will come less and less to government sites for those problems because the services will be available through an increasing variety of intermediaries who take the base offer from government and wrap an additional layer of value around it. We're not at that point yet, but suspect we will be 2, maybe 3 years from now. So that brings me to the other post of the day, from James Crabtree over at Voxpolitics. "Hold the front page" he says ... and links to yet another turgid report on how awful government websites are. Same old, same old. Another company with a service to sell (in this case, about some large number of pounds for a full report on a big government website) issues a press release, vaguely touting their service and pointing out how they can help. Can they? Well only if you want to know that x% of the errors on the site are badly formatted HTML that remains invisible to the client, y% are other invisible errors and there are a few broken links. I can come up with a bit more than that without spending that kind of money. But so little innovation in thinking about what services to put online, how to make them easy to use, how to genuinely do new things that are not available offline. Now that would be good info and would help us tune our own work. Instead its open season on the easy target. James - I thought you knew better.
Thursday, November 21, 2002
I came across two great quotes from Niccolo Machiavelli today ... “Innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime and only luke warm support is forthcoming from all those would prosper under the new” “There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things” These two should be the mottos of e-government pioneers.
Posted by Alan at Thursday, November 21, 2002
Wednesday, November 20, 2002
Out of all the press coverage over the last couple of days on e-summits and the like, only one article stands out for me. It's a small piece in a journal I don't normally read that tells the story seen from the Benchmarking report (and yes [Bill] I know that sometimes benchmarking is not a good tool but, in this case, it positions us clearly against some other countries and shows where we are weak - and gives us a legitimate focus for effort. That's far, far better than either no focus or focus on the wrong things). And then it goes on to say, referencing making e-government work effectively, "But it's a difficult thing to do" and "The scale and complexity of the projects are such as to make them challenge even the most battle hardened project manager. They are tackling these projects though and, gradually, they're delivering real value at grass roots and corporate level." Absolutely right. It's going to happen though. Thank you to IT-Analysis, I'll read you more often - or maybe it's just one author, "Jack Of Hearts" (the name gives it all away, he's obviously get a soft heart). And there's even a quote that I like ... "Everyone has his day and some days last longer than others." - Winston Churchill. When my day comes, I hope it's very, very long.
Posted by Alan at Wednesday, November 20, 2002
Tuesday, November 19, 2002
There was a great article on the front page of the Wall Street Journal yesterday. I won't link to it as, although I subscribe to the print edition, I don't have access to the online version (you have to pay extra and since I read the WSJ every day in the dead tree version, there seems little point in paying extra to read it again on a PC). The issue presented is one of a dinosaur-like Sony experiencing slowing growth, strengthened competition across many fronts and a business where the bulk of profit for the last 2 years has come from the Playstation franchise. Idei-san, the chairman, thinks that that the head of the Playstation unit, Ken Kutaragi, may be the man for the future - the catalyst. He says "if his personal ego is stronger than his will to keep Sony prosperous, then he will fail ... [the question is] whether he can change, can be a god." Those are powerful words coming from someone like Idei-san who goes on to say "Most people think Sony in 2010 will be a continuation of today's Sony. I don't think so". Kutaragi will be charged with injecting the lessons learnt from the video game business into the rest of the company and will be part of the 3-man team that runs the whole Sony group. That's some promotion. But Kutaragi says he doesn't want to run the show - he would have "to sacrifice myself endlessly for the coming years. My health would be ruined ... [it's] not for me." Kutaragi is billed by one senior manager as the "Michael Jackson" of the business - quirky, but creative. Idei-san even told Bill Gates at one point, after an aborted (and secretive) plan to join up with Microsoft, that "he doesn't control Mr. Kutaragi." So, a dinosaur like operation is going to get consumed from the inside out by its own video game franchise, led by a maverick who has minimal respect for the overall sense of things who in 1999 declared (loudly) at a conference that "the old guys [in Sony] should make way for the young guys". Now there's something to conjure with.
Biggest disappointment of the day? Overnight fog. Last night we were supposed to get a 'stellar' performance as the Earth moved through the Leonid meteor shower. When I went to bed at 11.30pm fog so enshrouded London that I couldn't see the dome of St. Paul's (which is about 500' from my back door). At 4am, when the peak of activity was supposed to be, there was nothing to be seen but cloud. This was supposed to be the asteroids' finest performance for 100 years and something not to be seen again for another 100 years. So it was a huge disappointment. I felt like I'd just missed Halley's comet again. Second biggest disappointment of the day? The Prime Minister speaking at the UK's e-summit and not mentioning e-government. At least not in the sense of what we've done so far is ok but here's what we have to do to change it: fewer websites, greater focus on integrating personal, relevant information with intuitive transactions and so on. Prime Ministerial speeches come and go (hey, even Prime Ministers come and go); there'll be another chance to get the message across. The Leonids won't be seen the way they were today (in some parts of the world) for 100 years.
Larry Ellison spoke at OracleWorld last week, beaming in via satellite from New Zealand. He had a few things to say that are relevant to some of the points I've made recently. Rather than have you link, I'll post the quotes I want to highlight: He said the three biggest problems in information processing today are data fragmentation, incomplete software integration, and incomplete automation. 1. "You have so many separate databases all over your organization, all over your industry, that it's very difficult for you to know where to look when you need some information." 2. Customers have also bought too many software applications that don't work properly together, he said, leading to poor integration. 3. "It turns out that as we sell you these general ledger systems, these ERP systems, these CRM systems that, historically, they haven't been complete. By that I mean you couldn't just take them and plug them into your business and operate your system." 4. "We would like every one of our customers to run the same exact software configuration; that's how you get software quality," he said. Altering products too much makes them harder to support and maintain. So ... we have too many software products with too many databases, none of which integrate well, all of which have been customised. Well at last he realises. Of course, Oracle (just like every other company) has spent the last n years pitching us umpteen solutions for infinite requirements. Suppliers have not managed their customers to help create replicable solutions that could be widely deployed with minimal customisation and customers have not managed their suppliers to hone down the requirements and facilitate the deployment of simpler solutions. Today, we have a huge mess of systems and databases that we must now draw together. The graph I put up a few days ago showing my forecast for the trend in government website growth could equally apply to back end legacy systems and databases, although everything in me says that it will take longer to realise that vision. So, Larry does get it. A bit. But he wants you to buy the next version of whatnotgadgetrelease that will make it all better. Right. But then, on the other channel, there's Scott McNealy lamenting that buying products from one vendor alone is not a safe route either (he's talking about Microsoft, but it doesn't really matter who). One quote I've heard from Scott a few times is that Microsoft products are "integrated", not "integratable". Looks like Oracle wants to go the same route too. If it helps make implementation simpler, I'm all for it. No matter who sells it. But then, on yet another channel, we have McNealy again saying something different ... One of the first initiatives is to bundle Sun's applications onto Solaris servers by June next year. "It'll all work," claimed McNealy. "It will all be integrated: you don't have to assemble it; you don't have to do all of that integration." So just imagine ... perhaps it doesn't work today? But no need to worry whether that might be the case, Scott tells you it is ... "I'll let you into a dirty little secret," he confided. "We're not sure that all Sun's software all running on one Solaris machine actually works, so we're testing it." What? Testing it? About time. And, as for Microsoft, some veiled praise ... "The software is all welded together and welded shut," he insisted. "You don't get best of breed, [and] you can't mix and match." Fascinating stuff. But the clear point is that the IT industry has had an epiphany. Having fallen over itself to sell us, the customer, endless upgrades, endless databases, endless incompatible systems, endless functionally incomplete solutions (and I use that last word in its loosest possible sense), they've woken up. Maybe the lack of money available for investment means that the customer is being forced to get intelligent; maybe the failures over the last 2 years have been the catalyst to get that intelligence; maybe the focus on accounting shambles and CEO accountability is giving us that intelligence. I don't care where it's coming from, stronger performance from customers backed up by commitment from suppliers will get us there. Anything less won't. I'm in the middle of compiling a "Seven Deadly Sins" article - seven for customers and seven for suppliers. Be interested in thoughts from anyone, either on your blog or by email to me at the Cabinet Office.
Monday, November 18, 2002
A funny piece by Computing's Mole haranguing a big UK bank's system problems. I'm the last person to gloat over IT problems - we've had a few in government of course. But as we roll out increasingly complex systems with more functionality, cleverer widgets and increasing criticality for the customer, do we really have the ability to integrate, support and manage the IT we've got today? I was thinking about this especially because I'd just read a piece on John Gotze's weblog (who has been writing increasingly prolifically recently - I'm having a hard time staying up with him. He and I seem to be exchanging more and more links - we're not just in it for the search engine placings, honest!) . The note was about the future of web services and quoted an AtosKPMG consultant's theories. I've stripped out the ones that aren't relevant to my point (but they don't contradict it): 1. The standards underpinning Web services will hold up. 2. The financial services, travel, energy and public sectors will be among the first to embrace Web services. 3. Web services will dramatically change the software market. 4. Web services will become the basic building block of technology and business infrastructures. Point (1) is hard to disagree with - those standards are going to evolve but they work today and no reason to see why they should change, it's where and how they're used that will matter. Point (3) and point (4) are the ones that really scare me. Web services are only likely to be the building blocks of services inside the firewall (how will I figure out whether I can trust anything outside my own firewall as a corporate?), and the only way that they are going to dramatically change the software market is by giving us all something new to buy, something new to integrate into and something new to worry about schema standards, authentication calls and polling submissions. And then point (2) says it all ... two of the four industry groups (banks and government) have the worst records at implementing new technology - so unless someone else is going to do it for them (us), how will this work? And this comes from someone who led the team that built what you could arguably call the first public sector web service (maybe even the first?), the UK's government gateway. So, it's not that I'm against web services - I just don't want to see us fall victim to another oversold technology that will force us all into another sweeping upgrade path which most of us will fall off (and it's a long way down into the abyss from where we are now). I'm increasingly bothered that the new new thing (to quote Michael Lewis) becomes the be all and end all. But what matters still is "the perfect service". Please don't tell me that I need new new things to deliver services that match those criteria? Surely if Amazon can sell books with what it has today, I can deliver e-government services without a whole load of new new things? We've not even scratched the surface of delivering content managed websites with personally tailored information, let alone giving updates on services via mobile phone text messages? And now I have to build/buy/borrow/steal some web services? Agh.
The day after the last election I was onstage first thing in the morning, opening a conference. I'd been watching the TV and had just seen Hague's resignation speech and was fairly sure that few of the delegates would have seen it. I opened with an observation that the trend to prefix everything with "e" seemed to have just finished and that we were moving to "x" - xbox, Mac OS X, Office XP, XML and so on. So the previous day, I continued, we'd had the xlection and this morning we had an "x leader of the Tory party". This month's Edge magazine has managed to combine both "e" and "x" to come up with "ex-box" in reference to the likely future of Microsoft's games machine. And if games keep coming out like Blinx, those words will come true. Truly awful. And, yes, I realise that this has nothing to do with e-government, but the tenuous link was to my presentation speech nearly 18 months ago! Two years ago, I bet a senior exec from Microsoft UK that Xbox would consume more than $2 billion and then be dropped, a failure. It needs to sell 10 million units to get me out of the bearish camp and I don't see that happening. But what's more likely is version 1 will consume this amount and then will come version 2, launched at the same time that Sony launch version 3. Kutaragi versus Allard. I'd be long Sony again, but with less certainty this time.
Doc's talking about the "Particulars of Bill", a plan for the USA to build a super-database, the mother of all databases to store everything that you ever do and any data that exists about you. The full story is in a piece in the New York Times. You'll need to be registered to read this - I have an account and I don't remember paying for it so I guess it's free. Doc quotes this bit: "If the Homeland Security Act is not amended before passage, here is what will happen to you ... Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database." To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you — passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance — and you have the supersnoop's dream: a "Total Information Awareness" about every U.S. citizen. " I don't think so. Look back to my piece from "Yes Minister" a few weeks ago - they were talking in 1980 about this kind of database and, more than 20 years on, we're not there yet. Government is not Walmart - it can't manage the legislation, the technology, the implementation or the operation of anything like this. Not 20 years ago, not today and (I'm confident) not 20 years from now. The procurement wil chew up the next 5 years during which time the requirement will have moved 500 times, the specification required ultimately will be far from what was procured, the vendor who wins will then start to plot the delta, the administration will change, the climate will change (the political one, although possibly the meterological one too by the time this is done - bring on the glaciers, because that's as fast as a project like this will move). And, net, nothing will be there. And if, by some miracle, it gets built then it won't work!
Sunday, November 17, 2002
I never comment on the political situation in the UK, but this quote in the Sunday Times caught my eye ... "I can see this going to Armageddon,” Cameron said. “Chief fire officers are shaking in their boots because Bain has unearthed things that the likes of Richard Branson would have done away with 25 years ago". This comes from an "independent" fireman who, I think, has come up with the right analogy. Government still does things that the big corporates stopped doing years or even decades ago - can you imagine Stelios running a business this way? (you'll need to have an account with the Sunday Times to read the whole article).
John Gotze's done it again ... he was first with the govblog (ok, so I was first with the egovblog), first with the XML feed and now he's got an XFML feed. I read what he said and then the links he refers to, I'm not sure I get it yet. Today I wrote to Dave Winer to ask him some questions on RSS. I want to know if I can use RSS to pull up "definitive" content from another site - say I want to find out exactly what "Disability Living Allowance" is, could I use RSS with some parameter or other to a "definitions site" to get the right words? Could I also extend that to delivering personalised content, based on a few keywords, from sites around government in a single consistent thread - i.e. not just links or teasers but the whole text presented in a seamless way? I'm hoping he'll fill in some gaps in my knowledge.
Just so you know, what got me thinking about the first post I put up today - getting a bunch of smart people in a room to work through the e-government issues - was this article from Jon Udell. He links to Brent (the more expensive the content management system, the crappier the URLs), Phil Windley (on finding data amidst the government morass) and others ... we need to harness all those links!
A while ago (October 12th) I noted that things in the USA had a chance to progress quite dramatically if the CIO that they were talking about appointing was given the authority and the money to get things done. Well, the House has passed the first stage of the bill to set that up. $50 million for each of the next 2 years looks in the bag - not a bad pot for a central organisation. Now, if along with that comes authority and the ability to stop others spending money where they shouln't, then the ante is upped for sure.
I'm going to get to my point via a fairly roundabout route, so forgive me. What does a perfect e-government service look like? Nowhere in the world is take-up running at dramatic levels - that is, levels where anyone could reasonably say that they have transformed their government, delivered something to their citizens that they never had before or mammothly reduced costs the way that we expect businesses to do every day. So, what would a service look like that would achieve that kind of take-up? A perfect service. It must be: - Easy to find - hunting for a service by trawling through hundreds of websites or by entering obscure terms into a search engine shouldn't be the rule. So that means it's either on a simple website (www.gov.uk?) or available through someone else's service that you are using (bank, insurance agent, pension provider). - Personal - the service needs to know who you are, so there must be a simple and effective way for it to know who you are and what rights you have over the service. That might be a digital certificate or it might be a userid/password or it might be a token that you already have (like a travelpass, entitlement card or identity card). - Relevant to you at the time - the service must be wrapped in information that you need at the time that you need it. That means that the service needs to know a little about you, either because you've just told it, you told it last time or it can intuit enough based on the path you took to get to it. So entering data that you've entered elsewhere is out. - Proactive - the service needs to tell you when something has progressed with your application or request; or it needs to tell you when something has changed in the process or in your interaction with it. So the service needs to know how to reach you by the way that you want to be reached (so mobile phone text messages, email alerts). - Reliable - when you need to use the service it needs to be there, it needs to work quickly and efficiently and it needs to do it on the system, device or gadget that you are using. So, if it needs to be all those things, how do we get to a service that might look like that. Well, one way (and I'm finally getting to my point) that occurred to me has to do with the authors of the weblogs that I read. Over on the left of this page you'll see the main ones - and there are others that I read less regularly and still others that I am sure that I would read if I could find them (back to that easy to find thing). The issue is that they write in their space, I write in mine - and we all wonder about each other's ideas and we try and interact, but it's all a bit remote. If we were to setup a forum that had Phil Windley with his views on authentication, Dave Winer with his technology ideas (and developments in RSS), Jon Udell just because he knows lots of stuff, John Gotze because he set up the first government-related weblog and also because he understands the issues that face government, Simon Moores because he's been around the block on this stuff for a while, James Crabtree and Bill Thompson because they are Vox Politics and probably Vox People. And there are others too I am sure. So if we put them all in a "room", virtual or otherwise, and had them map out the things that are needed to deliver services that have the features that I outlined above, could we solve all of the problems that we face, deliver services that people want and see, finally, transformed government? Just a thought.
Tuesday, November 12, 2002
Monday, November 11, 2002
And John Perry Barlow talking at the "Beyond the Backlash" conference (best covered by Voxpolitics), comes out with another good quote "If we design [e-government] to serve existing models of business and government and to follow short-term goals we will be bad ancestors," he said. "Do not, I beg you, be bad ancestors." And that is absolutely true. Leafletsonline.gov.uk is not a model for 6 months out, let alone 6 years or more.
Definitely the week for e-government stories - this one even gets to quote C.K. Prahalad, Agile Is As Agile Does. C.K. says "all organizational change has at its root the insight of a single individual" and the article then links that with "the vision of these individuals has lead to real progress that gives palpable life to the notion of E-government". But another favourite quote from Ron Miller at the FEMA, "my biggest worry every morning is whether we're doing all we can to use technology the best we can". I'm nearly on that page. My biggest fear is that we're going to have to use more technology to get what we want, whereas I'd like to retrench with what we've got, make it secure, make it reliable, make it do the job. I'm not yet convinced that all of this stuff is ready for prime-time, mission critical status. And I think we're a long way from that readiness.
E-government seems to be getting a little more mainstream coverage, as evidenced by this feature in the online Business Week. I was a little startled to see this quote from someone at IBM ... "e-government has four levels. The first is slapping information up on the Web, something that has already happened. Next is organizing that information into more useful forms -- such as wizards that answer common questions in place of long lists of hyperlinks that readers have to search through to find answers. Third is transactions ...". About 18 months ago I put up a slide at a conference in London that talked through the "four levels" and how every time a new level was aimed at, there were a huge number of technical issues to cross (digital signatures, content management systems, more robust systems, access to back end databases and so on). Since then I've seen versions of the slide all over the place, including an almost exact clone delivered by another vendor in Romania. The article also shows that online tax is hard, even in an area such as Washintgon ... "More than 250,000 people have used Washington State's Revenue Dept. site to pay taxes, and 500 more start doing so each month. By yearend, the department will serve an estimated 18% of its 220,700 monthly and quarterly filers online. This will free staffers to spend more time on customer service and other tasks". You would have thought that the home of Microsoft and Amazon to name but two tech companies there would have a much higher take-up. 18% is, of course, still higher than the UK. Mark Forman delivers the same quote that he gave in my previous post today, "We are the most Web-savvy government in the world". Beg to disagree Mark. 180 million pages online across more than 30,000 websites does not make you web-savvy, it makes you web-heavy. And the ray of hope at the end? "That's a sign that the irresistible force -- the Internet -- is nudging government beyond its paperbound roots and into a more flexible, more responsive, and ulimately, more efficient era". I hope so, for everyone, everywhere.
Here's an interview with Mark Forman, the USA e-envoy equivalent talking shop about e-government. I don't think I've come across an interview with him before. Best quote? Easy. "We had 22,000-plus Web sites, and more than 30 million documents and Web pages. Now, it's up to 180 million documents and pages. We're online, but the issue is how effective and efficient the federal government is in serving the citizens." A week ago in Romania I guessed that there were 30,000 sites at a Federal level and perhaps 100,000 including state and local government. Looks like I might have been conservative. This is government's biggest problem. We still think like government when we talk to people - and noone takes the citizen's view. We need people who are going to champion the view of the people and lay it on the line to make sure that the services that are delivered are important for the citizen, not important for government.
Friday, November 08, 2002
Kablenet has picked up a story from a "senior downing street policy adviser" saying that the PM will talk, in the next couple of weeks, about the "Next Steps for Britain". I'm hoping that some of the stuff that I talk about will make it into those steps, but I haven't seen the speech. I'm theming my stuff on the "Next Stops for Britain", we need to stop a few things in their tracks before we can realise our real potential. We need a kick in the pants in the UK on e-government and the best person to deliver that is the PM. From there we can run with it.
The first snow of the year had fallen during the night but by the time I arrived in the centre of Bucharest it was already a grubby mush, swept away by drivers who have the alarming habit of using all of the road rather than just their lanes. The monuments of the Communist regime are easily visible on the way from the airport – huge, austere constructions (the “free press” building that now houses more than 200 independent publishers; the natural history museum, the military museum, countless enormous houses – presumably repurposed now, no longer the homes of the favoured few). It has been a while since I felt the cold drip of melting snow down the back of my neck as the water cascaded from the balconies and cornices high above. The Parliamentary Palace, venue for the conference, is just enormous - the link will give you more data than you ever imagined you'd need. Nothing prepared me for how big it is, but you would certainly not call it beautiful. To think that Ceaucescu constructed it for his home, although he met his end before it was finished. Almost every square inch of floor, stair, banister, wall and column (think of an Egyptian hypostyle and you won’t be far off) is white marble. After the revolution, it was finished off with minimal furnishings, but vast numbers of ornate chandeliers, occasional carpets and beautiful, religious-inspired, murals. Inside, it looks amazing – amazingly awesome and amazingly empty. In a country where the average monthly net wage is a little over $100 it was both inspiring and shocking. A red bull at the airport costs as much as a gin and tonic that in turn costs as much as the taxi ride to the centre of town – about $3. The conference got off to a late start and the speeches held to just a few minutes long. I noted as I opened mine that long ago I had ready the “one minute manager” but had not expected to give the “Seven minute guide to e-government”. My slides were not available so I adlibbed making just a few of the points that I had planned for my twenty minute talk. It turns out that seven minutes is about enough time to get across the essence of what to do next with e-government. Every few conferences I try and come up with a new theme, to stave off my own boredom and also to keep the regular attendees at these things thinking. The theme this time was “e-government is as much about what you stop doing as what you start doing”. There were some good points well made by other speakers: - The Italian Minister talked up the single electronic identity card; a government-issued extension of the existing ID card that will be the base for all e-government transactions. He also talked of reversing the previous trend of centralisation by giving power to the local municipalities, whilst maintaining control over standards in the middle. A risky path that is as likely to result in fragmentation as anything. - The Russian delegate noted the intention to learn from other countries that were further ahead. He said that 70% of e-government services are not used by the citizens for whom they were developed – I have no idea of the source or accuracy of that statement, but it is easy to believe that some number of that order is correct. Like his colleague from the Ukraine, he worried that there were issues around provision of “last mile” bandwidth (certainly insufficient to deliver multi-media), semantic search capability, auto-translation of content and a lack of regional content. - The Finnish delegate listed the various national databases (seemingly covering every possible piece of information needed) which are updated regularly (it’s mandatory) and used as the source for all necessary information. I’ve looked at these before and they are certainly a huge advantage in the e-government stakes. The most powerful quote came in this speech – “Don’t push new technology (it usually fails) but do be compatible with your customers”. Those working on digital signatures and certificates (and almost every delegate listed them as a priority), beware – if they don’t work in developed countries, they probably won’t work elsewhere. - A last minute entry came from Canada where Mark McDowell, custodian of the website “Aboriginal Planet” noted how far Canada had progressed. Take-up figures were impressive – some 75% of tax returns will be filed online next year; 20%+ of Canadians use the Internet as their PRIMARY channel to Government and 40% say that they will over the next year. I noted that all of the website pictures he showed displayed a very standard “common look and feel”, as opposed to a “consistent look and feel”; perhaps they have gone too far with that and need to re-introduce, albeit carefully, a little more sub-branding. Online consultations will be introduced next year. So, on the theme of “e-government is more about what you stop than what you start”. Here are my 7 principles, one a minute, for the next steps: - Stop putting online what you already have offline. If the online service is not sufficiently different, no one will use it and you will waste time and money. Leafletsonline.gov.xx is not a strategy. - Stop replicating within your own government what has already been done. Separate ministries implementing separate systems for key functions such as authentication, payments etc is a waste. If people have to do the same thing too many times to get similar results, they won’t use the services. - Stop building websites. The world probably does not need anymore and governments certainly do not. If you have one, that is enough. If you have more than one, start a plan to get back to one. Think how much easier it will be to focus on delivering content that is relevant to the citizen if you don’t have to piece it together from hundreds or even thousands of websites. If your people can’t find the service, they won’t use it. - Stop and think before you say you want to include citizens in the consultation process. If 10 million people suddenly give you their views online, how will you manage? How will you let them know their views are valuable and appreciated? If the feedback is not valued, people will stop giving it. - Stop designing services from the government view of the world and start designing them from the citizen’s perspective. If people have to think too hard about the structure of government, they will give up, use the ‘phone or go to an office for information. And while you're at it, design all your websites consistently. That doesn't mean make them the same, but do make them "consistently different". That means consistent navigation, consistent styles, consistent places for related links but it also means consistency of tone and voice. It doesn't mean make them all blue with grey text and yellow borders or anything remotely like that. - Stop putting online tax first in the list of transactions to go online. Start putting online benefits, pension management … anything that delivers direct value to the citizen. Tax can come later – once you have given them money online they are more likely to let you take it from them online. - Stop worrying about whether the target is valid and start delivering against it. E-government is primarily about benefit to the citizen. What follows from that is transformation of government, competitive advantage for the economy and probably a better environment all round (less money spent in one place means more spent somewhere else). And that was that ... back to the UK!
Tuesday, November 05, 2002
I closed the speech I gave today with this slide: The audience were mostly private sector people - suppliers and vendors - trying to engage with the various offices of government in Northern Ireland. I tried to convey the impression of big opportunities available now to create services that would make a difference to citizens, leveraging infrastructure (such as the Gateway) that was already available. Things looked positive, hopefully we'll get some interesting responses.
Interactive Bureau, a web design agency, has published a survey of government websites. In 200 pages they've skimmed over about a 1000 sites and reviewed in detail 20 key ones. The first thing that struck me as strange is that they don't seem to have commented that 1,000 sites is about 990 too many. How can the citizen find their way around that many sites without being totally confused? Apart from that, the conclusions raised seem appropriate - sites have information that is difficult to navigate, use complicated language (a whole new meaning of govtalk) and, (for me) most importantly, they note that design is inconsistent. There's some talk about a task force to address the problem which is too small and being swamped - I'm not sure who they are, but it might be OeE I guess. The Register picked up on the story and re-iterated the point that the Number 10 website comes in for some of the worst criticism. One story picking up on it came to the conclusion, somewhat oddly, that the entire e-government programme should be abandoned. Rescuing themselves a little later in the piece, they nearly correctly concluded: "It is clear that the Government’s current Guidelines, despite their eminently practical approach to Web site provision, are not being adhered to. Therefore, it may be that the only way to do this is to impose rigorous standards on Webmasters, and to monitor their implementation, based on a Government-wide high level strategy". 'Nearly' because I think it will take a little more than imposing those standards.
Sunday, November 03, 2002
I've re-worked the slide that I usually use of the Gateway. I'll be using this in a couple of conferences that I have this week, one in Northern Ireland and one in Romania. Belfast I've been to before, but Bucharest is going to be a whole new place for me. I'm looking forward to it. Anyway, the new slide tries to convey the need for two types of access to government back end systems, (1) for thin clients and (2) for fat clients (aka Accountancy or payroll systems etc). I don't see anyone else in the world addressing these two needs with any degree of success on a cross-government basis (honourable achievers include the Australian Tax Office and the US IRS - but neither is cross-government). To do that, the theory is that one great piece of central infrastructure (the Gateway) is better than many departmental systems. On top of the Gateway you can initially layer rules engines and a variety of web services (say a payments engine, a secure mail server, a government-citizen text messaging service, an appointment reservation/booking systems etc) - but ultimately the Gateway-type system grows to include those too. Here's the picture:
Posted by Alan at Sunday, November 03, 2002