RE: [egov-ms] RE: Future of eGov member section

[bniemann@cox.net]

John and All, Interesting discussion today and my comments/suggestions 
are:

The way to get to Transformational Government is Self-Service 
Cloud-Based Shared Services

Self-Service Cloud-Based Shared Services is not what NIST and others are 
doing - it is not what you put in the cloud but how you put it there - 
with semantic interoperability or it is just another set of silos!

Be Informed is the state-of-the art for doing all of this - see 
http://www.beinformed.com/BeInformed/website/en/EN/BrandNiemann?init=true

We should do a series of pilots like I did for my SEMIC.EU Conference 
Keynote and here in the US for my upcoming presentations with Mills 
Davis.

See http://cloud.binarygroup.com/ Username: guest and Password: guest

Brand

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:50 AM, John Borras wrote:

> Thanks Peter, a very useful contribution and surely something we could 
> do
> some useful work on.  However I don't think we could justify a MS that 
> just
> focuses on this one issue though, it needs to be part of a wider 
> dimension.
> And that dimension I feel is now Transformational Government.   I 
> think we
> have explored eGov as far as we can and as you say most of the issues 
> we are
> examining  are cross-cutting issues that are not eGOV specific which 
> gives
> us a problem with being an exclusive domain.  However I think as we 
> are
> seeing from the TGF TC work that is an area that will give us 
> exclusivity
> and provide us with many specific public sector aspects that we can 
> explore
> and do useful work on - governance being one of those.
>
>
> I'd like us to take today's StC call and our F2F meeting in UK next 
> time
> round to discuss this in depth and if we can reach agreement start 
> drafting
> out a new constitution for the MS.  I realise getting that agreed and
> implemented by the MS and the Board will be a challenge but I think 
> the time
> has come in the lifecycle of the eGov MS for us to think about this 
> sort of
> step change.
>
> John
>
>
> From: Colin Wallis [mailto:Colin.Wallis@dia.govt.nz] Sent: 12 
> September 2011 01:07
> To: egov-ms@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [egov-ms] RE: Future of eGov member section
>
>
> Good thought Peter
>
>
> I certainly see a number of shortcomings in technology governance in
> government, starting with the word itself. Governments seem to have 
> grasped
> onto governance, in the faddish way they grasp lots of things..and 
> operate
> the process (because the know process!) without deeply understanding 
> what
> they are trying to achieve/get out of the process.  Governance becomes 
> the
> process..and with it..well almost certain failure of the role of 
> governance.
>
>
> I would support a topic area along these lines.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Colin
>
> From: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com] Sent: Saturday, 10 
> September 2011 1:37 p.m.
> To: egov-ms@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [egov-ms] Future of eGov member section
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I won't be able to join the call on Monday as I'll be on a plane - so 
> a few
> comments regarding the member section - as an "ordinary member", I 
> hasten to
> add, not as a member of the OASIS Board!
>
>
> A problem that we have constantly faced is that the theme of 
> "eGovernment"
> is so all-embracing. Many of the specific issues that we have faced as
> eGovernment practitioners - whether on eID, procurement, role of 
> standards,
> cloud computing, etc. - are often the principal focus of other 
> communities,
> whether within OASIS (other member sections or technical committees) 
> or
> beyond. Where we seem to have struggled is identifying the set of 
> areas in
> which this member section can lay claim to be a primary focus of 
> attention.
>
>
> So, in order to move the discussion forward, here is an idea for 
> Monday's
> discussion and, hopefully at the F2F in the UK in October.
>
>
> I believe that a central concern that we all share - and which is a 
> current
> focus of the "Transformational Government Framework" TC - is that of
> "Technology Governance". It is not an exclusively public sector 
> concern -
> many studies dismantle the myth that the private sector is immune to 
> poorly
> managed IT projects - but I believe that the policy drivers are 
> different.
> An example:
>
>
> In the private sector, it's OK to fail and lose money on prototyping 
> new
> ideas, writing costs off on R&D, because the main driver remains the 
> bottom
> line and there is an acceptance of a degree of risk in achieving those
> goals. In the public sector, much more risk averse and (rightly) 
> conscious
> about how public money is spent, the priority is delivering 
> cost-effective
> services.
>
>
> Coupled with the all-too-often seen problem of civil servants having 
> to rely
> on out-sourced expertise to manage large-scale projects, there is - I
> believe - a much wider technology governance gap in public sector 
> agencies
> than we see in the private sector (although, I stress again, the 
> private
> sector has its fair share of problems too).
>
>
> I think that our member section could play an important role in 
> promoting
> the debate around these issues and how policy makers can make 
> intelligent
> and informed decisions in an increasingly complex ecosystem of 
> competing &
> collaborating technologies, in-house, outsourced, hosted and 
> cloud-based
> solutions, etc.
>
>
> The Transformational Government TC has started to raise some of the 
> core
> issues and propose a way forward but I'm wondering if our Member 
> Section
> ought to be re-scoped to explicitly focus on the issues of technology
> governance.
>
>
> As I've said, I'll miss the call Monday but am more than happy to 
> follow up
> if there is interest in taking this discussion further.
>
>
> Have a great weekend,
>
> Peter
>
>
> Peter F Brown
>
> Independent Consultant
>
> Description: Description: Description: Description: Description:
> Description: cid:image002.png@01CB9639.DBFD6470
>
> Transforming our Relationships with Information Technologies
>
> www.peterfbrown.com
>
> P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA
>
> Tel: +1.310.694.2278
>
>
> Member of:
>
>  <http://www.oasis-open.org/>
>  <http://standards.ieee.org/>
>
> Follow me:
>
>
>  <http://pensivepeter.wordpress.com/>
>  <http://twitter.com/#!/@pensivepeter>
>  <http://www.facebook.com/PensivePeter>
>  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/pensivepeter>
>  <http://semanticweb.com/category/the-semantic-link>
>
>
> ====
> CAUTION:  This email message and any attachments contain information 
> that
> may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the
> intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or
> attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email 
> message
> in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the 
> message
> and attachments. Thank you.
> ====