[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [tgf] FW: Describing a Public Sector Service
For me the clear difference is that a Public Service must directly benefit citizens needs - either through services delivery or by providing a direct interface with the public via web access, et al.
Government obviously does all kinds of things it thinks are public services - but actually are self-serving internally facing functions. These are quasi public services - only indirectly.
Of course government is very adept at this - a criteria may be that average citizens would recognize a public service without having it explained what it is and how it is benefiting them.
----- Original Message -----
From: jenny@ifossfoundation.org
To: johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk
Cc: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2012 4:50:50 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [tgf] FW: Describing a Public Sector Service
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: tgf-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: tgf-help@lists.oasis-open.orgJohn and all,
Agree with others the current model seems overly simplified and also hard to comment on, here are my thoughts:
- how does "Public Service" different from Enterprise "Business Service"? http://www.knowledgetransfer.net/dictionary/ITIL/en/Business_Service.htm I would much prefer to see the "Public Service" is derived from a common business service definition/model that already has wide acceptance in the industry. (Well, ITIL was created by UK Gov. at the first place)
- It is not clear what methodology that the EC group is taking to model the service or planning to create service vocabularies, having some frameworks or reference points at the first place will help the debates, e.g.
- conceptual model from what perspectives? Enterprise/Government viewpoints? information viewpoints? Engineering viewpoints? currently the model seems a mix bag of things.
- Wondering is there any relation of this EU project with this one? http://wiki.rural-inclusion.eu/index.php/Main_Page , while there is no UML model defined by the RI project, looks like there are much thought processes have gone in for public service modeling in that project.
- At least in US and UK, the most well modeled services in Government are in Defense and Military groups i.e. the DoDAF and MoDAF frameworks, while I'm not suggesting something as complicate as those. However, those framework and models have gone thru years of engineering.. at the end of the day models are used to draw relationships and help to automate systems. so I think this EC group should at least do some initial studies to see if something similar can be used as a foundation.
nonetheless, agree it is important for TGIF to engage with any one who is attempting to do Public Service modeling work. It is an useful element for TGF analysis/ implementation.
Jenny
On 12/7/2012 2:29 AM, John Borras wrote:
Chris
The “What’s it for” question is answered on https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/core_public_service/description but you may well still ask “so what”….-)
The model they have started to produce and the one Nig has just highlighted need to be discussed within the group and decisions made on which way they want to go. It’s early days yet and they don’t have a clear view on that yet. As usual these EC working groups are somewhat vague at the outset and it takes a time to settle down but I believe it’s in our interests to be at the table rather than not, so I’ll preserve for the time being at least. And because they have to get agreement across all Member States they inevitably end up with things at a high-level otherwise they would be there forever and a day! The ESD work has already been drawn to their attention and someone from that area is on the working group.
I’ll feed your comments back into the group and we’ll see what they make of them.
John
From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Chris Parker
Sent: 07 December 2012 10:13
To: Greenaway Nigel; John Borras; 'TGF TC List'
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam]RE: [tgf] FW: Describing a Public Sector Service
John
I'm struggling a little with this.
The EC model feels massively over-simplified to me (just look at the reductionist, linear view of the relationship between policy, service and legislation). I could probably list lots which is missing, but it would be helpful first to have a clearer idea of what the purpose of this model is: who are the intended users of it, and what value is intended to deliver to them? Does the EC have some sort of statement of objectives for the work? If we could see that, it would help in giving more focused comments.
The UK model Nig has circulated will clearly be helpful to the EC in adding detail, but it feels to me that the two things are trying to do something different: the UK document feels like it is providing a menu of defined concepts which could be brought together to describe any service, whereas the EC work is trying not simply to provide a menu but a generic model of how all the concepts fit together and interrelate for a generic service.
Doing so is clearly going to be a challenge. Having said that, my initial reactions about major gaps in the EC model include:
· The customers for the service. At present these are packaged into a single box called “community”, which the public service “targets”. Nothing about the need for a service to understand customer needs and circumstances, and how these vary and sub-segment. And nothing which recognises the idea of a two way relationship in service design and service delivery, with eg citizen co-creation of service. Similarly, nothing which recognises that some customers for some services will be anonymous, but in other cases the service will need to identify safely who the customer is (opening up the whole set of identity management issues).
· Channels for service delivery. Nothing on this in the current model except the idea that each service has “a site”. Does that mean a website? The implication of the way “public service” is described in the central box (with homepage and url) is that this is focused solely on e-services. But even if that is the intention, we still need to recognise the existence of multiple channels, along with the idea that users want not simply to choose between channels, but to move between them on a single service experience
· Relationships with other services. Worth recognising somewhere in this that services do not exist in isolation, particularly when viewed from a customer perspective – where a number of services may need to be integrated in order to meet a single customer need. And of course the wider service universe encompasses not just public but also private and voluntary sectors.
· Outcomes of the service. Like you say, benefit realisation is not here, other than the recognition that a process should generate an output. We also need to show how outputs create public value, both directly for the users of a service and indirectly through generation of externalities, and how these benefits impact on the policy outcomes being targeted for the service.
Some of these issues have been addressed in another bit of UK work, focused at local government level, which doesn’t yet seem to have been picked up by the project team working on the EC model See the “local government business model” at http://standards.esd.org.uk/LGBMDiagram.aspx. Even this though feels to me like it fails the “so what?” test. Which brings me back to the question of what all this is for!
Regards,
Chris Parker
Managing Partner
CS Transform Limited
Citizen Service Transformation
-----Original Message-----
From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Greenaway Nigel
Sent: 07 December 2012 09:42
To: John Borras; 'TGF TC List'
Subject: RE: [tgf] FW: Describing a Public Sector Service
Hi John,
The UK has done a lot of work on it's concept model which addresses this space. I attach the Cabinet Office paper FYI.
This actually goes a bit deeper than the EC model by describing events and cases. I suggest that this greater level is necessary as (e.g.) the location of an event or it's seriousness may involve different actors or even organisations and a whole gamut of processes.
The model has been through a number of inspections and iterations and is being applied in a number of different scenarios.
Regards
Nig
Nig Greenaway
Public Sector
FUJITSU
Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN
Tel: +44 (0) 843 354 5637 Internal: 7302 5637 Mob : +44 (0) 7867 833147 Internal: 7383 3147
E-mail: nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com
-----Original Message-----
From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras
Sent: 07 December 2012 09:10
To: 'TGF TC List'
Subject: [tgf] FW: Describing a Public Sector Service
I alerted you to the new working group set up by the European Commission to define a Public Service. I attended the first meeting on this group this week and it seems the first activity is to produce a UML metamodel of a service. Attached is the first attempt of this and you should also be able to see this and the work of the group at https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/core_public_service/document/conceptual-model-v-002 as I think it is publically available. Having produced the model they then intend to define the vocabulary to support it.
My view of the relevance of this work to the TGF is that it essentially could be the whole model, or a significant part of, what we have in mind for the TGF Reference Model and Core Vocabulary, ie our Core Pattern No 4. To that end I would like us to make a significant contribution to the work of this group and then look to agree with the EC how they can contribute their model to us for inclusion in the TGF.
I would therefore ask you to spend a few minutes reviewing this model and let me have any comments that I can feed back into the group. My initial view is that this model is a good start and perhaps the only major omission is something around Benefits Realisation but I'm sure you guys will spot other deficiencies.
Comments by the end of next week, ie 14th, would be appreciated so I can feed them into the next meeting.
Regards
John
-----Original Message-----
From: John Borras [mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 01 November 2012 15:36
To: 'TGF TC List'
Subject: FW: Describing a Public Sector Service
Forwarded for information. Does anyone see the need for us to be involved in this Working Group, if so is there a volunteer?
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org]
Sent: 01 November 2012 15:11
To: SEMIC Mailing List
Subject: Describing a Public Sector Service
I must begin by apologising for sending an e-mail to a Bcc list, especially one that includes people I know personally, but I don't know everyone and I certainly don't have permission to share e-mail addresses.
I want to draw your attention to new work about to get under way within the European Commission's ISA Programme to develop a core vocabulary for describing public sector services. The idea has been around for a while and there is some existing work to draw on, but the plan is to develop a conceptual model of what a service is, how it relates to people and organisations, events, legislation, guidelines etc.
A description of the work is published at [1] and you can get an idea of one strand of relevant thought from work under way within the UK government [2].
Does this touch on your current or near future work? Do you see a benefit in defining a core model for describing a service that can then be extended and specialised as necessary but within a framework that allows greater data interoperability?
In the very near future, we will gather the new working group and begin weekly conference calls. The ISA programme team, which includes staff from PricewaterhouseCoopers and myself from W3C, will provide the infrastructure, secretariat and editorship to support the working group.
As a participant, we would ask you to join the weekly calls, share your use cases, requirements and expertise to help develop the vocabulary and, ideally, then pilot its implementation in your own work. The WG is due to complete its work in the first quarter of next year.
I would be very interested to know your level of interest in this work and of any relevant work you have already done that the working group should take note of.
We have scope for two further working groups and are currently finalising the choice of topic. Current options include modelling business branches, events/incidents, buildings and rooms, and payments.
We're also considering developing application profiles for the data catalogue vocabulary (DCAT) and the business reporting language XBRL so if public sector services are not relevant, again, I'd be very interested to know if any of these ideas are relevant to you.
Thank you for your time
Phil.
[1] https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/core_public_service/description
[2] http://www.pauldcdavidson.com/pscm/index.php?Action="">
--
Phil Archer
W3C eGovernment
@philarcher1
Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, or from Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together "Fujitsu".
This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.
Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW.
Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW.
PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE.
Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]