Fw: ACT/IAC Planning and Architecture Shared Interest Group review of the TGF 2.0

[John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>]

Peter

 

These set of comments on TGF v2 have come to me direct and not through the "proper" channel.  However I believe we should accept them and treat them accordingly, ie acknowledge them and add them to the comment list.  Will you please do so.

 

It would be good if you could pull together and post the comments list in the next few days so I can convene a special TC call in the next couple of weeks to discuss all the comments.

 

John

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Mike Dunham <Mike.dunham@casewise.com>
To: John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: "Wilson, Peter" <Peter.Wilson@icfi.com>; Thomas McCullough <thomas.e.mccullough@lmco.com>; Rick Smith <daddy.rick@gmail.com>; Phil Cooke <pcooke@telesispartners.com>; John Shaw <JShaw@actiac.org>
Sent: Friday, 21 February 2014, 18:49
Subject: ACT/IAC Planning and Architecture Shared Interest Group review of the TGF 2.0

John,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft version of the TGF 2.0 and we are pleased to have the opportunity to comment on it.

You will find most of our suggestions are of a minor nature with perhaps exception of the section [B4] Franchise Marketplace.  Most of our revisions mainly consist of inserting references to SLG that we thought appropriate. When you look at the revisions, do not be alarmed by the graphics.  It is obviously we are either working across platforms or versions of software.  Regardless of how the graphics appear in our attachment, we made no revisions to them.

The major concern regarding the Franchise Marketplace relates to issues we are faced with in the States.  How much do you want government to know about you in order to provide services?  As Version 2.0 is written, it describes "the realm of the possible" regarding how services can be provided in a climate of trust.  But does the climate of trust exist and is the current language necessarily prudent without identifying safeguards?  Both SLG and TGF can skate close to the edge into the world of “Big Brother” that we need to be cautious of.  I would suggest language be inserted related to privacy describing how the franchise marketplace can protect citizens from an over-invasive government.  As written, TGF 2.0 describes what is possible, but not what is necessarily prudent given the increasing distrust of government.  

We will be pleased to answer any questions you might have regarding our suggested revision.  We look forward to collaborating with you in the develop of your upcoming version 3.0 and accept your offer for a member of our team to collaborate with you in the effort.  Rick Smith will serve as our point of contact with you in that effort.

On a related note, we have talked about putting in writing a description of the working relationship between OAIS and ACT/IAC in the furtherance of the TGF/SLG collaboration.  In that regard, I have composed a draft document that is being circulated internally within the Planning and Architecture SIG core team and expect to have something to share with you in the next two weeks.   We will alert when it is ready to share and look forward to continuing our collaboration.

Regards,

Mike Dunham

Co-Chair, Smart Lean Government Initiative

Planning and Architecture Shared Interest Group

Industry Advisory Council

Senior Strategic Advisor

Casewise Systems, Inc.

mike.dunham@casewise.com
202-686-1558 home office
202-262-6016 cell 

Attachment: Transformational Government Framework Version 2.docx
Description: Transformational Government Framework Version 2.docx