We’ve blogged about the President’s initiative for an open government quite a few times on FutureFed. The fact is we are very supportive of this theme. As a company founded on a vision for democratizing technology – making it readily available to millions around the world – this is an exciting vision. But we understand that it is going to take some time to get there. Right now there is not a clear direction on how this initiative will be achieved.
President Obama seemingly wants to capture an assurance of openness as a way to set direction and vision. Open government should provide a promise of transparency, public participation, and collaboration, enhanced by the power of technology and innovation to improve the lives of citizens.
Now, as that relates to technology specifically, we think that a true, open government should rely on a “mixed source” blend of technologies, an approach widely used around the world today. This would help ensure continued benefit and return on existing IT investments while simultaneously making sure the best tool for a particular job is in place. We believe that interoperable systems – from multiple vendors – are a critical success factor to the Administration’s goals of access and transparency. According to an article in the National Journal’s Tech Daily this week, there are others in the industry agreeing with this perspective.
As someone who’s worked with U.S. government customers for more than 20 years, it’s clear to me that in today’s modern government IT enterprise, mixed-computing environments are the reality. No one vendor or one software approach will lead to success. Achieving an open government going forward will depend on continued interoperability and the coexistence of varied technologies, software development models, standards, and technology approaches.
Susie Adams, Microsoft Federal Civilian and IGO Chief Technology Officer
can't seem to get your rss feed using Firefox.
We are seeing a transition from monolithic applications to monolithic integration applications (MIA) that provide some interoperability, to a true multi-source multi-vendor component-based SOA. It is taking some time to get there. This first MIA stage is enabling a new level of openness because data can now be repurposed and mashed up for different purposes than were intended.
Check out www.freebalance.com/blog & http://icgfm.blogspot.com
The US government's Federal Enterprise Architecture and Line of Business initiatives were designed to provide some control over the proliferation of systems. I agree, the cat is already out of the bag. You can't control openness once it is exposed!
In particular, governments have to enable so-called back-office information to be presented via the front-office. And, back-office personnel need to have the same functionality provided by front-office and Web 2 tools. The latest generation of public servants are not going to put up with the constraints of monolithic applications. And, they do not understand why they have more collaborative power on LinkedIn and Facebook than they do while serving the public. This generation may also be more willing to share and collaborate outside of the government than those us who grew up in the command and control era.
So, yes, technology needs to be open. And, the desire for openness and transparency among public servants is on the rise.
On 02/25/09 12:48 PM, Chuck Young wrote:
--------------------
I see the merits in the position and the first comment.
However, we cannot have a transparent government unless the information generated is organized and stored in a logical manner. Records Management! Since the computer really began showing up on desktops, late 80's, early 90's, information management has changed drastically. Most of the change is good, at least the change allowing someone to generate memos, policy, correspondence, regulations and other records. What changed for the worst was we began storing this information on floppies, hard drives and on network folders. Most Agencies and Departments ignored their records schedules and file plans. Soon, information was widely scattered and in many instances, deleted when the disc or hard drive was full or perhaps when there was a problem with the network or the original author left and a new person cleaned up the hard drive.
Electronic Records Management is long over due. If you can't organize information and find it easily in a system structured to reflect your Records Schedule and File Plan how can you be transparent. The time for ERM is now
In one of the toughest economic environments ever experienced by our customers, we must look at how to
By Teresa Carlson , Microsoft Vice President of U.S. Federal Government Sales Our team here is leading