1 / 26

Understanding the Potential for Open Government : Open Source Processes for E-Government

Understanding the Potential for Open Government : Open Source Processes for E-Government Walt Scacchi Institute for Software Research and CRITO Consortium University of California, Irvine Wscacchi@uci.edu http://www.ics.uci.edu/~wscacchi

lotus
Download Presentation

Understanding the Potential for Open Government : Open Source Processes for E-Government

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Understanding the Potential for Open Government: Open Source Processes for E-Government Walt Scacchi Institute for Software Research and CRITO Consortium University of California, Irvine Wscacchi@uci.edu http://www.ics.uci.edu/~wscacchi http://www.ics.uci.edu/~wscacchi/Presentations/CRITO/OpenGovt.ppt

  2. Open Government? • Free/open source software development encourages sharing, examination, reuse, modification, and redistribution • E-Government encourages adoption of E-Commerce/E-Business in government agency operations, functions, business lines • Open government embraces open source and E-government processes, practices, and communities

  3. Why Open Government? • Help make government faster, better, cheaper • Empower interested government employees, contractors, and interested citizens to offer help and capture their contributions • Enable creation of public test-beds where existing/new government processes can be demonstrated, manipulated, and refined.

  4. Open source processes • Free/open source softwaredoes not embody the processes for how to develop, deploy, use or sustain them • Deploying free/open source software is low-cost, but often inefficient and sub-optimal • Closed source software development, deployment, use, and support is also inefficient and sub-optimal • Explicit open source processes could also help closed source systems.

  5. Motivations for open source processes • Closed source processes: opaque or tacit, difficult to improve, subject to patent • Continuous process improvement and organizational learning requires open access to the “source code” of operational processes

  6. Closed vs. administrative vs. open source processes • Closed: Amazon “one-click” e-purchase • Patented processes inhibits their sharing, reuse, study, modification, and redistribution • Administrative: Java community process • asserts property rights, responsibilities, and administrative authority • legalistic or bureaucratic “policy and procedures” are narrative, not operational => ambiguous interpretation and legal wrangling

  7. A closed source business process example

  8. Java Community Process

  9. Government operations and business processes • Example: Procurement and acquisition • Procurement: purchasing MRO supplies • Acquisition: contracting for services • Not simply a matter using electronic forms or extensible markup notations about them • Reengineering these processes is complex and requires process comprehension, transformation, integration, commitment, and training • W. Scacchi, Redesigning Contracted Service Procurement for Internet-based Electronic Commerce: A Case Study, Journal of Information Technology and Management, 2(3), 313-334, 2001.

  10. Administrative process example

  11. Open source process example • Example of an open source process model of a proposal submission process, specified in a Process Markup Language, PML • J. Noll and W. Scacchi, Specifying Process-Oriented Hypertext for Organizational Computing, Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 4(1):39-61, 2001.

  12. Government operations and business processes • Federal Enterprise Architecture process domains are the prime candidates • Financial management • Human relations • Monitoring benefits and public health • Data and statistics development • Criminal investigation • Regulation and legislation development, deployment, and enforcement

  13. Applications: State Government • (Secretary of) State of Rhode Island • www.state.ri.us • Civic participation and public monitoring • On-line rules and regulations • State of Hawaii • HiGov.NET Intranet portal • Prototype (Microsoft format video) • HiGov.NET Intranet Portal: An Open Source Solution for Empowering State Employees With a Dynamic Web Portal

  14. OSS Web-DB on Legislative Meetings and Bills

  15. RI Online rules and regulations w/email notification services

  16. Applications: State Government • HiGov.NET Intranet portal • Prototype (Microsoft format video) • HiGov.NET Intranet Portal: An Open Source Solution for Empowering State Employees With a Dynamic Web Portal (report) • Built using PLONE (www.plone.org) • Governor’s Office, State of Texas

  17. Applications: military and security • Most of the military enterprise focuses on operational, logistical, and training processes • Administrative processes are ponderous, procrustean, rather than agile, flexible • Current legacy processes are compliance oriented, rather than improvement oriented

  18. DD(X) Overview

  19. DD(X) Acquisition Guidelines

  20. Applications: military and security • Homeland security will increasingly become focus of process improvement, streamlining and cost reduction.

  21. Open Govt Opportunities • Establish OG Web portals and clearinghouse • Create/share process toolkits, libraries, repositories • Co-sourced development of OG processes • amortize and share OG development costs • Capture and codification of government process domain expertise • Operational OG system and process demo’s • OG prototypes and public test-beds • Exportable processes for democratic government operations

  22. Conclusions • Free/open source software systems for government represent a significant opportunity • Seek high-level, user-friendly processes for government operations expressed as open source, computationally enactable processes • Open government embraces and extends open source, while also moving towards flexible, agile democratic government operations • Current NSF Digital Govt program does not embrace or encourage OSS applications or processes

  23. Acknowledgements • The research described in this report is supported by contracts/grants from: • National Science Foundation • #IIS-0083075, #ITR-0205679, #ITR-0205724 and Industry/University Research Cooperative for the CRITO Consortium • Defense Acquisition University • #N487650-27803 • No endorsement implied.

  24. References • Center for Open Source and Government • www.egovos.org • Robert W. Hahn (ed.), Government Policy toward Open Source Software. AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Dec 2002.

  25. References • J. Noll and W. Scacchi, Specifying Process-Oriented Hypertext for Organizational Computing, Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 4(1):39-61, 2001 • W. Scacchi, Redesigning Contracted Service Procurement for Internet-based Electronic Commerce: A Case Study, Journal of Information Technology and Management, 2(3), 313-334, 2001. • W. Scacchi, Open Acquisition: Combining Open Source Software Development with System Acquisition, technical report, July 2002. • W. Scacchi, Open EC/B: A Case Study in Electronic Commerce and Open Source Software Development, technical report, July 2002.

  26. References • W. Scacchi, Understanding the Social, Technological, and Policy Implications of Open Source Software Development position paper presented at the NSF Workshop on Open Source Software, January 2002 (revised August 2002). • W. Scacchi, Understanding the Requirements for Developing Open Source Software Systems,IEE Proceedings--Software, 149(1), 24-39, February 2002.

More Related