Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 Phase 3 Workspace Report - for web publication.DOC

SHARED POLICY WORKSPACE PROJECT REPORT

PHASE 3

APRIL 2001

State Services Commission

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 2

Contents

APRIL 2001........................................................................................................................ 1 introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3

CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR AN ELECTRONIC SHARED WORKSPACE .............................. 6 The concept of a shared workspace ............................................................................................. 7

OPPORTUNITIES, ISSUES AND RISKS ....................................................................................... 14 Value proposition........................................................................................................................ 15 Management of a shared IT resource across the Government................................................. 18

OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ............................................................................................................. 23 Ownership Issues ........................................................................................................................ 24

OPTIONS FOR PROCEEDING...................................................................................................... 28 Options for proceeding............................................................................................................... 29 Technical implementation process............................................................................................. 34 Process for proceeding................................................................................................................ 35

APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS......................................................................................... 36 appendix 1: Terms of reference: Project and Policy Shared Workspace ................................. 37 appendix 2: Links to other e-Government projects .................................................................. 42 Appendix 3: SUMMARY of funding options............................................................................ 44

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 3

INTRODUCTION

1 This report completes the work of the Shared Workspace Project Team1 operating in the E-Government Unit of the State Services Commission. The purpose of the project was to examine the concept of shared workspace applications that can be operated in a secure electronic environment to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of policy development across government. The existence of a secure electronic environment on which the shared workspace application will operate is central, and underpins all of the issues raised in this discussion. This working paper will form the basis from which to develop a user requirements specification, when required.

2 The Shared Workspace Project has been carried out as a subproject in the Secure Electronic Environment (S.E.E) programme. The S.E.E programme is concerned with the development of a secure environment in which to carry out government business. This subproject investigates the possibility of shared workspace applications that can be operated in this secure environment to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of policy development across government.

3 The development and implementation of a secure electronic environment for government provides an opportunity to significantly increase collaboration and co-ordination amongst agencies for managing crosscutting policy issues.

4 Individual government departments currently have technical platforms that enable its staff to communicate with each other, and externally, via e-mail systems; to file and access documents and official records; and to share internal information (e.g. intranet/electronic scheduling). At the current time, the tools that exist and are used within departments are not available for use between government agencies (e.g. shared schedulers). The Shared Workspace Project looks at the potential of utilising current and emerging technologies to improve the processes of policy development and project management across government.

Aims and objectives of the Shared Workspace Project

5 The goal of the Shared Workspace Project is to investigate the viability of implementing a secure, electronic shared workspace for project and policy development across government agencies.2 It is important to note this project is restricted to government-to-government business and is not about the delivery of services to the public.

6 The outcomes sought from shared workspace are to:

• leverage existing technical infrastructures to improve the quality and timeliness of policy development

• improve the level of collaboration between departments in developing policy papers, and managing crosscutting projects

• increase efficiency and co-ordination of business processes, work flows and data management related to the production of policy papers and projects

• strengthen the capacity to identify and access relevant information from multiple information sources

• more efficiently disseminate policy in the Public Service.

1 Rose O’Neill, State Services Commission (Project Manager); Sandi Beatie, Synergy International Ltd.; and Franz

Ombler, Treasury. 2 Terms of reference for the project are provided in Appendix 1.

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 4

7 The Project Team’s work has been undertaken in three phases:

• Phase 1: Investigation – this phase included exploration of past work on the secure exchange of information; interviews and literature search to discover current thinking and practice in terms of policy development; assessment of the use of electronic applications in other jurisdictions; and, development of a high level concept of an electronic shared workspace.

• Phase 2: Identification of high-level user needs – this included further interviews and a series of focus groups with a range of policy managers and analysts, and other stakeholders including the Ombudsman; surfacing of potential opportunities and issues; and, examination of benefits and risks.

The Project Team published a working paper at the conclusion of each of these phases of work. These are available for reference on the E-Government website (www.e-government.govt.nz).

8 This working paper:

• Clarifies the concept of shared workspace including establishing potential functionality and operational requirements;

• identifies potential benefits to the Public Service; • identifies possible barriers to successful implementation; and • specifies the organisation and management requirements to operate a shared

workspace application across the Public Service. Definition of an electronic shared workspace

9 ‘Shared workspace’ refers to an electronic application designed to enable a selected group of users (in this case, Public Service officials) to share a range of information, access common databases, and work together in a real-time environment as and when required.

10 In referring to an “electronic shared workspace across government”, there is an assumption that the application will be available to all government agencies. It is further assumed that by virtue of their employment status, Public Service officials will have authorised access to this workspace, and to authorised project workspaces.

Scope and boundaries of this report

11 Electronic shared workspace applications can be used for a wide range of purposes. The terms of reference for this project focuses on only two uses – project management and policy development. Project management is a structured process used to organize and manage time-bound projects. The application enables project definition, specification of deliverables and allocation of project resources (e.g. budgets, personnel). A number of project management applications are currently in use across the Public Service and more are emerging and are being customised to the needs of individual agencies.

12 In examining the potential of shared workspace to meet the outcomes specified in the terms of reference, the Project Team made a judgment that project management software is part of what reasonably might be required as part of the functionality within a shared workspace for policy development. It was decided therefore, to subsume the requirements for

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 5

project management within the broader consideration of shared workspace for the purpose of policy development.

13 The project has concentrated on the feasibility of utilising shared workspace within the state sector specifically for government-to-government transactions relating to policy development. Some parts of the process of policy development include interaction between officials and non-government stakeholder groups, special interest groups and the public (e.g. during problem definition; consultation; monitoring). These interactions have been taken into account, but the project does not include consideration of the delivery of services to citizens/ members of the public.

14 No attempt has been made to explore the potential for shared workspace to be used by other user groups within the Public Service, such as Human Resources or Corporate Managers. As the project progressed, it also became apparent that the usefulness of a shared workspace application could extend well beyond the purposes of project management and policy development specified in the terms of reference. For example, shared workspace could be equally valuable for research, evaluation and monitoring processes. Reference will be made to potential for extensions where appropriate, but for the purpose of meeting the project terms of reference these will not be explored in detail.

15 Technical solutions are not proffered in this report. The Project Team has avoided looking for, and/or evaluating, specific technological solutions. The analysis has concentrated on the concept of shared workspace and whether it has valid traction in a Public Service environment. The technical considerations have been deliberately limited to defining some broad high-level functional requirements for an electronic shared workspace.

16 This paper also only concerns itself with the policy development process to the point of referring work to Cabinet for decision. The consideration of the application of shared workspace to the parliamentary process is not within the brief.

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 6

CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR AN ELECTRONIC SHARED WORKSPACE

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 7

THE CONCEPT OF A SHARED WORKSPACE

17 An electronic shared workspace is best described as a software application where a group of authorised users can have access to a common set of information (e.g. databases); common functions (e.g. shared calendars; project management); and can carry out a range of interactive transactions (e.g. e-mail; editing documents).

18 In the context of this paper, shared policy workspace is an application where policy staff can enter and use the workspace on the following basis:

• all government agencies can use the workspace application • common databases (e.g. legislation; Cabinet minutes; statistics, estimates) could be

available to all government users on the basis of general authorisation. Similarly, all government users could have general access to shared information bulletin boards

• designated users within an agency (e.g. policy managers and advisors) can enter

specified policy project areas within the workspace and use the functions available according to individually allocated access rights

• not all users of the policy project area will have equal access rights. These will depend

on the role of the user in relation to particular pieces of policy work. For example, designated project managers can control final documents, and restrict editing rights to designated project team members only

• each policy project area will have individually specified access allocations to

accommodate the nature of the policy work; the number of agencies involved in its development; and the particular outcome to be delivered

• policy work that is department/ agency specific (i.e. does not involve other

departments in its development) can be developed on local systems, rather than the shared workspace application. The final papers, or associated working papers, could be provided on the government workspace database, at the discretion of the chief executive.

19 An electronic shared workspace is about creating virtual spaces that provide either adequate substitutes, or enhancements, to physical places and current tools. In the context of the public policy making process, a virtual space is not expected to replace the need, at times, for face-to-face interaction. However, it does have the potential, over time, to reduce the amount of physical meetings and to facilitate a greater level of interaction and involvement of policy analysts across the sector. It could also facilitate an improved level of involvement of people located outside of Wellington.

20 A ‘virtual’ policy team’s ability to work effectively and efficiently is strongly linked to the adequacy of the technology available; its competent use; and the willingness of users to work both with the technology, and each other. In much the same way as any other project, overall effectiveness of a workspace will come down to how well the team functions and the clarity it establishes around roles, responsibilities and processes.

21 To develop a clear conceptual model the Project Team focused on exploring the potential for enhancing policy-making processes and examining the benefits that could be derived from

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 8

a greater use of technology in crosscutting policy initiatives. The Project Team therefore deliberately avoided designing an electronic shared workspace around specific technology solutions. We have nevertheless explored at a high level the functionality that such solutions will need to address.

22 An electronic shared workspace is a place where a group of authorised users [all government agencies], supported by appropriate software applications, can have access to:

• common sets of information (e.g. databases) • common functions (e.g. shared calendars & project management tools) • a range of interactive facilities (e.g. e-mail & track and trace editing tools).

23 The software application will enable:

• a common set of project management tools and templates

• an information base (e.g. legislation, Cabinet minutes, estimates, statistical data) to be stored, accessed and updated. Access would be on the basis of general authorisation to all government users

• links to relevant websites and contacts. For example, international experts in a

particular research or specialty area • access for all government users to shared information bulletin boards and project

information such as terms of reference and contact points • designated users (e.g. policy managers and advisers) to use the functions available

according to individually allocated access rights within particular project workspaces

• banded access rights depending on the role of the user in relation to particular pieces of policy work. For example, the lead agency policy manager or project manager would define the core team, the extended network, and any experts and/or support people and their levels of access. The project manager would also control final documents, and restrict editing rights to designated project team members only

• specification of access allocations to accommodate the nature of the policy work; the

number of agencies involved in its development; and the particular outcome to be delivered.

24 The design of the shared policy workspace also needs to take account of the interests of both public and government stakeholders. The software application needs to be sufficiently flexible to allow for external stakeholders, or interested parties, to view selected documents (e.g. terms of reference, discussion papers). This public space could also be used for generating and receiving public submissions.

25 In technological terms, the functionality required for this concept includes a common interface and architecture; a portal to all projects; and inter-project links and dependencies. We also propose that common systems administration is required for ensuring security standards, user set-up, and any other standard technical requirements.

26 Two ‘snapshots’ of an electronic shared workspace are illustrated below. The first illustrates the overall conceptual model and the second looks at the model from a project

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 9

perspective.

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 10

OVERALL CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Public ServicePublic Service

Discussion threads

Public SpacePublic Space

Publications

Discussion Papers

Submissions

Notices

Info

rmat

ion

Po

rtal

Info

rmat

ion

Po

rtal

Restricted Project Restricted Project Team Workspaces Team Workspaces

Work In Progress

Key documentsCabinetMinutes

Noticeboard

Job vacancies

Training opportunities

Cabinet Minutes

Key documents

Terms ofReference

Publishedpapers

Research

Legislation

Statistics

Policy CampusPolicy Campus

Project Team1

Project Team1

Stakeholders

Project Team2

27 The ‘virtual’ policy campus would enable four potential tiers, with levels of security accorded on the basis of those tiers:

i First tier - secure project space: the project manager would establish the workspace, and confirm the membership of the project team. The project team workspace would be a secure environment only accessible by the team members

ii Second tier – specified stakeholders access: government and authorised external users (e.g. consultants working on the project, or subject experts). These stakeholders would have access controlled by the project manager

iii Third tier – government staff: At this level, officials could access project terms of reference; post and receive notices; read discussion papers; and access general information such as job vacancies and training courses. Information portal facilities would also be available

iv Fourth tier – members of the general public: Interest groups and other groups, or individuals, could obtain information about policy initiatives and notices of the release of discussion papers, as well as calls for submissions. The functionality of this area could potentially also enable interest groups, and members of the public, to make online submissions.

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 11

28 Several projects could operate within the electronic shared workspace at any given time. Each will be completely separate and secure from any other. Once a project has been established, the lead agency project manager would set up the project’s shared workspace, and determine user rights and levels of access for team members, participating departments, and other stakeholders (i.e. external and/or government). ‘Other stakeholders’ would be those parties who have a specific interest and/or contribution to make to the policy under development. They would have more limited access and user rights than the project team members who would operate in a totally secure environment.

29 Within the project workspace, team members would be able to use the tools and resources as illustrated, i.e. discussion area, project library, planner and facilities for meeting online, and for the preparation and editing of documents. They would have access to an external information portal that would hold frequently used sets of data and published information. It would also provide a web-based search engine for accessing international literature, and linking to relevant research sites, other jurisdictions’ government sites, and/or selected specialist contacts.

Functionality and technical implications

30 This second view of the electronic shared workspace illustrates some of the anticipated functionality of the restricted project team space.

Discussion threads

Work In ProgressKey documents

CabinetMinutes

Planner

Discussion ThreadsDiscussion ThreadsMeetingsMeetings

Project Management

Work in Progress

Project Team Space

31 To effectively introduce an electronic shared workspace within the public policy environment requires technology that is easy to access and use, supported by a reliable help line. It will also need inbuilt flexibility, and be compatible with other standard technologies deployed in departments. The workspace itself will rely on good security, especially for sensitive material and budget information. It will also need to be capable of verifying

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 12

electronically that consultation has occurred; provide for the authorisation of papers; and have the capability of tracing security breaches.

32 While a detailed definition of user needs was not the brief of this project, the policy managers and analysts we consulted also nominated the following as being important aspects of functionality:

• ability to track versions of documents

• flags to project team members when there is something on site they may wish to access, or when input by them is required

• facility for agencies to register ‘key words’ indicating interest in particular areas, or subjects

• notification system for agencies, or identified individuals (positions) within agencies, when new information is available

• identification mechanism for core project groups, and various stakeholder groups

• ability for a wider stakeholder group to have access to information generated

• identifiers for each project team to protect access to its specified, independent working space

• capability for deliberative processes (including involving citizens/ public) at the early stage of the policy development

• decision-support processes – e.g. voting facility to unblock entrenched positions

• e-mail set up for a position rather than an individual to avoid delays.

33 These user needs, together with the conceptual model of an electronic shared workspace suggest that the technological solution will need to incorporate:

Content/ document management

• version control of documents

• graduated access controls

• notification systems for input and new information

Knowledge management

• static repositories of core government information databases

• links to relevant websites and contacts

Search/ retrieval functions

• integrated access route to repositories of government information

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 13

• ability to search more efficiently (than surfing internet) for articles & publications

• word & topic search facilities

• subscription channels that enable tailored access to information and can flag new literature/information on given topics.

Project management

• shared calendar

• meetings notification

• meetings-on-line

• project planning & control functions

• standard templates for project documentation

• project reporting mechanisms.

If there is support for the implementation of an electronic shared workspace, the Project Team recommends that the model illustrated here be adopted, and that the technical solution takes account of the user needs described in this paper.

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 14

OPPORTUNITIES, ISSUES AND RISKS

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 15

VALUE PROPOSITION

34 The e-government strategy indicates that the New Zealand Government intends to be amongst those governments that actively manage e-technology to make life better for its people. Among other things, this requires the Government to “capitalize on e-technology to improve the way government serves New Zealanders …”.3

35 Utilising existing, and developing, technologies in the Government sector is necessary to:

i improve the quality and efficiency of government ii complement, and keep pace with, the move to utilise advanced technologies for

greater engagement between citizens, businesses and government, and iii keep pace with international technology usage trends within governments.

36 The question this raises is whether the use of shared workspace, for developing crosscutting policy will result in improvements to the way the Government serves New Zealanders and/or to the quality and efficiency of government. Policy development is an inherently complex process, involving a variety of steps that are not carried out with textbook sequencing, or to ideal standards in all cases.

37 The reality of the government environment is that officials work under a range of pressures including tight timeframes, limited resources and multiple stakeholders’ interests (political, government and public). All of these things have to be managed, and each affects differently the way the policy development process is carried out. Discrete pieces of policy work can be developed in quite varied ways as a consequence.

38 The potential exists for technology to address existing communication and information duplications, and difficulties accessing knowledge, expertise and appropriate personnel within the government. This is not to say that shared policy workspace should be implemented just because it is technically possible. Some proof of greater efficiency is necessary to justify the financial and management investment in such an application.

39 This needs to be considered against the risk of not moving towards greater utilisation of available applications for intra-government communications and working practices. The principle of using electronic applications to work across departments is a necessary part of realising the vision of e-government, and keeping abreast of global moves towards information-age government. It will also be an expectation of future recruits, particularly younger policy analysts, that ‘virtual’ working will be commonplace.

40 There are a number of potential benefits to shared workspace in the Public Service. These include:

• enabling greater accessibility to a wider range of information, research and dialogue

• fast, efficient means of communication and the transmission of ideas and opinions

• improving the quality of policy advice

• utilising the technical capability and capacity of the new ‘e’ enabled technologies

3 e-government strategy, April 2001, pg 11

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 16

• facilitating efficient changes to work practices, and project administration.

41 These benefits depend on some underlying assumptions about the inherent value of doing work electronically, and untested assumptions about the contribution of electronic processes can make to the policy development process. For example, there is no inherent relationship between the increased quantity and speed of inputs, both of which can be accommodated by electronic processing, and the subsequent quality of policy advice.

42 To establish the potential value add of shared workspace for government, the Project Team broadly mapped the policy development process as it is currently carried out, against possible changes e-technologies could facilitate. Policy development involves iterative processes that depend on the subject matter; the range of stakeholder interests; the type of consultation required; and the nature of the policy product. Shared workspace technology can be useful for the production of policy products, and for:

• sharing information and ideas

• formulating concepts and frameworks that can usefully be applied to the analysis of policy issues

• utilising research and evaluations as input to analysis

• carrying out a range of relevant analyses to shape and formulate specific policies (e.g. social impact/ economic/ cost-benefit/ gender etc.).

43 A broad map of the policy development process, as it is currently carried out in the Public Service was produced in Phase 2 of this project (www.e-government.govt.nz). The Project Team used the inputs to the policy development process4 as a framework to identify the procedures policy analysts use to develop policy. Each procedure was broken down into specific related tasks. Mapping the tasks then made it possible to see how things might be done differently in an electronic environment.

44 Some of the interdependent procedures within the policy development process are repetitive. For example, as part of the policy analysis process, further inputs could be sought; policy analysis and policy instrument selection can be refined following consultation; and following coalition discussions, the policy could require further inputs and analysis. These iterative processes do not however, materially alter the nature of the mechanistic tasks required to complete the policy development process. The table set out in the Phase 2 working paper clearly shows that an electronic workspace may make such repetition of process more manageable and less time consuming.

45 The Project Team’s brief did not at this stage require a business case to be developed. However, the analysis to date indicates that given the iterative process of policy development and the need for ‘real time’ working, electronic shared workspace could make a significant contribution to streamlining policy development. The processes involved, and the associated procedures and tasks are not necessarily different but the electronic functionality has the potential to complement the physical tasks (e.g. face-to-face meetings), and make other tasks faster, and more accessible. It could also lead to facilitating greater ease of access to tailored

1 4 Improving the quality of policy advice in the Public Service, State Services Commission. (www.ssc.govt.nz)

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 17

subscriber based channels for information and research that will in turn complement the robustness of policy development.

The Project Team believes there is value to be gained from a shared workspace and that the returns in terms of efficiency gains should be quantified as part of the business case developed in the next phase of work on this issue.

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 18

MANAGEMENT OF A SHARED IT RESOURCE ACROSS THE GOVERNMENT

46 An electronic shared workspace that includes project management functionality can add-value to crosscutting policy development. There is a set of issues around the management of a shared IT resource for government. These relate to the interoperability of IT systems across government; how funding is organised; and how the software product is developed, implemented and managed on an on-going basis. These issues will be discussed more fully in the next section of this report (Ownership issues).

47 There is also a set of issues that need to be addressed to enable and support shared workspace as a common tool for officials, if the full potential it can offer is to be realised. These include cross sector uptake, the need for upskilling in computer skills, and clarity around privacy and OIA issues. There are also a number of practical operational issues to be addressed, such as working protocols and quality assurance. Each of these is discussed below:

Uptake by Public Service

48 There are inevitably different perspectives across government on whether increasing the use of technology in the workplace is either useful, or desirable. Part of the question is whether officials currently use the full range of technology available to them (e.g. PowerPoint; Excel; Internet). It is also unclear whether all of the products available are necessary to the work of officials in policy making, and/or whether the level of technological literacy is high enough amongst officials to make the best use of the products available. In the absence of data, the question of whether additional electronic functionality will deliver the benefits it is designed to may be dependent on other factors, such as how the product is marketed to officials and the support systems that accompany its introduction.

49 The continuum of views expressed by officials participating in Focus Groups set up to discuss shared workspace was broad ranging5. At one end were people in the ‘just do it’ or ‘we have to do it’ category. At the other end, were those who could not envisage the policy development process in the future as being any different to what it is now, and could not see the added value of shared workspace.

50 Attitudes of officials to technological and work practice change highlight the importance of obtaining the buy-in of senior people within agencies, and planning and managing the introduction of shared workspace carefully. Policy analysts, and their managers, are busy people. Many would not pay attention to technology beyond the immediate impact it has on their work. Shared workspace is not a concept that they would therefore necessarily embrace intuitively.

51 Focus Group feedback indicates that officials could see the potential value in the suite of functions or services the workspace would provide to facilitate the work of analysts. For example, common information and data storage tools; a notice board; and better access to the range of policy development work going on, were all seen as benefits. The ease with which regional staff could have involvement in a project, or manage a national project from their region, was also seen as useful. These benefits however, have to be marketed across the sector; they had to be widely available and reliable; and officials would need to be able to have confidence in the training and support that accompanied the introduction of the system.

5 See Phase 2 working paper: www.e-government.govt.nz

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 19

Training and support

52 Training is a big issue for officials. Focus Group participants indicated that for a shared workspace to be adopted positively, training has to be thorough and meet the needs of a broad range of users. Traditional methods of IT training were criticised. Participants saw it as necessary to use a more targeted and compact approach to training. Policy analysts need to know how the technology is going to assist their work practices, and how they can make the best use of it. Lack of adequate training was seen as a significant barrier to voluntary participation in shared workspace, and an inhibitor to efficiency if using the workspace was compulsory.

53 Officials also indicated that well-trained technical support was critical to support a shared workspace product. Policy makers rely on the availability and reliability of software products in order to do their job. Without adequate support services, a software product deployed throughout the Public Service would have an inverse impact on efficiency to that desired, or expected.

54 Requirements for adequate training, and high quality support services, will have to be addressed as part of the implementation process.

The Project Team is of the view that to be successful the system needs to be adopted by all agencies, and therefore will require the support of all chief executives. Any future phases of this project therefore will need to: * market the concept of a shared workspace as a value-adding proposition to agency chief executives and senior managers, to build a strong body of support for its implementation; * investigate further the training and technical support needs for a shared workspace, and develop a firm proposal for increasing skills across the Public Service.

Privacy and legal considerations

55 Two of the other most common issues raised by the Focus Groups, related to access by Ministers to the shared workspace, and gaining an understanding of how the Official Information Act would be applied. In relation to Ministers, the issue is one of privacy considerations for individuals, and protecting officials from undue pressure or influence if a Minister can follow a policy debate, and have access to who said what.

56 It is important that the practices and conduct of officials and Ministers are not adversely affected by the introduction of an electronic shared workspace. An impartial Public Service, that serves the Government of the day with free and frank advice, should not be at risk of being compromised by the technology used to develop that advice. The provisions of the State Sector Act will ensure the accountability structure of the Government continues to protect the protocol of free and frank advice, but the design of the shared workspace also needs to take this into account.

57 The second set of issues relates to how the Official Information Act (OIA) will be interpreted and operated in an electronic environment. The key concern of officials is the status of informal discussions held on-line (similar to current white-boarding sessions). A broad range of ideas can be mooted, and perhaps later discarded as implausible or just ‘straw-

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 20

men’ used to elicit further thinking and discussion. Will these ‘conversations’ then be available to members of the public, or interest groups, as ‘official’ information? If so, will the principle of discoverability inhibit officials from using the technology (verbal discussions are more difficult to recall accurately over time, than are electronic records), to prevent the misinterpretation of informal discussions?

58 The Project Team sought the input of SSC Legal Services in relation to questions surrounding the OIA. On advice, a meeting to discuss these issues was also held with the Ombudsmen, Sir Brian Ellwood and Judge Anand Sataynand. From these discussions, it is clear that the basic tenets upon which the Act is based apply equally to both paper-based, and electronic policy development. The legislation’s intent is that all official information is available to the public of New Zealand within the principle of ‘public interest’. The public have the right to ask for information, and it will be given on request unless there is a good reason to withhold the information (as set out in the Act). This is the way the Act is currently administered, and doing more work electronically will not change this.

59 The Ombudsmen clearly indicated there is a need for government officials to fully understand the Act, and the way that it operates. In their view more thought needs to be given to the processes used to develop policy, to take into account the possibility of requests for official information once the work is completed. At the current time, e-mails are legitimately part of the information that citizens can request. The Ombudsmen indicated that, in their experience, Public Service officials are not using the e-mail system in a professional and considered way that demonstrates they are cognisant of the requirements of the Act.

60 In this respect, the government as a whole needs to give greater consideration to the way they communicate. It is both possible, and desirable, that officials clearly differentiate in their everyday work between formal responses (regardless of the medium by which they are delivered) and informal comments. This is not only important for the administration of the OIA, but the disclosure requirement if proceedings should be brought before a Court.

61 On the other hand, the Act cannot be used to make an electronic shared workspace any less safe than the environment in which officials work now. For example, officials conduct their business on behalf of Government in the full knowledge that information can be discoverable, but understand there are some constraints around the point at which certain information becomes publicly available.

62 Once Cabinet or Ministers make decisions, background documents can be released into the public arena. The test of public interest is applied. If there is a clear differentiation between formal policy development material (e.g. versions of drafts; formal departmental responses to those drafts; or records of discussions that lead to positions being reached on particular issues), and informal discussions between individuals in which a broad range of ideas are generated for interest sake, it is unlikely that the latter would constitute ‘official’ information and be released under the Act.6

63 Similarly, the Ombudsmen indicated that the OIA should not get in the way of government decision-making, and the government needs to be free to carry out its business without undue restraint. A test is applied to consider whether the release of any particular piece of information is likely to inhibit the provision of free and frank advice to Government if it is released at any time.

6 This would be a case-by-case decision, with final decision the right of the Ombudsman.

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 21

64 In this respect, officials are protected in their ability to have free flowing conversations, and provide advice that constitutes the free and frank expression of opinion. This principle is applied regardless of the medium in which such opinions are expressed. It is important to note however, that while some protections exist around undue harassment or pressure of individuals, officials cannot seek anonymity through the OIA. Transparent and open government remains a key platform of the legislation.

65 The implications of this situation is that officials need both a good level of understanding of the Act and how it is operated, and to improve the standard of communication when discussing issues that may be subject to official information requests. It is also important that the design of a shared workspace take into account the requirements of the Act, and the best way these can be accommodated electronically.

NOTE: Discussions with the Ombudsmen indicate there is a need for the government to increase its understanding of the intention, and administration of the Official Information Act as well as improve the standard of professional communication across government. Future phases of this project should address issues of across government training on the implications of OIA, and the appropriate nature of communication in an electronic environment. Technical solutions should take account of the responsibilities of government officials under the OIA when conducting their business.

Operational considerations

66 Issues relating to working protocols, quality assurance in a shared workspace, and the use of electronic archiving by a project team need to be considered. These all relate to the differences there will be when officials work in a shared space, instead of within the current constraints imposed by departmental boundaries. A government-wide shared workspace will require officials to think and act differently; to form new sets of working relationships across agencies; to develop clear protocols for how those relationships will be managed; and to reach a common understanding of how work will be presented, information shared and contributions to work made. These things will not necessarily be intuitive. Careful management of the introduction of shared workspace will be required.

67 Some of these issues will present particular challenges to the Government. The idea that a cross-departmental project team or working group can produce a single electronic record of their deliberations and formal records (e.g. minutes, discussion papers, reports and Cabinet papers) which does not have to be duplicated and physically stored in multiple departmental files may be beneficial for access and retrieval purposes. On the other hand, it may pose some interesting questions in relation to the legislative requirements under the Archives Act, 1957 that may need to be worked through carefully.

68 Similarly, consideration needs to be given in the design of the workspace to the controls project managers will need to adequately manage a project, and obtain the appropriate level of authorisation from departmental officials to regulate the status of various documents and

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 22

document versions before they are released from the restricted project area. Care also needs to be taken to ensure the design of the workspace meets the practical needs of the analysts who will use it, and is not solely a technical solution produced by those who do not fully understand the iterative and interactive environment within which policy advisers work.

Future phases of this project should develop working protocols and ensure those are built into the user requirements specifications and training programmes. Quality assurance processes and the requirements of the Archives Act, 1957 also need to be built into user requirement specifications.

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 23

OWNERSHIP INTERESTS

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 24

OWNERSHIP ISSUES

69 Shared workspace involves a common software application to be used by all government agencies. This will not require a common technology platform across government, but will pose challenges with respect to interoperability that will have to be overcome if all departments are to be able to access and use the application. The use of a common government application for carrying out core business functions raises some serious questions about the ownership and management of government technology assets. These include how decisions will be made with respect to deployment and technical interoperability; who will fund the application; how it will be managed and upgraded; and who will take responsibility for evaluating its relevance, and ongoing applicability as a technology resource.

Governance / administration

70 The SSC and Treasury are considering the impact of e-government initiatives on public sector management, and this work will flow on to the governance and funding arrangements of a wide range of e-government projects.7 One of the central themes coming through from work on authentication, metadata, S.E.E. Mail, e-procurement and directory projects is that governance and funding arrangements need to be sorted out as quickly as possible if the Government vision for e-government is to become a reality.

71 For the shared workspace initiative, governance is concerned with:

• rules of membership including operational protocols, dispute resolution, and disciplinary action

• management of infrastructure interoperability across government • funding • supply contracts and licensing • process and information policy re-engineering • consideration of proposals to extend or use the system outside its planned scope • marketing • commissioning evaluation and examining ongoing applicability as a Government

technology resource • impact on other systems and applications.

72 The interoperability project is explicitly addressing the need for a single governance arrangement that will have the ability to make decisions on a range of e-government initiatives. It is therefore not appropriate for the Project Team to make explicit recommendations for a separate governance arrangement for the shared workspace initiative at this time.

73 It is worth noting however, that a clear governance structure is imperative to the successful implementation of a shared workspace application. If the project is to go to the implementation phase, it may be necessary to implement a temporary arrangement (in the interim the steering group overseeing the Secure Electronic Environment) to manage the initiative until a formal arrangement for the e-government programme is agreed. This will avoid unnecessary delays.

7 Appendix 2: Links to other e-government projects.

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 25

NOTE: Governance arrangements for e-government initiatives are currently under consideration by the E-Government Unit. To progress the shared workspace project it may be necessary to establish a temporary governance structure to resolve and manage issues of shared IT resources across government. The S.E.E. Steering Group should act in this role until a permanent governance structure is in place.

Funding

74 To implement a shared workspace application, some centralised resources will be required. While it is anticipated that funds already voted to the E-Government Unit will seed the initial ‘start up’ capital cost of modular application development, there will be other costs. These include those associated with implementation; the storage of project data; possibly a helpdesk service; and information management specialists as well as the ongoing development of the shared workspace technology applications and rollout. These central resources could either be owned by government, or purchased as a service from a service provider but how they are funded becomes a central issue to resolve.

75 The Project Team was not required to undertake any analysis of potential development costs. It did however, consider some high-level funding options ranging from central funding through to split funding of development costs. These are briefly discussed below:

Centralised funding of shared workspace development costs (e.g. the current NZGO model)

76 Centralised funding, either through a group of lead agencies or the Central Agencies, may be a useful approach at key points in the life cycle of the project. For example, initial technological specification and design, and/or pilot costs may benefit from the relative uncomplicated nature of central funding. At a later stage, software upgrade costs could also be centrally funded to encourage agencies to keep up with new versions. This option may be particularly viable if the cost of development is relatively low.

77 In addition, centralised funding is likely to have the advantage of encouraging voluntary uptake across government. Chief executives are likely to respond positively if application development, testing, maintenance and upgrade costs do not require a re-prioritisation of departmental budgets. Agencies would need to support the initiative by bearing the cost of licences, staff training, and the provision of technical support for operating the application in-house.

Club funding (e.g. the Management Development Centre model)

78 The history of club funding has been variable across government to date. The experience of the E-Government Unit is that often transaction costs are high, administration is difficult, and significant operational pressures can result. Club funding is most likely to be effective where the benefits directly accrue to the agencies involved, and non-participation excludes an agency from these benefits. NZGO for example, has been switched to a centralised funding model from club funding, in order to manage its growth effectively.

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 26

79 This option could however, be more appropriate to an initiative like shared workspace that will involve a significant change to the way policy staff do business across government. It may offer chief executives more control into the product and its development (e.g. Management Development Centre). There would need to be some form of administrative arrangement to ensure contribution, and procurement, are managed efficiently.

Pro-rata billing

80 A billing arrangement based on agency usage levels implies the need for close monitoring (most likely through additional electronic functionality), and an administrative body to manage the billing system. This is likely to be a high transaction cost option and difficult to administer. It may be more appropriate if the shared workspace application is owned and managed by an independent service provider or if the clear definition of the transactions add value. It is possible however, that the transaction costs may discourage private sector investment. Equally, government may lose control of the ability to restrict the transaction cost ceiling, and the application could increase in costs to run, over time.

Split funding of development costs

81 In this option each agency, or the service provider, bears a proportion of the capital costs of the application, and charges are on a per-user basis. Some form of split funding is implicit in all of the funding options.

82 The differentiation between the options is how the division of funding responsibilities is made, i.e. which proportion of the costs are borne by agencies, and what administrative arrangements are necessary for efficient funding management.

83 The division of funding responsibilities needs to ensure the application is protected from displacement by other agency priorities that may lead to a lack of uniformity of operation across government. This split funding option is likely to be so administratively complex that it would not be feasible to run efficiently.

Summary of funding options

84 It will be necessary in any follow-up phase to the project’s work to develop a business case that will explore both the costs and benefits of an electronic shared workspace for crosscutting policy development. It is anticipated that the business case would also examine further options associated with funding the initiative including the potential for specifically seeking new money for ongoing development and implementation.

85 The business case will distinguish between funding for the development phase, which is likely to be different from funding an ongoing operation. While development is likely to be funded centrally, the business case will need to recommend whether ongoing costs will be covered centrally, or recovered from users.

86 Appendix 3 sets out a summary of the funding options.

Operation of a shared IT resource

87 If a shared workspace application is to be developed for government, a user needs and technical specification phase will have to take place, followed by a design and build. Before the application is implemented there are a set of ownership issues that need to be considered

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 27

relating to the requirements for ongoing technical operation and support. This includes how the application is maintained and upgraded (refer ‘Technical implementation’ ).

88 These issues are dependent on the design and composition of the application. It is difficult to anticipate what arrangements might be necessary. Ongoing operation of the application needs to be specified in the business case.

NOTE: There is a range of potential funding models. The feasibility of those least challenging to current funding models may depend on the nature of the solution put forward, and therefore should be reconsidered at a future time. The Project Team is of the view that in principle: * a central group should bear the cost of shared workspace development; * referential agencies should bear the cost of the development of component parts of the information portal (e.g. SSC – MOG manual; Treasury – estimates; PCO – legislation); * individual agencies should bear internal operational costs including licenses, staff training, and internal technical support; * ongoing costs will either be covered centrally, or recovered from users.

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 28

OPTIONS FOR PROCEEDING

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 29

OPTIONS FOR PROCEEDING

89 There are two clear options for proceeding from this point:

• maintain the status quo

• accept the concept of shared workspace in principle; agree to implement the model across government; and select one of three options for implementation:

i incremental rollout by piloting with selected groups ii general release iii modular build and rollout.

90 The latter option means that a further phase of work will need to follow this report to:

• identify and specify further user needs and technical requirements

• develop and implement a process to secure a supplier (RFI/ RFP/ tender evaluation/ contract)

• design and build the application

• systems and user testing

• develop an implementation plan for roll out (including timeframes, staff training requirements, and technical support requirements).

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 30

(1) Status Quo

91 The value proposition for electronic shared workspace has been demonstrated in this paper, but there is no doubt that a shared IT resource will also pose a range of difficulties that need careful management (refer ‘Ownership’). It may be desirable to take advantage of emerging technologies, but it is not essential to the business of the Public Service. If the electronic workspace is not implemented, its potential benefits cannot be realised. There will also be the risk that agencies will develop their own limited, and non-integrated workspaces. The cost effectiveness of this approach to the Crown over the longer term is a concern. Pros and cons of this approach are summarised as follows:

POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES

• No set up costs

• No change management or training required

• No impact on Chief Executive autonomy

• No risk of failure

• If status quo is only a postponement, we could learn more from individual agency attempts to use similar spaces and wait for virtual team software to further mature.

• No improved accessibility of information, research and dialogue

• Inefficient means of policy development will continue to be done by email and meetings resulting in current wasted effort, version control problems, and knowledge management problems around archiving and OIAs

• Agencies, or projects, will create their own less functional shared workspaces. Analysts involved in more than one such project will have to learn multiple systems, and use multiple passwords

• Agencies waiting for an all of government shared workspace and will have lost some time in building their own.

• Missed opportunity to take the ‘lead’ with e-tachnology enabled working methods.

• Failure to build upon opportunities presented through S.E.E.

• Not seen as ‘employer of choice’ for future recruits.

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 31

(2) Implementing the shared workspace application across government

92 Implementing an IT application across government is a complex and potentially fraught endeavour that will need to be thought through and managed carefully. A potential approach is to roll the application out incrementally with selected groups. Initial uptake would be voluntary. Once the application is proven as a valuable and useful tool to complement the work of policy analysts, it could be implemented more broadly on a demand basis. Alternatively, the application can be developed and thoroughly tested with a pilot group, and then made available across government to all agencies. Both approaches will require thorough application testing in an operational environment, and incentives to support uptake. The model could also be built on a modular basis.

a Incremental roll out of limited functionality using either selected projects, or selected groups

93 A prototype electronic project space would be established either for a cross-sector policy project (e.g. Oceans strategy, Public Works Act review, sentencing reform), or a policy sector group (e.g. social policy agencies) on a trial basis. This would require the project manager to establish the workspace, and determine the project team and stakeholder user and access rights. However, the functionality will be limited just to operation within the workspace. It would not have the add-value of wider government access, or an information portal. Pros and cons of this approach are summarised as follows:

POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES • Tests the electronic shared workspace

concept on a specific, but limited, audience

• Enables a specific group, i.e. project

team and stakeholders, to be trained in the use of the workspace

• Provides a ‘control’ group to monitor

both effectiveness and methods of working

• Enables changes to be made to the

prototype before it is released generally.

• Restricts the electronic shared workspace to one cross sector project

• Limits the capacity for introducing

changes to policy development across the sector at one time

• Could lead to frustration by policy

analysts wishing to use more electronic means who would have to wait the outcome of the trial

• Would slow down wider

implementation of electronic shared workspace

• Limited range of functionality that

would not fully test an electronic working space

• A limited trial may not be cost

effective for the Crown without a longer-term plan.

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 32

b General release

94 In this option, the application will be developed and tested on a voluntary user group. Again, one of the cross-sector project groups may be appropriate for this. The trial would be for a limited period to test the use of the functionality in a live situation before general release. Once testing was completed, the application would be available for release across the Public Service. Full cross-government training for users and technical support staff would be required prior to general release. Pros and cons of this approach are summarised as follows:

POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES • Enables all policy staff across

government to move into the shared workspace at the same time

• Enables all policy staff to receive

training in the application use • Live testing will enable changes to be

made to the prototype before it is released generally

• Demonstrates a clear commitment by

chief executives to the Government vision for e-government

• Full functionality will be available

across government.

• Logistical management will be complex and needs to be right first time to avoid major difficulties

• Changes to policy development

process only have to be done once • There is a risk that the testing may

not show all the problems that may be associated with the application when it is widely deployed

• Risk if there is problems with the

application deployment that e-government will be seen as not successful

• It may be difficult to build all of the

model at the same time, within reasonable cost parameters

• Not best practice in terms of

government practice for IT developments.

c Modular build and release 95 Another alternative is to examine the shared workspace model and make a judgement about those pieces that can most effectively be implemented, with the greatest value to government policy staff, and organise a programme of incremental implementation of the component parts. For example, Focus Group participants indicated that shared databases alone would provide considerable value to the policy development process. It would be possible therefore to commit resources to the development of the government information portal as a first step.

96 Some parts of the portal (e.g. legislation) are already in the process of development. Providing additional support to these individual initiatives to ensure cross-government connectivity and an aggressive timetable for completion could minimise risk, and yield high value. This would also have the advantage of ensuring that individual departments continue

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 33

to bear development costs, supported by e-government co-ordination. A clear direction from chief executives to a co-ordinated development programme would be necessary to ensure cross-government benefits and completion within an agreed timeframe.

97 Further components of the shared workspace could be developed over time. This could have the advantage of allowing a programme of awareness of technology advances to be carried out across the Public Service, and develop a stronger body of support for shared workspace functionality. Pros and cons of this approach are summarised as follows:

POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES • Implementation will be in smaller,

manageable components • Ensures value added services are

provided without major disruption to the Public Service

• Costs will be incremental and more

devolved • Demonstrates commitment to

Government’s e-government vision, with conservative management

• Not reliant on a large number of

people to support the application • Ensures a staged, managed approach.

• Shared workspace functionality will not be available in the initial stages. Real risk that users impatient for the shared functionality will build their own systems in an unmanaged, and uncoordinated, manner resulting in higher costs for the Crown over time

• Limits the capacity for introducing

changes to policy development across the sector at one time

• Coordination of devolved projects

will be complicated. Interoperability may be a problem

• Potential efficiencies from shared

functionality will not be realised.

The Project Team is of the view that the modular build and release option is the one that is most feasible, and recommends that this approach be followed. Further work needs to be done to establish the most constructive plan to progress this option.

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 34

TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

98 Once an agreement has been made to invest in a shared workspace, it will be necessary to:

• find or build a system that meets the needs of government • develop an information management policy • develop protocols on how the system should be used • deploy the system.

99 Whether the new system will be bought, or built, a formal user requirement specification and tendering methodology should be followed. The conceptual model indicates that the shared workspace is a suite of systems that could be implemented separately, or various components could be purchased from different vendors.

100 Many of functions required for the shared workspace appear to be available in commercial virtual team products. Others like the automation of CAB100s for example, almost certainly will have to be custom built. Some aspects of information management, policy, and protocols on system use will need to feed into the user requirements specification of the system. For the most part however, these can be run as separate projects independent of the shared workspace system development.

101 During implementation, the project will need to be steered by a committee empowered to make decisions on how the system should work for all government agencies. The project manager will need a multi-agency team to develop the user requirements specification and evaluate options. The involvement of multiple agencies will introduce special risks to the project. This could include delays for consultation and negotiation among agencies, especially when making tradeoffs and prioritising. There is a risk that the need to find agreement among agencies will lead to over-specification of the system, rather than a concentration on essentials.

102 There will be a need to make decisions on what levels of service are required for support, performance, system availability, disaster recovery, and security. Some areas like security will require agreement by all agencies. Others, like support could potentially be subject to different service level agreements depending on the level of service required and the price each agency is prepared to pay.

103 Deployment will be difficult and require coordination across all participating agencies. The solution may have some impact on agency computer systems, and deployment will require education of internal helpdesks, information management personnel, as well as end-users. If multiple vendors are involved in the project, central problem tracking and resolution may need to be managed by an independent body.

104 Inter-project links will need to be managed throughout the project (refer Appendix 2). These dependencies will be especially important during the user requirements specification.

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 35

PROCESS FOR PROCEEDING

105 The Project Team recommends that the following processes are carried out over the next two months, to ensure the shared workspace project is progressed:

i Presentation to E-Government Advisory Board, April meeting. This will include a proposal that the Chief Executives on the Advisory Board be invited to advise their colleagues at the next Chief Executive forum of progress and next steps (with an offer of support by the E-Government Unit)

ii A set of broader discussions are held across the Public Service with EGU

presenting on the concept to sector groups (preferably at Senior Management level) (April/May)

iii User requirements project (based on those described in this paper) for each of the

implementation options is started (mid April/May) and business case developed and published on completion

iv Decisions taken; governance and funding arrangement agreed; project plan

developed

v Possible rollout of first stage of implementation by December 2001.

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 36

APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 37

APPENDIX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE: PROJECT AND POLICY SHARED WORKSPACE

Situation Public Service chief executives and central agencies, individually and as a group, are initiating and endorsing inter-agency collaboration as a means of leveraging government’s considerable IT investment to improve policy-making. Technology advancements have improved management, communication, and business processes. Even though technologies continue to develop rapidly however, the penetration into policy and project management processes still remains somewhat limited. The quality of policy advice provided by the Public Service is important for enabling government to set realistic social, environmental and economic development goals. In recent years, policy environments have become global, fast moving, interconnected, interactive and information rich. The complexity of policy issues and their crosscutting nature has reduced the power of individual departments to deal with a problem independent of other stakeholder interests. The focus of policy makers is shifting away from conventional questions of co-ordination towards the management of crosscutting issues. New technologies can be utilised to achieve more efficient and effective co-ordination. Government must have confidence in the quality and efficiency of the policy-making process. The development and implementation of a secure electronic shared Public Service workspace has the potential to enable more efficient, streamlined policy development and facilitate greater collaboration and co-ordination across departments. Project Goal To investigate the viability of implementing a secure, electronic shared workspace for project and policy development across government departments. Outcomes • Leverage existing technical infrastructures to improve the quality and timeliness of policy

development

• Improve the level of collaboration between departments in developing policy papers, and managing crosscutting projects

• Increase efficiency and co-ordination of business processes, work flows and data management related to the production of policy papers and projects

• Strengthen the capacity to identify and access relevant information from multiple information sources

• More efficiently disseminate policy in the Public Service.

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 38

Parameters Scope This project is the first phase of a 2-phase process to develop a shared

policy and project workspace. It involves carrying out the preliminary analysis work to establish the needs of stakeholders, and explore the potential for technology to assist the management of policy development and cross-cutting projects. The project involves three parts: 1) Investigation – compiling information on shared workspace policy

and practices in other jurisdictions 2) Scoping - carrying out a needs analysis with key stakeholders 3) Reporting – completing a paper setting out the requirements,

strategy, risks, and benefits analysis for implementing a shared policy and project workspace.

The final report of this project will form the basis of the second phase of the process, if the concept is accepted as a viable one. The second phase will involve determining the required technical specifications for a shared workspace, developing a prototype and implementing as appropriate. A separate project plan will be developed for this part of the process if it goes ahead.

Critical assumptions

The project has a number of interdependencies. It complements the work currently being carried out in the e-government unit to develop a secure, electronic network across the Public Service. The concept of a shared workspace assumes the successful completion of the SEE projects.

Other relevant work includes:

• legal workspace project being carried out in the Parliamentary Council Office;

• quality of policy advice work within SSC; and,

• e-procurement work being carried out within the e-government unit.

Outputs To be submitted to the Project Sponsor:

• Paper on shared workspace policies and practices

• Needs analysis report

• Final report

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 39

Time The project will be completed between 01 September 2000 and 28

February 2001. Completion of milestones will be as follows: 1) Investigation • research and report completed - 20 October 2000

2) Scoping • interviews with key stakeholders completed – 30 November 2000

• needs analysis report completed – 24 December 2000

3) Reporting Final report available to SDB – 28 February 2001

Quality This project will conform to standard Commission quality criteria for project management. In addition, the project will demonstrate evidence of having taken into account: • recent work within the Public Service on improving quality of policy

advice

• relevant academic and project development work on e-government and shared workspaces

• policy work processes and existing information systems of user departments

The solution recommended will fit the policy and project environments of the user departments; be user-friendly; and will not be driven by existing or potential technologies.

Cost To be met from the SDB budget. Time costs of Project Manager will be provided from GMB budget within the parameters of the SDB/GMB shared resources arrangement. Funds are accessible under the SEE Initiatives programme to secure additional resources/ contracting services for this project.

Project hierarchy Sponsors: Derek Gill – Branch Manager, Strategic Development Branch (SSC) Brendan Boyle – Director, E-Government Unit (SSC) Nicola White – Policy Advisor, Policy Advisory Group (DPM&C) Project Manager: Rose O’Neill – Senior Advisor, Government Management Branch

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 40

Staffing: One additional resource to be provided by SDB to support parts 2 and 3 of the project.

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 41

Key stakeholders Deputy Commissioner (IT) E-government unit Central agencies – Treasury, DPM&C, and Cabinet Office Other stakeholders include policy managers and policy staff within the Public Service. Additional input will be sought from a range of these stakeholders on a knowledge, competency basis rather than by representative sampling. Signatures Derek Gill Brendan Boyle Nicola White SDB Branch Manager Director, E-Government Policy Advisor, PAG State Services Commission State Services Commission DPM&C

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 42

APPENDIX 2: LINKS TO OTHER E-GOVERNMENT PROJECTS

Other projects underway include:

• S.E.E. Mail

• inter-operability

• inter-agency authentication

• directories and metadata

S.E.E. Mail

The S.E.E. Mail system may be a pre-requisite for securely notifying users of events and workflow via email, although it is possible to use anonymous email e.g. ‘There has been activity in the Project X Workspace. Click here to connect’. Alternatively, custom built secure notification mechanisms could be used.

Inter-operability

Although a system can be designed with the goal of having minimal impact on other systems, there is still a need for agreement across government on desktop software standards. For example, if the system is Internet browser based, agreement may be needed across government with respect to the minimum supported browser. The development of a shared workspace should aim to minimise its impact on the interoperability project. The inter-operability project is also considering governance structures that will impact on the shared workspace project.

Inter-agency Authentication Infrastructure

The shared workspace application would probably be a flagship user of an inter-agency authentication infrastructure. The need for the shared workspace to work with non-public servants (e.g. consultants, or subject-matter experts) affects the scope of the authentication project. The cost of authentication technology could exceed the cost of purchasing and running a shared workspace system.

Directories

The shared workspace application may need a directory, and may publish information repository data to the directory. Metadata (GUIDE)

The shared workspace application will need to be able to tag data appropriately, and would ideally be integrated with a locator service. Legislation online

Access to legislation online is an integral part of the shared workspace model. A legislation system is also likely to have many similar requirements to a shared workspace system. Coordination could lead to savings in user training and technical support.

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 43

Cabinet online

Cabinet papers ideally feed into, and out of, the shared workspace system. The shared workspace application needs to be integrated with, or encapsulate, any future system for dealing with Cabinet Office requirements. The above projects need to be considered together when dealing with major ownership and funding issues. It would be appropriate if each of the projects reported to the same governing body.

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 44

APPENDIX 3: SUMMARY OF FUNDING OPTIONS

Funding method

Advantages Disadvantages

Central Funding • Ease of administration and contract management

• Agencies have no

difficulty justifying uptake of the system

• Does not require re-

prioritisation of departmental IT budgets.

• Agencies have no direct control

• Agencies may not demand

value for money, potentially even building new systems for the same job

Club Funding (Compulsory /voluntary)

• Agencies would demonstrate commitment to implement and use the application

• Agencies demand value

for money

• Chief executives may have more control of the product and its content

• Voluntary mechanism

would demonstrate clear agency buy-in, or not, as a whole.

• Complex to administer with high transaction costs, unless Treasury directly removed the cost from base-line funding. Agencies then have no direct control over their contribution

• Voluntary contributions

can result in non-compliance, and/or competition from other departmental priorities for spending

• Potentially difficult to add

new project team members if first have to negotiate membership of the club.

Prorata Funding • Clear link between those

paying for, and those benefiting from, the system

• Requires close monitoring of usage

• Likely to be high

transaction costs, and complex to administer

• Costs may discourage

private sector involvement

• Potential for government to lose control of transaction costs.

Split Funding • Clear link between those

paying for, and those benefiting from, the system

• Transparent balance

between cost centres.

• High risk that shared workspace application will be displaced by other IT priorities within an agency, and result in a lack of consistency across government.

New money • Demonstration of

Government commitment • Will need to compete with

other Government

Ref: SI-3-2-3-7 45

to e-government initiatives

• Will allow application development if costs are high.

priorities for spending

• Is not consistent with Government direction that new e-government initiatives be funded from base line spending.