Is it possible to deliver a government agency's standard IT systems on a single USB?

CSIR Mk 1 with Hollerith
equipment, Sydney 1952
Source: Museum Victoria

The Australian government was one of the earliest adopters of computers and computerisation.

CSIRAC (or CSIR Mk1), the first computer in Australia (and now the oldest surviving first-generation electronic computer), was used by scientists within CSIRO, by the Snowy Mountains Hydro Electric Authority and various university and government departments and agencies between 1949 and 1964 to make sense of 'big data' (for the time) which would have taken years to analyse by hand.

As the fifth stored program computer in the world, CSIRAC programmers could write their programs on punch tapes, check them one step at a time, and store them in the computer to be run again and again.

While computers have gotten a lot smaller, faster and efficient, they still use a similar programming approach to CSIRAC. Programs (software) are loaded into their memory and may then be accessed and run many times.

Of course modern computers use different storage mediums and can store and execute many programs at the same time.

Every government agency has an IT architecture made up of hundreds, if not thousands, of different programs - some run on a mainframe computer, others on desktop computers and still more on servers which allow staff to access the programs remotely from their desktop, laptop or even mobile platforms.

It is a very complex process to manage an agency's IT architecture - some programs may not 'play nice' with others, some may be twenty or more years old and require special hardware and maintenance to keep them operating.

Setting up a new agency can be an even more complex process. Often agencies are 'spawned' from existing departments and 'borrow' much of their IT infrastructure - the software required to run everything from payroll and HR to manage contracts, projects, compliance, Ministerial correspondence and provide the desktop applications required by staff to do their jobs.

Even more complex is the process of combining disparate agencies into a new department. This can require blending two or more sets of software programs into a single solution, with all the data migration and management issues this entails - not to mention addressing security considerations, staff training and avoiding long outages or data loss.

This is where my concept of 'government on USB' comes in.

Why not develop all the core software that a government agency needs to operate as open source shareable software and release it for other government agencies to reuse?

Using this approach it is possible that when a government dictates that a new agency must be formed that the CIO simply pulls out his 'Government Agency USB' and uploads all the required operational software as a complete agency package.

Potentially, via this method, a new agency could have all its core ICT systems in place and operating in days, if not hours.

This approach might seem farfetched, however we're already heading in that direction due to a couple of trends.

Today much of the software an agency needs to run its operations is available through SAAS (Software as a Service) or as cloud-based services - which both basically means that software is stored offsite, maintained by a specialist company and simply accessed and used as needed by an agency - provided they are confident of the security levels.

We're also seeing more and more of the software 'building blocks' of organisations becoming available in open source forms which can be downloaded, adjusted as required by an agency and used, either hosted internally or via a SAAS or cloud provided.

The US has actively been developing and releasing software in open source formats for other governments to use, as has the UK and a few other governments around the world. This offers massive national and international efficiencies for governments who can reuse rather than build or buy software.

The next step is for a government to audit the core systems required to establish a new agency and develop a standard IT Architecture that can be applied for any new agency (with room for specialised modules for unique functions). Then, by selecting from existing open source programs and potentially writing additional services, a government could put together a 'flatpack' IT architecture that any new agency could adopt quickly and easily.

If all the software in this 'flatpack' were open source, it could be easily improved and adjusted over time to meet changing legislative and operational requirements and to integrate ongoing improvements and enhancements.

Then once agencies have adopted this common 'flatpack' of software, it would be significantly easier and cheaper to merge agencies, as they would already be operating in a similar and interchangeable way.

Moving all of government across to this approach would take quite a few years - it's not achievable in a single term - however it would provide ultimately for a 'government on USB'.

This also has implications across the developing world and for newly formed countries, where their government agencies and institutions can suffer from a lack of experience, expertise and money to build the robust IT architecture needed for modern nations.

In the scenario I've described, a new or developing government could simply plug in the 'government on USB' into an agency's systems and establish a sophisticated IT environment to underpin governance in a very short period of time.

Is this simply an unattainable pipedream?

Some may scoff at the notion, however there are many people around the world working on parts of the 'government on USB' model today - albeit many may not be thinking about the bigger picture.

Much of the software required for a government agency is already available in open source form, from HR and financial management systems to desktop applications. It simply hasn't been linked together with a single set-up process.

To explore the concept it would take a government willing to innovate, investing resources and money.

This would be used to model the software requirements of an agency, identify where open source solutions exist (or existing solutions can be modified) and write new open source software where necessary.

Next there would be the need to ensure the solution is secure and to write a single set-up approach that makes it easy for a CIO to roll out the solution quickly.

This may not ultimately be possible or cost-effective, but given the cost of IT architecture changes today when creating, merging or updating agencies, surely it is worth considering.

Read full post...

View summary...

From Gov 2.0 to GovInnovate - expanding the agenda

I'm pleased to note that CEBIT, whose Gov 2.0 Conference has been a great event over the last few years, has recognised the growing innovation agenda in government and broadened this annual conference into GovInnovate.

Now including Gov 2.0, Cyber Security, Service Design and mobile Government (mGov) streams, the GovInnovate conference looks like it will retain a leading position amidst Australian events aimed at government innovators and leaders.

I'll be returning to speak at the conference after an absence of a few years due to other commitments, and I strongly recommend that people involved in government who are interested in the streams above consider whether they can attend.

GovInnovate is being held from 26-28 November in Canberra and more information is available at its website: www.cebit.com.au/govinnovate

Read full post...

View summary...

Social Media specifications guide

One challenge organisations may face with social media is designing their account pages to reflect their common look.

I've seen many organisations place graphics poorly - stretched logos and unintentionally pixelated images - due to not having the specifications to hand when instructing a graphic designer.

Fortunately someone has come up with the below very useful specifications sheet for major social networks.

While this is a 'point in time' resource, as social networks regularly change their designs, it provides a starting point that should help organisations design their account pages to platform constraints.

Read full post...

View summary...

Should public servants be relying on the courts to clarify their right to use social media?

About eighteen months ago the APSC released updated guidance for the use of social media by public servants.

Designed to cover personal and professional use, the guidance was widely criticised at the time by traditional media and former public servants for its imprecise language and broad reach.

I criticised it as well, and it was one of my motivations for leaving the public sector, as it was for several other people I know.

In particular criticisms related to one piece of the guidance that states that when APS employees are making public comment in an unofficial capacity, it is not appropriate for them to make comment that is, or could be perceived to be:

so harsh or extreme in its criticism of the Government, a member of parliament from another political party, or their respective policies, that it raises questions about the APS employee’s capacity to work professionally, efficiently or impartially. Such comment does not have to relate to the employee’s area of work

so strong in its criticism of an agency’s administration that it could seriously disrupt the workplace. APS employees are encouraged instead to resolve concerns by informal discussion with a manager or by using internal dispute resolution mechanisms, including the APS whistleblowing scheme if appropriate 

The APSC has provided a few (broad) case studies designed to help public servants navigate use of social media, within their definition of appropriate conduct.

However terms such as 'so harsh and extreme' have remained largely undefined and subject to the interpretation of senior public servants - which unfortunately has left them open to accidental and deliberate misuse, potentially for bullying or internal politics.

I've long advocated that for the public service to improve its use of social channels it needs to foster and support staff in using those channels - professionally and personally as well as officially.

If the public sector doesn't firmly embed social media use into the culture of agencies, it will find it increasingly difficult and expensive to match Australian society's preference for communication via social channels and be less effective at carrying out the instructions of the government of the day.

Imprecision is the enemy of adoption. It has remained unclear what is meant by terms such as 'harsh or extreme', 'so strong' and 'seriously disrupt', leading public servants to either avoid participating online, carefully self-censor or to conceal their identities.

Now we're beginning to see some of the fruits of that imprecision, in the case of Michaela Banerji who reportedly used the Twitter identity @LaLegale. Ms Banerji has lost a court case to stay her dismissal from the public service, partially related to comments made by her pseudonymous Twitter account.

I'm not casting judgement on the case decision itself. While Marcus Mannheim's article, Public servant loses fight over Twitter attack on government, focuses on Twitter, there's some indication there were other issues as well. Ms Banerji was directly and publicly criticise the policies of her own department and there's been clear and precise guidance for quite some time that this is highly dangerous territory.

However I wonder how the department identified @LeLegale as Michaela Banerji - there would be serious privacy considerations if the Department were investigating other pseudonymous Twitter or other social media accounts to determine who owns them, regardless of whether they then took any actions as a result.

I am also concerned that this had to go to a court decision (albeit one brought by Ms Banerji). Agencies have had a number of years to write social media policies and educate staff as to their responsibilities and what constitutes appropriate conduct online - however there's not been any research released publicly indicating whether they've done this in an effective way.

I do support the need to put boundaries as to how far public servants can criticise agency operations and government policies related to their work (and only those related to their work - unlike the current guidelines).

However I don't think that public servants should need to ever go to court to clarify their right to privately use social media channels for political comments.

The social media guidelines for public servants need to be clearer, and the policies and training supporting the guidelines need to be implemented consistently and effectively.

Otherwise we all lose.

Read full post...

View summary...

Political participation in a crowded age

Whether we call today the information age, the digital age or the internet age, it is very true that society today has changed radically from the society we saw fifty years ago.

Massive personal access to information, entertainment and communication means this is the crowded age - every person has a plethora of choices and can individually decide what they watch, read, create or participate in.

I've been reading an interesting thread in the Australian Public Policy LinkedIn group discussing the lack of young people involved in politics, the falling level of participation in political parties and the impacts this is likely to have on our society in the future.

Named Where's the young blood?, the thread has seen a great deal of interesting and considered views on the topic.

I thought it would be useful to share my thoughts on this topic in my blog, as well as in the thread, as below as I believe this shift is a consequence of our increasingly digital world and will have a profound impact on the depth and professionalism of Australia's political leadership over the next twenty years.

My say:

Falling political party memberships is not a unique thing - it should be considered in the broader context of falling participation in all kinds of voluntary organisational activities.

And this is a symptom of wider social change - people have more engagement and entertainment options than in the past.

Thirty years ago the choices for what active minds did in the evening or weekend was more limited, so active participation in political parties (or unions) was a more common choice - it brought like-minded people together to share their dreams and visions, to socialise and form tribes.

People today form these social bonds in different ways, but still form them. Hence the old political party 'branch' where people attend every Wednesday night with cupcakes and a readiness to debate, discuss and romance, is no longer as attractive as it once was.

By and large political parties in Australia have failed to modify their membership and participation model to remain relevant to people aged 40 or under - which is why we see a vast underrepresentation of young people in political party memberships, and much lower participation and engagement from most who still sign up.

This isn't solely due to parties being led by older people, steeped in ye olden days, or due to the fact that the lower participation actually suits some active young people as they have less competition for attention and position in political parties. It is also a function of the legal framework in Australia around how such organisations must be formed and registered, and the traditions these organisations have built over a hundred or more years.

There is little radical innovation in party structures to find one which will work for present-day society, and as a result the political party tree is dying from the roots up.

One of the implications is much poorer representation for Australians. Political parties used to be testbeds for peoples' ideologies - challenging them to think, consider, test and assess their ideas in the light of broader views. Politicians who emerged from this after a ten or twenty year 'apprenticeship' in party positions were professional, broadminded and good at their jobs - sound in their own thinking, committed to the public good (whatever their ideological view of 'public good' was).

As membership numbers have fallen and people have had to be fast-tracked into political office without these long apprenticeships, we've seen a focus on the popular and less commitment to specific ideological viewpoints. While this has its benefits, it also has many disadvantages - less tested views, a lower commitment to the public good and more commitment to self-entitlements and promotion.

While the long apprenticeship approach had its flaws, creating more group-think and less ideological flexibility, with politicians ground in the values of their youth, it also had many advantages in terms of a professional political 'class', politicians with broader exposure to views and to what worked or didn't work in practice.

We are losing these advantages as people are increasingly entering politics with less party grounding, and as we are drawing from a thinner and thinner (and more incestuous) talent pool.

How do we reframe politics for the modern day? That's yet to be seen.

In twenty years we might employ politicians like corporate managers in order to attract professional and more objective individuals to these jobs, with citizens being shareholders in massive corporate states.

Or we might see a massive change in how politicians operate, having online 'brains trusts' of thousands of citizens, who are selected, like juries, to contribute to selected decisions via algorithms, picking how their representative should vote using their always-on mobile devices and have the politicians be merely a proxy votes in a more direct democratic model.

We may even see political parties reinvent themselves for a modern age, potentially the most unlikely option!

Read full post...

View summary...