All this is wrapped in a Green IT Strategy as well as an Information Security strategy.

I cannot see how this will not make a fundamental shift. We accept it will be incredibly hard to do, but the logic is compelling from a security, cost, efficiency, security and innovative stand-point.

We have already announced that we will buy software at the Government level so that all of the Public Sector can get the best value coupled with the greatest flexibility. We have already said that whatever we create that is proprietary where possible we will make it open source.

This must impact the IT suppliers and the IT community and the future role of the CIO.

John
blog: http://www.johnsuffolk.typepad.com

I don’t think it’s going to be quite the paradim shift some of the comments take on but it is certainly a good point for this moment in time.

But the citizen should be able to affect this, after all government is about them, isn’t it? Primarily for efficiency savings, which will also be key in the market, government will have to cut back, and, as you say what a better way? Will it alter service delivery? Probably improve it?

We still fail to look at services end-to-end, which is the area that cloud might encourage – if we don’t it will be ‘clod’ computing with all the potential savings wasted.

Great thinking, again!

Mick http://greatemancipator.com

(1) Transformation is taking place in all industries from highly centralized models of production and delivery to decentralized models. IT is no exception. See Yochai Benkler, The Value of Networks. Transition from an “industrial information economy” to a “networked information economy”.

(2) Historically, the justifying business logic for large software companies is their ability to aggregate people representing unique and highly specialized expertise and capital. As in many industries, such as financial services, insurance, and automobile, the rationale for centralization is starting to break down as solutions require less of both and as network tools enable aggregation of people and capital outside of large institutions, episodically as needed – including specifically by government agencies.

(3) Critical thought and leadership are badly needed in gov2, including with analysts who at times do perpetuate technology institutional driven market definition and acceptance. E-gov, and “gov2.0″ represent a very different technology paradigm than past paradigms that served as the foundation for industry growth and delivery of technology to government for several reasons:

First, the delivery models of gov 2.0 are vital to successful network behaviors (citizen engagement). The technology delivery model has to untether stakeholders from the software as government builds networks, at least in a traditional sense. It has to rely on ubiquitous standards (browsers), mobile phones, and channels that are generally available to all.

Second, procurement systems for technology programs that are built to fulfill a transactional need of government, to provide citizen services for e-payments etc. for example, are very different than procurement systems for communications functions, and specifically for unstructured citizen communication and collaboration. Cloud based architectures historically have been most successful when they solve problems that are repeatable, and where standards (not necessarily promulgated) help to build value in networks. One size does not fit all. Critical differentiation is key.

(4) Also, the success of gov 2.0 in large part requires a deep behavioral sensitivity (it is in part a sociology problem), not simply a software problem. So governments are going to struggle with traditional methods of providing scope requirements for large technology builds, or alternatively, to say let’s use product A or product B and try to force fit it to meet the needs of complex collaborative and/or citizen networks. To your point, delivery in the cloud is not only an “expense” side advantage, but a functional advantage. SaaS solutions that incorporate behavioral logic can help governments go faster, with much more flexibility than traditional software models. They also enable government agencies to leverage learning across shared needs – agencies learn from each other and leverage knowledge and development costs across many agencies.

Your blog post is not only provocative, but an excellent and much needed reflection. The opportunity is to develop it even further. This type of critical thinking is going to help the whole industry as it shapes a new future.

Critical thinking will also help government to better define the many business problems which government expects to solve with gov 2 and to discover the many solutions and delivery methods that most efficiently solve those problems.

As you sense, what got us “here” won’t get us “there”. And as Benkler posits those who solved yesterday’s problems may not always necessarily best solve tomorrow’s. An open and progressive perspective is key. Thank you. Your point of view is refreshing.

Most consultants, vendors and systems integrators have business models that work best when something is mature and commoditised, and they struggle with something new and fast-evolving. They are good at industrialising something when it has been proved, but bad at discovering new paradigms. But that’s been the case forever and is as true of government 2.0 as it was of client / server and the PC.

So maybe what you’re describing is just the normal lifecycle of innovation.