Last Monday I had an inquiry with a small software vendor about a recently approved amendments to the Italian Digital Government Code according to which governments should favor open source vs. proprietary solutions. Article 68 says (see here, in Italian):
Proprietary software acquisition is allowed only when a technical and economic evaluation shows that pre-.existing or open source solutions cannot be acquired at a lower price
I have to confess that I had missed this amendment, although I had followed all the lobbying that well-known consultants to the Italian government have been doing on the topic. The software vendor told me that clients are hesitating to buy their product, even when they believe it is the right choice, while they try to understand how strongly this amendment will be enforced and what others are doing.
I know nothing about this vendor, nor about the quality of their product. I know that there are plenty of great open source solutions across the whole technology stack, and many clients are using those. However I am somewhat surprised that several years after the first wave of open source mandates that was mostly a reaction to the dominance of Microsoft on desktops and – to a lesser extent – servers, a EU country comes up with such a procurement constraint.
Public procurement should always be about value for money and not about mandated solutions. Open source is one example, but the same applies to mandates requiring cloud to be the preferred sourcing approach, or even proposing a single vendor, as it may happen with shared services.
Value for money is a combination of two factors:
- the total cost of ownership, which includes the actual cost of the product (or service) license, any migration cost (including exit costs), maintenance fees, internal or contracted resources needed to support, training, peer support
- the total value of opportunity, which includes the impact on productivity, any saving accrued by the business in its operational costs, as well as further positive impacts in terms of agility and flexibility to support the business objectives
A choice should be made after looking at all solutions that meet the functional and non functional requirements and comparing them in terms of both TCO and TVO. The amendment above assumes that license price and economic evaluation are somewhat disjoint, which makes the use of TCP and TVO quite hard.
Forcing to adopt one particular approach, be it open source or cloud or else, skews the decision toward potentially suboptimal solutions. Buyers can probably still apply a due process and examine TCO and TVO across all candidate solutions, but this definitely requires an extra effort, as they need to justify why alternative technologies are being considered. In government compliance is the easiest route to take, and once buyers can tick the required boxes (in this case identify one or more open source solutions), why should they bother?
We are at a moment in time when there is great choice of technology. Government strategies aim at making their buyers better and smarter, through an appreciation of the variety of sourcing options at their disposal, including small and large providers, proprietary and open source, products and services. And yet, ironically, some are still willing to hold their hands to direct their choices.
One of the reasons that open source advocates have used in the past to request government positive actions and mandates is not to fall prey of proprietary vendors, with growing costs and lock-in risks. The other, more implicit reason, is to favor local vendors over large foreign behemoths.
As far as the former, there are still considerable dependencies on the selected vendor or on internal resources. It is not a surprise that highly insourced IT organization, with sizable application development as well as infrastructure and operations staff are more inclined to adopting open source. But how sustainable is this, looking at the emergence of commodity services as well as consumer technology that challenge the value and cost of internal IT organizations? And how relevant is open source, now that the old battleground between vendors has moved to the cloud? I often mention the case of a client with whom I had a conversation many years ago about replacing Microsoft Office with OpenOffice, and who called me again more recently to discuss Google Apps vs Microsoft Office 365…
As far as the local industry, how many vendors are there like the one I spoke to? Of course the dependencies on a myriad of small and less small proprietary vendors is not advisable either, and it is indeed very good that they compete.
But this is the crucial issue: favoring a healthy competition among vendors with different technology solutions, while training government buyers to relentless apply value for money. Restricting the market to open source, or cloud for that matter, looks very similar to reinstating barriers to free movement of goods and services in the EU.
It is no longer time for the political battles that burst almost ten years ago around open source. The common enemy is the budget, which keeps shrinking and may threaten the ability of government organizations to sustain their services and operations. Open source brings important ammunitions to this fight, but not the only ones.
The greater the choice, the smarter the government.