David Dinsdale

e-Government Product Director, Atos

+44 7852 133 964

david.dinsdale@atos.net

If you have any comments, please do send them to David and cc. martin.ferguson@socitm.gov.uk

Background: On 13th Feb 2013, an informal subgroup of the Local Public Services CIO Council gathered to discuss the implications of the announcement by the Cabinet Office PSN team of a pan PSN Identity Assurance scheme (PSN IDA). This note reflects the discussion and some broad conclusions about PSN IDA in the context of Local Public Services.

Discussion: Many around the table had been through various iterations of Government identity schemes. It is fair to say that identity as a topic in isolation is neither a focus nor problem that Local Government is currently seeking to solve. No Local Government organisations currently have issues with identity management within their organisations. Hence a scheme that promises a new approach to identity for Local Government employees is unlikely to get focus or investment in the current environment. The general sentiment was that PSN IDA was a solution looking for a problem.

That said, there are challenges facing Local Government that relate to identity. If the PSN IDA approach were to solve these challenges, then Local Government would be interested in being involved. Top of that list of challenges that PSN IDA could help solve is multi agency working within the boundaries of a single Local Authority. The most frequent area discussed at the round table was around troubled families where multi agency working is viewed as the most effective way of supporting the needs of people who are within the care system. Currently, there are significant complexities and barriers to multi agency working (Local Government, Health, Police, the third sector etc.). These problems tend to relate to both different information governance standards used by agencies and also a lack of interoperable technology. The vision of the PSN is to create a pan public sector network that includes health (with N4 being PSN compliant). In that future, if one ID scheme could be used as the basis of a trust relationship between agencies to facilitate easy working between Local Government, Health, Police, the third sector and others, then PSN IDA would be fixing a problem that is causing Local Government considerable challenges at this time.

There are other potential benefits that could be recognised as well, however, none in isolation was considered sufficient to create a compelling business case without a solution to multi agency working. It is worth noting that these potential benefits were not universal; the sense of the round table was that they were applicable in some areas and not others, reflecting the diverse challenges faced by different areas of the country as well as the various political drivers of individual Local Authorities. These other potential benefits included:

• Supporting the roll out of shared services.
• Supporting joint working across Local Government boundaries.
• Could this solution enable and enhance the protection of personal data?
• It was anticipated that a national solution would have direct cost savings over existing solutions.
• Consequential benefits for example it has been noted that where agencies join up in providing social care it is possible to see a reduction in domestic fires (because a social worker can check the batteries in smoke alarms etc.).
• A common standard for identity verification could open up opportunities for Local Government to outsource identity verification services.

Conclusions: For PSN IDA to be successful as a pan Local Government solution that is rolled out across Local Government, then it must articulate a solution to a problem that is important in a Local Government context at this time. That important problem is multi agency working, particularly between Local Government and health. Other benefits exist but on their own they are not sufficiently compelling to warrant Local Government focus and investment at this time.

It was a good and robust round table.We would like to express our thanks to the LCIOC members participating.

Briefing from John Borras (Chair Transformational Government Framework - TGF Technical Committee) and Chris Parker (TGF Co-editor) from Oasis considered the challenges of implementing 'Planting the Flag' - how do we evidence success?LCIOC agreed that TGF from OASIS could be valuable, but should be tested in one area on a low cost or pro-bono basis.

Planting the Flag Implementation update:

• Leadership - Good work in Scotland on a national LG ICT Strategy was noted and should be shared, IBM partnership on 'Talent Management' and work is underway to carry through common leadership themes from the annual SOLACE Summit.
• Governance - Implementation pressing ahead in Scotland.Need to target policy managers, CXs, LGA, heads of governance, politicians.
• Organisational change - Glyn Evans is preparing a review of change management methodologies.
• Strategic sourcing - Much work underway and a draft Pocket Guide emerging.This is one of the most important guides in defining how the public and private sectors need to work together to increase value from IT investment.Involvement of private sector partners to contribute will be important.It was agreed to involve Intellect, Socitm Premium partners and Scottish partners as well as government procurement networks and regional framework agencies. The draft has been shared with LGDC members for comments.
• Shared Services - Pocket Guide and Knowledge Hub presence is underway.
• Professionalism - Whilst people talk about the importance of the topic, they seem less willing to invest time and effort.More promotion is needed with HR colleagues.IT capability is a key to success and needs a greater focus on professionalism.This includes access to professional development.The 'Top Talent' programme is proving popular and successful.Noted that 'ICT professionalism' has to be more about 'business' application of ICT, not technology skills.
• Infrastructure - Progressing well, and much debate on PSN, data centre consolidation, Cloud and more.Discussion including cross sector work (e.g. Connecting for Health) and non-IT business links (e.g. Health and Social Care directors).Agreed important to link to Health 'N4' network procurement to reduce duplication and increase simplicity of data sharing.Local specialists will be sought to engage in the procurement and to ensure a focus on real applications and problems.Consideration will be given to writing an open letter from LCIOC to Government Ministers.Cloudstore is progressing well, although with little supplier engagement in accreditation.A number of Council members are already using Cloudstore successfully as a low-cost and quick procurement mechanism.

Andy Nelson (Government CIO) gave an update on Government ICT Strategy progress, plans and where local public services are impacted.Key priority:Hosted consolidation agenda, PSN, Cloudstore, end user devices.Focus now is on implementation.This includes standards consultation.Culture and governance often get in the way (e.g. in being more agile).Green Delivery Unit has been re-energised with guidance and measurement - partly a by-product of consolidating ICT and enabling smarter working.Government Digital Strategy also in development and needs linking.Professionalism is a high priority and needs real action to drive forward change. He was keen that the Strategy links to wider Civil Service reform and business change, and to describe outcomes in user terms (citizen, CIO, IT professional, supplier, etc.). Finally, he welcomed engagement with LCIOC, especially around speed of implementation.

Andrew Waterston (Dept. of Justice) joined the meeting to cover 'Infrastructure Consolidation'.Scope of the programme is limited to Central Government, but he was keen to see extension to local government where consolidation is also a priority to save money and realise greater value from the small number of large hosting suppliers.This could include new sourcing strategies and sharing of toolkits (e.g. Wales) that address requirements, legal models, etc.

• There are more phones than people in the UK.There are 900m Facebook users worldwide, 40m in the UK which adds up to a lot of social interaction, yet we know that civic engagement has fallen.People are social networking but they are not engaging with the key decisions that affect their communities.
• Within the last few years, WiFi is available nearly everywhere at least in urban areas.It took over 50 years to get the equivalent coverage in telephones.
• In the last four years alone over 700,000 Apple apps were launched, at an average of less than $2 each.That number doubles if you include all Android apps.
• You may have seen the YouTube video of the one year old using a Smartphone.These tools are accessible, easy and ubiquitous.
• We spend £13b/year on IT in the public sector, yet it is mostly on traditional tools and the big suppliers, whilst the world shifts from web to social media.

• And this is not just a public sector issue.The banks have found it is easier and cheaper to patch old systems than to fundamentally change how they work, with a patchwork of old, difficult to maintain and patched-up systems ... but it's a growing risk to adopt such a strategy to avoid facing.

The point is we have the technology, and technology is not generally a barrier to business improvement and modernisation of the public sector. It's not even in the cost in times of austerity.The barriers lie in adoption.

The austerity measures cutting across the whole of the public sector have had enormous impact, and many have ironically been positive:

• Many things have stopped - non-essential projects, programmes, overheads.
• Structures are becoming flatter with broader spans of control.
• Productivity has had to increase, with a smaller workforce providing the same level of service where possible.
• New sourcing models have emerged strongly, especially where both insourced and outsourced models have been proved expensive.
• New contracts, partnership working and a stronger focus on the commercial reality of delivery are all increasing.
• New technologies are being adopted as business tools which might previously have beenresisted ... such as small apps, social networks and Cloud.
• An increasing focus on technology as an agent of change, not just a cost and a risk.
  

Many organisations are now within the public sector are beginning to see IT not as a support service or a 'technology and engineering department', but as a source of innovation, business change, customer service improvement - a risk no doubt, but one which must be embraced, not avoided.

The public sector has woken up to this later than the private sector.Despite immense strength in the provision of technology services within government, especially some of the examples at a very local level, the degree to which technology is truly embraced to change how our organisations function is still relatively limited.

But there are good examples of how IT is beginning to change things:

• New job design, with more flexible working, less travel, more autonomy and virtual teams with matrix management.
• Removing layers of middle management, supervision and administration.A modern business based on good communications technologies just doesn't need the same 'command and control' overheads of the past.
• A move to a 'digital by default' model - for customers and for staff - with a presumption of self-service.Faster, easier and better for all if done well.
• Shared services underpinned by common and shared IT infrastructure.This improves service design around the customer and drives efficiency.
• Use of personal equipment at home (PCs) and on the move (BYOD) and 'work' being something you do, not somewhere you go.
• Use of 'free' (or very low cost) tools - apps, cloud services, social networks, open source, to replace or at least reduce dependence on 'large IT'.

In addition to becoming more efficient, the UK government has a range of other aims which are all underpinned by IT as I see it:

• Modernising government departments, making them better designed around changing public expectations.
• Being more transparent and open.
• Making government easier to deal with - for the public and for the private sector.
• Encouraging smaller organisations to flourish, public and private sector, reducing dominance of large organisations where appropriate.
• Re-vitalising our communities and getting them more involved in decision making and support.Encouraging us all as individuals to take more personal responsibility.
• As a result of the above, create a smaller state with more sharing and less centralisation.

Whilst this may look like a traditional Conservative Party ethos, it is also an inevitability of many of the changes that are afforded now by modern technologies, affecting all governments and businesses.Any government would be likely to support these aims, although they may implement them differently.

Yet in many ways we are still 'fiddling in the margins' of the technology revolution.There is still a tendency towards big, central IT programmes, and 'agile IT' is often used as a misnomer to use technology to prop-up outdated business practices (eg. it's up to IT to prove its 'agile' by accommodating every flavour of practice desired).Our adoption of Cloud, social networking, Bring Your Own Device and technologies such as iPads is still in the tactical deployment stage.As with all new technologies from the PC to the new opportunities, the life cycle is always the same: Deny, Resist, Tactical use, Embrace fully.

But the pace of change is now increasing and has a predictability from the past.Things moved slowly in the l970s and 1980s when the 'Anoraks' were in control of technology.Things moved a little faster during the 1980s and early 1990s when the 'men in suits' took over through the Dot.Com 'boom and bust'.It is now the era of the consumer being in control.And the customer is always right.

It is the job of the modern IT department and the CIO to make sense of this new world.

• To exploit the potential and to manage the risk.
• To manage expectations and to help design and lead change programmes.
• To ensure IT is seen as an enabler not a barrier, whilst constraining costly variation.

This last point is critical: there needs to be a stronger compulsion to adopting standard ways of working - local sub optimisation may be necessary in order to achieve overall corporate optimisation.This is a tough trick to pull off, but essential if we are to maximise the value of IT investment.

There is another dichotomy - more choice and less choice.There can and needs to be more choice in the way we design a Digital by Default delivery of electronic services, putting the customer in control of their interactions with government - when they want and how they want.Yet there also has to be less choice as we standardise the means of delivery if we are to drive efficiency.This means moving away from so many different flavours of technology solution and recognising that IT is in practice driving many of the changes that we see in society and in our organisations.

Change leadership skills and experience are limited, but essential, and simply 'buying in' does not always work well - we need to build internal capacity, and overcome any resistance to IT professionals being able to take on the role:

• Technology professionals often have the commercial, project management, and cross-organisational knowledge coupled with business analytical skills to be well placed to lead change.
• In any event, IT enabled change should be a partnership between business ownership and professional technical, HR and financial capacity and skills.

This is all about what we can do with technology, not about the technology itself.ERP, CloudStore, Agile, Opensource etc are of little value in themselves, it' s how you use them.But the pace of change of technology and its consumerisation has forced some IT professionals to spend too much time worrying about the technology and too little about its application.For example, RAD/JAD pre-dated 'agile' and many IT departments had been delivering on a 'cloud' model before the term was coined.

It is essential therefore for standard ways of working, and less tailoring of applications. "In the past we could afford and had got used to tailoring our suits.Our purse will now only allow an 'off the peg' suit.This does not mean it will not fit!."

Whilst IT costs are usually visible in making change, the inherent costs of not changing have been hidden or assumed 'sunk'.This, coupled with an in-built resistance to change, makes a traditional ROI business case very hard to produce or to realise.Moreover, true costs of running IT are very variable across the public sector.Transparency of cost, and consistent benchmarking are needed to share outstandingly good practice and to deal with poor performance.

There has also been too much reliance on the private sector, especially in the management of risk. What we do need to do better is to focus on smaller projects and be prepared and able to stop them earlier when they go wrong.

There are some other inhibitors to address:

• Sovereignty and control - individual IT (and other) departments, organisations and teams wanting to do things the way they have always done it.
• Ensuring that IT is seen as something much more than a utility or a source of technology.IT departments themselves need to take a lead and to think beyond a 'client-supplier' provider model.
• Understanding that IT is actually not the same as 'magic'. iPads, Cloud computing, social networking all have their place, but these technologies alone do not solve every problem.

IT strategies therefore must be business change programmes, not technology plans based on a set of IT methods.This includes driving new and standard ways of working, high levels of IT competency and awareness in our leaders and higher levels of IT professionalism within government as a whole.Critically, IT within the public sector must seem to be pan-government, not within the silos of central and local or the delivery sectors of Health, local government, Police, Fire, etc.

The synergy and integration between operational IT activity, strategic development of technology adoption and business enabled change is essential - services locked into inflexible outsourcing arrangements will not do.

In conclusion:

• The IT model in public sector still needs to mature.This requires changes both within the IT professional group but also with government as a whole as to how IT is perceived and positioned.
• Procurement, contracts and the way in which we set up partnership/shared working arrangements needs to change - too many have failed to deliver against aspirations.
• Technology will drive change in a modern society.That doesn't mean we should not be in control of the change.
• Technology is the key to a more efficient, transparent and smaller public sector, which can none-the-less improve what it does for citizens.
• Done well, IT is the key to a more efficient, transparent and customer centric public sector, and one that empowers both its staff and its citizens.

Membership of the LCIOC covers all local public service sectors as well as geographies.Appointment is made through Socitm, and Socitm also provides the necessary administrative and professional support, but the LCIOC is independent.

The new Terms of Reference were agreed.Key principles are openness, transparency and delivery against the 'Planting the Flag' strategy.

The LCIOC supports and provides constructive challenge to the National CIO Council - policy and strategy.Three members are on the National CIO Council (JCr, DR and JCa).

Publicity and press coverage will be provided through UKIT Authority and Helen Olsen attended the meeting to work with Socitm on the initial press release. http://www.ukauthority.com/

It was felt that the LCIOC has become highly influential, and a driving force behind promoting the role of IT in public sector reform.This needs to be exploited.

The importance of the web presence for the LCIOC work programme, membership and activity was stressed, and more work will need to be undertaken on this.

There has been some challenge in getting a continuity of support from the Health sector, and this will be reviewed.

The appointment of Dylan Roberts to the National CIO Council was agreed and is supported by Andy Nelson.Glyn Evans will be stepping down from the Local Government Delivery Council and National CIO Council, but will remain a special adviser to the LCIOC.

Greater support and representation of district council membership was agreed a priority and RW will look at this.

Further support outside the LCIOC for implementation of the strategy and in support of CIO Council members was agreed and will be pursued separately by stream leads, though the Socitm network.

Links to other bodies was agreed a high priority and the priority areas were identified with key links agreed.

The 'Planting the Flag' strategy and workstream were reviewed with a particular focus on production of the series of pocket guides:

• Leadership - progress now complete, advocacy and integration with the IT professional worksteam/governance will be important.
• The Governance guide was launched at the end of June.
• Organisation guide will follow, and LCIOC stream members were asked to comment on this.
• The Sourcing workstream was reviewed, and more feedback is encouraged on examples.
• Good progress was made on the Shared Services workstream, and GC will work with SMc to consider ways of publishing best practice examples with the Local Government.
• There was a discussion around Shared Infrastructure - PSN and data centres - an update will be given at the next Council, led by an external speaker.
• DR gave an update on the PSN programme and the priorities around connecting to Health, IL2/IL3 traffic integration, employee authentication and guides on GCSx Code of Connection, etc.
• RM gave an update on Professionalism, where good progress is being made and links to the National Accreditation Schemes developed.This will be reviewed at the next Council meeting.
• Agile - a pocket guide series should be produced.This was agreed, building on the case studies which had emerged from the pilot with Socitm Insight.

The format and publishing of the guides was discussed and it was agreed that short synopsis that can be re-used would be helpful, especially for those in the Socitm regions.

There was a discussion around the NHS Information Strategy.This was welcomed despite concerns over a lack of substance on implementation and relatively little local government referencing.MF will be drafting a response.

The Socitm annual conference was discussed, with the various streams and master classes.Everyone to feed back.

'Citadel on the Move' project was discussed.

The consultation on Open Standards submission was reviewed.RM was thanked for his work on this.

Any Other Business:

• Terms of Reference, group representation, etc to be re-circulated.
• Andy Nelson has been invited and will attend the next two meetings.
• Information Assurance and Security Update will be given at the next meeting.
• Andrew Waterston to be invited to speak on Data Centre Consolidation.
• The recently announced SAP/Microsoft pan-government agreement was noted.
• Pete McDougall will attend the next meeting to discuss the wider public sector WiFi access programme.
• MF to ensure that every Council members is involved in one or more workstreams that this is formalised.
• The LGA report on Local Government Funding was welcomed, and Socitm will be considering a supportive response to this work.
• The Chair to produce summary de-brief note which can be used at Socitm regional meetings to solicit feedback and involvement beyond Council members.

Jos Creese, Chair

Dylan Roberts, Vice Chair

Martin Ferguson, Programme Manager

Melanie Duncan, Logistics and Support

Criteria for open standards

1.How does this definition of open standard compare to your view of what makes a standard 'open'?

The definition is practical and covers the essential elements without being over-prescriptive.

Some general comments on the report:Open source is not open standards (Ch. 1 confuses the two); Open standards does not require standardisation; Open data is not about open source, but it is about non-proprietary; Encouraging SMEs is good, but bucking the market to follow a political direction won't work; High cost of public sector IT is not universal (c.f. local government), neither is it primarily the result of open source/standards - it is poor and non-transparent planning, procurement, execution and ownership policy/practices, and we don't see enough changing to address this; The best IT is driven from desired outcomes being clear with IT in alignment, not from stronger principles about inputs; There needs to be stronger compliance, standards and standardisation, but you have to be so careful not to end up with a centrally planned, inflexible result.

(Open) standards mandating has a poor track record of success and can lead to unintended and surprising consequences (poor take up, stifled innovation, higher costs, supplier lock-in). Health is the area which comes to mind. At the same time, there needs to be much stronger compliance around the IT Strategy in some areas. Central Government Departments still think they can do their own thing (large and small) or simply bow to supplier pressure (the market must know best, the private sector is better than us, we don't have the skills anymore). A good example is Public Services Network and Health. There should be no debate about this one; and work should be focussed on how we integrate and break down barriers, not investing time in justification of the status quo in the interests of big suppliers (or 'all can change, but not me/my area').

2.What will the Government be inhibited from doing if this definition of open standards is adopted for software interoperability, data and document formats across central government?

Simply adopting the definition should have no effect.It is how that definition is applied in procuring and developing systems that will potentially have an impact.The impact should be entirely positive so long as exemptions, where "there are clear business reasons why this is inappropriate", are strictly limited.

3.For businesses attempting to break into the government IT market, would this policy make things easier or more difficult - does it help to level the playing field?

The policy should assist new entrants to the government IT market by removing some of the advantages enjoyed by incumbent suppliers.However,it is not sufficient in itself to level the playing field and other policies are needed to encourage new entrants, particularly SMEs.

4.How would mandating open standards for use in government IT for software interoperability, data and document formats affect your organisation?

No direct effects.

5.What effect would this policy have on improving value for money in the provision of government services?

Increasing competition and choice in the public sector software and services market, which this policy should facilitate, should improve value for money in the provision of government services.Such benefits will take time to be realised, however, as suppliers develop their products and skills and purchasers adapt their policies. It is important that government takes a long term view and adopts a convergence strategy, taking account of legacy issues and network effects.

6.Would this policy support innovation, competition and choice in delivery of government services?

Yes, in that it will draw in a wider variety of systems and service providers, including SMEs with innovative service solutions.

7.In what way do software copyright licences and standards patent licences interact to support or prevent interoperability?

The copyright or patent gives a market advantage to its holder, particularly if they can change the product at will.This restricts interoperability because other potential suppliers will be unwilling to enter a market where the copyright or patent holder can exploit their position to limit competition.

8.How could adopting (Fair) Reasonable and Non Discriminatory ((F)RAND) standards deliver a level playing field for open source and proprietary software solution providers?

There is no commonly-understood definition of (F)RAND.They would need to satisfy the requirements that licences be royalty-free, non-discriminatory and non-assertable.

9.Does selecting open standards which are compatible with a free or open source software licence exclude certain suppliers or products?

The policy should not exclude any suppliers as by definition they are all able to use open standards and open source software.Suppliers should then compete on a level playing field based on the merits of their proposal rather than the ownership of proprietory rights. Some products may be excluded but the policy should allow for them to be included in proposals if there is no other economic way of meeting a business requirement in the short term.Such a policy must require the supplier to converge to open standards and retire non-compliant software during the life of the contract.

10.Does a promise of non-assertion of a patent when used in open source software alleviate concerns relating to patents and royalty charging?

It should do, but legal advice on the licence terms should be sought.

11.Should a different rationale be applied when purchasing off-the-shelf software solutions than is applied when purchasing bespoke solutions?

The rationale should be the same but there may be different practical issues such as the need for testing of interoperability or standards compliance.

12.In terms of standards for software interoperability, data and document formats, is there a need for the Government to engage with or provide funding for specific committees/bodies?

There are numerous separate purchasing organisations for IT within Government and the wider public sector.They should be given guidance on preferred standards and assistance with interfaces and interoperability, as was the case with the e-GIF standards.This will require government funding and support. Make a start with adequate, three year funding of the Local Government e-Standards Body (LeGSB).

13.Are there any are other policy options which would meet the described outcomes more effectively?

The government should consider investing in open source reference implementations. These could provide multiple benefits: they can be used directly by government organisations that wish to implement a solution compliant with a standard; they can be "bundled" by suppliers as part of a larger service provision; they can be used to test interoperability with other solutions; small service-oriented companies can provide related services, such as customisation and configuration; and they make it much easier to switch suppliers, as the new supplier can continue to use the same software.

Open standards mandation

1.What criteria should the Government consider when deciding whether it is appropriate to mandate particular standards?

In general, there should be a "light touch" to mandation, as it could stifle innovation and improvements in efficiency. The criteria should be based on business need, both now and (to the extent that this can be predicted) in the future.Thus, for example, where an IT system is stand-alone and unlikely ever to require interoperability with other systems, mandation can be avoided.Alternatively, there is a growing need to join-up services across the public, private and third sectors and to adopt "shared services" between organisations, which would imply more rather than less mandation.The widespread adoption of "cloud" services could present problems in this regard, as could the massive future growth in the "internet of things".

2.What effect would mandating particular open standards have on improving value for money in the provision of government services?

In the medium and long term, value for money is certain to be improved.

3.Are there any legal or procurement barriers to mandating specific open standards in the UK Government's IT?

Not that we are aware of.

4.Could mandation of competing open standards for the same function deliver interoperable software and information at reduced cost?

If the standards are widely used then there should not be a problem.The number of competing standards for the same function should be kept to a minimum to avoid additional costs in interoperability and testing.

5.Could mandation of open standards promote anti-competitive behaviour in public procurement?

No, quite the opposite, it will reduce anti-competitive behaviour.

6.How would mandation of specific open standards for government IT software interoperability, data and document formats affect your organisation/business?

The effect should be entirely positive in reducing procurement and operational costs. It would be easier to spread the message of the value of standards; Socitm could increase awareness in 400+ local authorities.

7.How should the Government best deal with the issue of change relating to legacy systems or incompatible updates to existing open standards?

Development plans or technical roadmaps for existing systems should specifically take account of the open standards policy.Where incompatible changes or updates are needed there must be a clear plan for later convergence and specific exemptions should be granted on a case by case basis.

8.What should trigger the review of an open standard that has already been mandated?

There should be a regular review of mandated standards to ensure that they are still meeting the criteria set and are actually being used by the government and wider public sector.A board will be needed to decide what new standards to mandate and the same body can be responsible for review.

9.How should the Government strike a balance between nurturing innovation and conforming to standards?

In general, innovation should not be adversely affected by the existence of standards.However, in some cases the innovation may precede the setting of standards for a particular technology.In those cases the policy needs to be flexible.

10.How should the Government confirm that a solution claiming conformity to a standard is interoperable in practice?

This is one of the factors to be considered when evaluating proposed solutions.In some cases the testing by standards bodies should provide the necessary level of assurance; in others, for example interoperability with existing bespoke systems, it may be necessary to arrange for independent testing as part of the evaluation process.Use of the relevant standards will be referred to in contractual documents, providing another level of assurance.

11.Are there any are other policy options which would meet the objective more effectively?

No answer.

International alignment

1. Is the proposed UK policy compatible with European policies, directives and regulations (existing or planned) such as the European Interoperability Framework version 2.0 and the reform proposal for European Standardisation?

No answer.

2. Will the open standards policy be beneficial or detrimental for innovation and competition in the UK and Europe?

It should benefit both innovation and competition, in any participating country.

3. Are there any are other policy options which would meet the objectives described in this consultation paper more effectively?

No answer.

A large number of attendees, and huge enthusiasm.

Consensus that, by working together, we can fundamentally reshape public services enabled by technology.

Despite the fact that we cannot directly do all of this, we should not under-estimate the power of our positions in linking technology, information, processes and people.

We should publish summary notes openly and widely - this is, as we have said before, 'a call to arms'.

Leadership

• Links between leadership and governance were agreed.
• On governance, we need to establish the broad models for the different aspects of governance - organisational, ICT, information, etc, and within that involving more different bodies which have worked in practice (I know of a number of local authorities who would be willing to share their models).
• The two guides on leadership (which need higher profile on the web) are sufficient to be going on with.Practical implementation of new leadership models need to be driven by the other 'Planting the Flag' themes - ie. what do we need to deliver, shared infrastructure, collaboration, etc?
• The work should link to other aspects of professionalism, talent management and the changing role of the CIO - eg. mentoring, coaching, and the potential launch at the April conference of the 'top talent programme'.
• Jos Creese will convene a short workshop on governance to involve Siobhan.

Organisational Change

Some key points included:

• Manage and avoid risk, drive innovation, entrepreneurial approach, flexibility - always changing, services digitally enabled.
• We are too apologetic about being public servants.
• Best practice is out of date by the time we read about it.
• Autocratic management does not naturally encourage the right style of public service reform required.
• Separation of front and back office doesn't make sense - front office outcomes are what matter; back office is simply investment to achieve this.

Some Other General Points

• Is there a need to link to 'open public services'?
• We need more dissemination - helping people to understand 'what do I do tomorrow?'.Is there an order to things?
• We ought to develop a checklist of outcomes, case studies, templates and visualisation.
• Branding and managing expectations will matter, especially as every organisation has a different starting point - this is about a journey to wards a destination, not everyone arriving at exactly the same place at the same time.
• Evidence is needed - How do we know where we are?Do we need a maturity model for self assessment?
• There is a lot of chaos at present, especially for smaller organisations.How can we make a difference with the strategy, and link this to local issues - especially Health, Police, digital access and efficiency.
• We need people to identify with the strategy and to participate with it.Specific issues will occur in specific sectors if the strategy does not speak to them.eg. Police, central government, transport.
• How will this save money for smaller organisations?ie. 'What's in it for me?'But don't sugar-coat the message for districts.
• What is the industry position?We need more suppliers to back and develop the strategy with us.Openly, visually and visibly.
• Much of this must be driven by money at present - efficiency, economies of scale through shared services, the impact of community budgets... 'this is how ICT can help everyone with those challenges'.
• How do we relate it to the delivery of the national government strategy?
• Can we now run some specific events targeting on the furthering of the strategy themes? (e.g. leadership?)

Summary

• More visibility, on the web, via social networking, via regional events.
• Focussing on outcomes, eg. being clear what 'Cloud' will actually do for public services and being able to evidence that.
• Case studies - not necessarily just best practice, but examples of where organisations have used 'Planting the Flag' models and approaches and can demonstrate that it works.
• Terminology - there was some questioning over the words 'treasure map' and 'trek' - on our table suggestions of 'making the journey' and perhaps geo-cashing?
• Action plan - watch this space.

Is there anyone out there who would like to put together a response to this Inquiry? The deadline is Tues 13th March!

Meanwhile, your comments please to: martin.ferguson@socitm.gov.uk, ideally byFriday9th March. Particular questions that the InquiryCommittee will consider are set out in the Call for Evidence, but comments on any aspect of this issue will be welcome.

Cabinet Office Consultation Paper - Open Standards

Is there anyone out there who would like to put together a draft Socitm response to this consultation which closes on 3rd May?

Meanwhile, your comments on any of the issues raised (or missed) by the consultation document would be welcome to: martin.fergson@socitm.gov.uk by Weds 25th April. A largenumber of questions are posed in the consultation document, but I am not suggesting they are always the right ones.

In particular, one of Socitm's Premium Partners has asked that we find out what your thoughts are regarding the prescription on p.12 of the consultation document, regarding the insistence on royalty free licensing of patents vs. a focus on affordable solutions that deliver business value.

It is good news to see momentum gathering on the UK's digital infrastructure, with funding being released by Broadband UK (BDUK) for early adopters and the selection of delivery partners for the national framework contracts. However, concerns have been expressed about lack of progress and difficulties with the procurement regime. The Local CIO Council would like to hear from Socitm members about their experience - please submit your comments in this blog or by email to martin.ferguson@socitm.gov.uk by cop Friday 13th January.

The background is that, on 15th December 2011, Culture Secretary,Jeremy Hunt, announced that draft plans for rolling out superfast broadband need to be submitted to the Government by the end of February.

Some, including Socitm, believe that the ambition of broadband for all has taken rather too long. This was known to be important to economic prosperity and social well-being over a decade ago - so why is it not enshrined in building regulations? Why do we not join up road and ducting projects? Why have we taken so long to make the connection between internet access in rural areas and jobs, education and business? Its not as if there were not examples across the world we could have followed.

That said, we should now put our support behind the government initiative. They have connected the economic imperative and the social benefits (e.g. Race Online 2012) and made a compelling case for broadband access for all, with funding being made available.

The funding is not sufficient for 100% coverage, but I am less worried about this than some. Achieving 90% coverage will be good, and the last 10% can follow with satellite, new technologies (eg reuse of the FM spectrum), greater wireless reach, reuse of public service networks and greater private sector investment.

There are some bigger challenges along the way. For example, reuse of existing infrastructure is essential to drive down costs and to make the investment go further. This includes ducts and public service networks. We should work together to make the most of these existing assets, overcoming legal and commercial barriers.

Take up will also be key - the higher the take up the more commercially viable the solution (reducing the dependency on public sector capital). Whilst it might be in the short term interest of suppliers to downplay the likely level of take up in order to encourage government intervention, we all have a common goal to maximise demand and adoption. And this means people need to be able to afford the service, be skilled enough to use it and then can then find something useful to do with it.

Securing matched funding by local authorities in the current climate is undoubtedly hard, especially since a business case which demonstrates tangible savings in public sector costs by a move to digital enabled by broadband is not always easy to make. But the benefits are significant, more so in times of financial difficulty.

In any country broadband is a vital part of a prosperous economy and it will increasingly underpin the UK's ability to compete. Small and large businesses alike demand access to good electronic services and communications. Being able to sell services on the internet can transform the prospects of smaller companies and this is especially important in rural areas where broadband is often poor or absent.

Communities benefit as well. Broadband access helps people to find jobs and creates employment opportunities. It helps children get access modern education resources. It opens up the choice and competitiveness of online shopping whilst promoting local services. It makes health advice and services available to everyone in ways never dreamed of 10 years ago, and on a more equal basis than geography would otherwise allow.

The national broadband programme must also be seen as part of the plans for public service reform, espoused in the Local CIO Council-Socitm Planting the Flag strategy. Digital delivery and channel shift are essential in becoming more efficient. Moreover, if people are to challenge their local public services and play a greater part in their delivery then they need access to information and tools to communicate, such as email. The Government is pushing for more public information and services to be available electronically, putting the public in control of their dealings with public services.

As a result, people will be able to take more personal responsibility and need less intervention from the state. We want our communities to take ownership and responsibility and everyone to be able to look after their own affairs and records where possible. And we want electronic public services to be designed around the citizen, not around our public institutions. People who do not have broadband access will therefore be disadvantaged in this new world, regardless or wealth or geography.

There will be more on this subject in the next Socitm Insight Briefing - look out for this at the end of January.

Jos Creese, Chair of Local CIO Council and Past President - Socitm

Martin Ferguson, Policy Director - Socitm

Of course, at a time when all budgets are under unprecedented pressure and all public sector expenditure subject to intense scrutiny, it is perhaps tempting to decide to give the conference a miss this year. A temptation to be resisted, I feel, for three reasons.

First, Socitm 2011 provides the opportunity to gain a real understanding of how the national digital policy agenda is developing. This is bound to impact significantly on the delivery of local public services and it is always true that forewarned is forearmed.

Second, the conference provides the chance to learn how others are addressing the challenges we all face. Importantly, the conference format means you can dig behind their approach; to ask not only what went well but what didn't, to understand how relevant it is to you. This is rarely available through alternative approaches - for example, reading case studies - other than by personal visit, a far more time consuming approach.

Third, Socitm 2011 is a superb opportunity to network. Its importance is recognised this year by the first evening's dinner being specifically designated a networking event. Our ability to network with our peers from a diversity of backgrounds - different types of organisation from different geographies serving different demographics - will be critical in helping us transition from 'survive' back to 'thrive'.

So, yes, there is a modest price for attending Socitm 2011 but its value far outweighs its cost. I look forward to welcoming you, sharing with you and networking with you.

Glyn Evans, Socitm President