E-TRANSACTIONS ENABLER: INTEROPERABILITY

Transcription

1 E-TRANSACTIONS ENABLER: INTEROPERABILITY Electronic Transactions by Koussouris S., Lampathaki F., Askounis D.

2 What is Interoperability (Io)? IEEE glossary: the ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged ISO/IEC , Information Technology Vocabulary: the capability to communicate, execute programs, or transfer data among various functional units in a manner that requires the user to have little or no knowledge of the unique characteristics of those units European Commission / EIF v2.0: Interoperability is the ability of disparate and diverse organizations to interact towards mutually beneficial and agreed common goals, involving the sharing of information and knowledge between the organizations via the business processes they support, by means of the exchange of data between their respective information and communication technology (ICT) systems European Commission / Enterprise Interoperability Research Roadmap: Interoperability is a utility-like capability that enterprises can invoke on the fly in support of their business activities

3 Where is it a necessity? Systems ebusiness Systems (between different organisations) egovernment Systems Inter-Enterprise Systems Sub-Systems (Modules) of an Enterprise System Between enterprises or organisations regardless of IT infrastructures Data Between Data or Documents People Between.. People

4 Why is there a Chaos? Organisation A Organisation B Processes P1, P2, P3 P4, P5, P6 Processes Data D1, D2, D3 D4, D5, D6 Data Systems S1, S2, S3 S4, S5, S6 Systems

5 What is NOT Interoperability Me Tax Office Processes VAT Payment Strike Processes Data FirstName, LastName Periodic Declaration Data Systems Credit Card Check Systems

6 What is Interoperability Me Tax Office Processes Entering the Internet VAT Declaration Processes Data Username, Password DB with VAT Numbers Data Systems My Computer GSIS Server Systems

7 Interoperability Levels (EIF v2.0)

8 Enterprise Interoperability Areas Source: Koussouris, S., Lampathaki, F., Mouzakitis, S., Charalabidis, Y., Psarras, J. (2011) Digging into the Real-Life Enterprise Interoperability Areas Definition and Overview of the Main Research Areas. In Proceedings of CENT 2011: Collaborative Enterprises 2011 Platforms, Processes, and Practices Advancing the Enterprise 2.0, Orlando / FL, USA, July 2011.

9 Interoperability Frameworks

10 Interoperability Puzzle Source: EC (2014) ISA: Interoperability Solutions for European public Administrations.

11 What is an IF (Interoperability Framework)? set of recommendations which specify how Administrations, Businesses and Citizens communicate with each Wikipedia Defines rules, sets specifications and standards for the development and operation of IT systems that allow: Cross-Interoperability amongst Organisations Integrated systems Secure Communication

12 History of Interoperability Initiatives Source: EIF 2.0

13 A holistic approach for Interoperability at EC Level Source: EC (2014) ISA: Interoperability Solutions for European public Administrations.

14 European Interoperability Framework

15 EIF v2.0

16 Current European Commission Initiatives EIF 2.0 European Interoperability Framework (EIF) v2.0: the new set of interoperability guidelines for European Member States ISA 2 Programme Interoperability Solutions And Common Frameworks For European Public Administrations, Businesses And Citizens ( ) EICart European Interoperability Cartography of solutions

17 CEN/UN Interoperability Standardisation Initiatives The European Committee for Standardization - Information Society Standardization System (CEN/ISSS) has several worksgroups for egov Standards on organisational and semantic issues (e.g. Metalex, egovshare) United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT), TBG19-eGov delivers standards on Core Components and harmonisation processes for governments worldwide

18 National Standardization Initiatives Country National Interoperability Framework European Union European Interoperability Framework (Version 2.0) US Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Australia Australian Government Interoperability Framework Belgium Belgian Interoperability Framework (BELGIF) Brazil Standards of Interoperability for Electronic Government (e-ping) Denmark Interoperability Framework Estonia Estonian IT interoperability framework France Référentiel Général d Interopérabilité (RGI) Germany Standards and Architectures for e-government Applications (SAGA) Greece Greek e-government Interoperability Framework Hong Kong HKSARG Interoperability Framework Ireland Reach Interoperability Guidelines (RIGS) Italy SPC sistema pubblico di connettività e Iceland Under investigation Cooperazione Malaysia Malaysian Government Interoperability Framework (MyGIF) Malta e-government Interoperability Framework Netherlands Dutch Government Reference Architecture (NORA) New Zealand New Zealand E-government Interoperability Framework (NZ e-gif) Poland Krajowe Ramy Interoperacyjności Spain Criterios de seguridad, normalización y conservación de las aplicaciones utilizadas para el ejercicio de potestades Switzerland Helvetic E-Government Reference Architecture (HERA) United Kingdom e-government Interoperability Framework (e-gif)

19 H Δομή του Πλαισίου

20 egov Interoperability Standards Areas Legal & Organisational Interoperability CEN METALEX Semantic Interoperability UN/CEFACT-CEN egov CCTS Technical Interoperability Vertical egov Standards (ehealth, eid, epayments, edefense, etc) ISO 15000, 2X (ebxml, CCTS, edoc) CEN/ISSS egov WG s OASIS / W3C Industry-led Interoperability Strategies (IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, SUN, other) National egovernment Interoperability Frameworks European Interoperability Framework (EIF) 2.0 Other areas & Initiatives (Citizen Engagement, Future Internet, etc) EC - EIRR IFIP WG 8.5 SEMIC CIP/PSP Pilots NESSI / igov

21 Is Standardization the key? Source: JavaScript Language Tooling Benjamin Woodruff

22 Organizational Interoperability Standards- Comparison

23 Interoperability Application Areas A. Independent Services Interoperability is not an issue Their consumption by Services of B or C category (of this slide) is what matters B. Cross- Dependent Services Core Research Area for Interoperability C. Cross- Depended Services that include non electronic processes Cannot be made Interoperable without drastic change

24 Semantic Interoperability Standards- Comparison

25 Technical Interoperability Standards Comparison (an extract)

26 Key Findings after many attempts (1/2) To truly enable interoperability across government, a bottom-up approach starting with technology must be avoided. Solving organizational and semantic interoperability issues deserves more priority and effort than the technical interoperability layer that has already mechanisms and standards in place. The adoption of a service-oriented approach is a crucial factor for implementing one-stop interoperable egovernment. The diffusion of needed basic infrastructure, such as electronic ID s, base registries and fundamental governmental web services has not reached the minimum needed threshold.

27 Key Findings after many attempts (2/2) A clearly defined NIF Governance Model needs to be envisioned and put in place by determining observance mechanisms, measuring effectiveness and stimulating growth of successful projects. No matter how well prepared a government is, it is illusionary to believe that it can achieve interoperability at once in one big step. Although interoperability might be well-sought at a national context, crosscountry collaboration issues remain an important barrier.

28 European Interoperability Reference Architecture (EIRA)

29 EIRA Context European Interoperability Strategy (EIS) Governance and strategy European Interoperability Framework (EIF) Framework and principles European Interoperability Reference Architecture (EIRA) Guidelines and Implementation

30 Building Blocks in the European Interoperability Strategy

31 Interoperability for Europe Public administrations in Europe need to coordinate across borders and sectors when developing digital solutions to avoid the risk of creating new digital barriers. Need for a common terminology to design, assess, and communicate about e-government solutions Need for a stable interfaces for digital public services Need for an overview of already existing solution building blocks

32 EIRA Characteristics (1/2) Common terminology to achieve a minimum level of coordination It provides a set of well-defined architecture building blocks (ABBs) that provide a minimal common understanding of the most important building blocks needed to build interoperable public services. Reference architecture for delivering digital public services It offers a framework to categorise (re)usable solution building blocks (SBBs) of an e-government solution. It allows portfolio managers to rationalise, manage and document their portfolio of solutions.

33 EIRA Characteristics (2/2) Technology- and product-neutral and a service-oriented architecture (SOA) style The EIRA adopts a service-oriented architecture style and promotes ArchiMate as a modelling notation. In fact, the EIRA ABBs can be seen as an extension of the model concepts in ArchiMate. Alignment with EIF and TOGAF The EIRA is aligned with the EIF and complies with the context in the European Interoperability Strategy (EIS). The views of the EIRA correspond to the interoperability levels in the EIF: legal organisational, Semantic, and technical interoperability. It reuses terminology and paradigms from TOGAF such as architecture patterns, building blocks and views.

34 High-level Overview

35 Legal View

36 Organizational View

37 Semantic View

38 Technical-Application View

39 Technical-Infrastructure View

40 Interoperability Specification

41 EIF Levels and EIRA

42 Interoperability Impact Assessment

43 Interoperability Impact Measurement - Generalised Example based on Costs (1/2) Simple Case Measure the burden on GDP when a citizen needs to wait in line for a government service. If one hour is wasted in line waiting for a government service, that one hour is lost from GDP contribution. Source: Microsoft (2012) The Economic Impact of Interoperability

44 Interoperability Impact Measurement - Generalised Example based on Costs (2/2) 0,30% Impact on GDP (2010 prices): In Belgium: 1,4 billion a year In Estonia: 58 million a year In Germany: 9,8 billion a year In Greece: 903 million a year In Italy: 6,1 Billion a year In UK: 6,7 billion a year In US: 43,7 billion a year Source: Microsoft (2012) The Economic Impact of Interoperability

45 For example, an administrative activity takes 3 hours to complete (time) and the hourly cost of the member of staff in the business completing it is 10 Euros (tariff). The price is therefore 3 x 10 = 30 Euros. If this requirement applied to 100,000 businesses (population) who each had to comply 2 times per year (frequency), the Quantity would be 200,000. Hence the total cost of the activity would be 200,000 x 30 = 6,000,000 Euros. Desicion Support Systems Laboratory, NTUA Standard Cost Model (SCM)

46 EC/ISA Interoperability Maturity Model (IMM) IMM IoP Maturity Levels Level 1 Ad Hoc: Poor IoP the service has almost no IoP in place Level 2 Opportunistic: Fair IoP the service implements some elements of IoP best practices Level 3 Essential: Essential IoP the service implements the essential best practices for IoP Level 4 Sustainable: Good IoP all relevant IoP best practices are implemented by the public service Measurement Areas Service Choreography Service Delivery Service Provisioning Service Consumption Level 5 Seamless: IoP leading practice the service is a leading example for others

47 Interoperability Assessment Methodology (IAM)

48 Levels of Information Systems Interoperability Model (LISI) Procedures, Applications, Infrastructure and Data

49 Which model is appropriate for interoperability?

50 Expected Impact (1/3) For Public Administrations Openness of organisation Common Visibility and Presence over the Web Less Bureaucracy Transparency Quality of Service Utilisation of High Efficiency Systems/Channels Collaboration between other organisation Economies of Scale by re-utilisation of IT resources (hardware/software)

51 Expected Impact (2/3) For Citizens/Enterprises Quality of Service Increase Response Times -> Time Savings Information Access through multiple channels Reduction of Service Access Costs Ease of Searching and Discovering Information Improvement of Trust and Transparency feeling Improved Productivity for Enterprises

52 Expected Impact (3/3) IT Companies Products and Applications responding to a priori commonly agreed specifications Provision of ready made COTS (Components of the Shelf) for standardising processes and documents Faster response to Public Adminstration calls for implementation of systems Minimisation of Customised Solutions and multiple, parallel production lines

53 Conclusions Interoperability concerns all governmental organizations at national and international level Constitutes a thriving research domain from all aspects scientific, entrepreneurial, societal and political. Interoperability Standards for e-government is a dynamic space, with many directives, initiatives and standards evolving at the same time. Administrations and industry worldwide are trying hard to cope with the developments. Interoperability in digital public services cannot be achieved without process re-organisation, legal system re-structuring, and data re-work.

54 The 3 egov-interoperability Rules #1 Target organisational and semantic aspects first: technical standards exist already Follow the service: build your guidelines around the actual, most common services #2 #3 Enable all stakeholders (public administrations) and allow for constant evolution and change

55 QUESTIONS Dr. Koussouris S. - skous@mail.ntua.gr Dr. Lampathaki F. - flamp@epu.ntua.gr