Minutes of Meeting Fiscalis Project Group FPG083 on IT Collaboration - Meeting #1 on 08/06/2012

Transcription

1 ISSUED BY: DG TAXUD ISSUE DATE: European Commission Taxation and Customs Union DG VERSION: 1.00-EN Minutes of Meeting Fiscalis Project Group FPG083 on IT Collaboration - Meeting #1 on 08/06/2012 FRAMEWORK CONTRACT: TAXUD/2008/CC/092 SPECIFIC CONTRACT SC05: DLV Status: SfA Page 1 of 12

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 ATTENDEES AND DISTRIBUTION LISTS List of Attendees Distribution List Introduction FPG Organisation and Planning IT Governance IT Valuation France Presentation on IT Valuation IT Architecture Austria Presentation on IT Architecture Italy Presentation on the Italian Information System (IS) Malta Presentation on IT Collaboration Sweden Architectural overview Conclusion 12 3 DOCUMENT HISTORY 12 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: LIST OF ATTENDEES... 3 TABLE 2: DISTRIBUTION LIST... 4 TABLE 3: OVERVIEW FPG083 MEETINGS... 5 Page 2 of 12

3 ATTENDEES AND DISTRIBUTION LISTS 1 ATTENDEES AND DISTRIBUTION LISTS 1.1 List of Attendees NAME ORGANISATION MSA-AT MSA-BE MSA-BG MSA-CZ MSA-FI MSA-FR MSA-HU MSA-IT MSA-LT MSA-MT MSA-NL MSA-PT MSA-SE MSA-SI MSA-UK TAXUD/R4 TAXUD/R4 TAXUD/R4 TAXUD/R4 TAXUD/R4 TAXUD/C4 TAXUD/C4 FITSDEV2 FITSDEV2 FITSDEV2 FITSDEV2 QAC QAC Table 1: List of Attendees Page 3 of 12

4 1.2 Distribution List NAME All the participants - Functional Mailbox Introduction Table 2: Distribution List ORGANISATION DG TAXUD The objectives of this Fiscalis Project Group (FPG083) on IT Collaboration are the following: Coordinate the collaborative definition of an IT Architecture for European Information Systems for taxation concerning both the Union and non-union components of European Information Systems for taxation; Advise on potential of IT synergies across the European Information System for taxation, including on the possible collaborative development of their non-union components; Recommend a common methodology for assessing the costs and benefits of European Information Systems for taxation; Explore ways to improve the governance of European Information Systems for taxation; Promote exchange of best practices regarding the life cycle of the Union and non-union components of European information Systems for taxation. Member State (MS) delegates were thanked for their contributions (questionnaire and presentations) in preparation for this meeting. The contributions were well appreciated and provided valuable information. 2.2 FPG Organisation and Planning 8 meetings are foreseen to take place in light of this FPG on IT Collaboration. Outlook invitations will be sent in due time to lock it in the agendas. This meeting is the first, intended to set the scene. Based on the agenda, meetings will take 1 or 2 days. Participants will be asked to provide specified contributions in preparation for each meeting. It was highlighted that the participants contributions are considered as key for this FPG. The contributions will be consolidated and analysed by the DG TAXUD. All information regarding this FPG will be published on the workspace. Find below an overview of the planned meetings. Do note that depending on the progress, the planning is subject to change. # MEETING DATE DEADLINE FOR MS CONTRIBUTIONS Page 4 of 12

5 Table 3: Overview FPG083 meetings Eventually, the work performed during this FPG is to result in a set of deliverables for each specific work subjects (IT Architecture, IT Governance and IT Valuation). The deliverables should be endorsed by the FPG participants. The deliverables will be sent for review and all related material will be made available through the FPG s CIRCA Interest Group (IG): _89/fpg083_collaboration The new functional mailbox TAXUD-FISCALIS-PG083@ec.europa.eu is created and is expected to be in copy of all communication, regarding this FPG. In regard to the MSAs contributions, it was noted that all contributions are considered as non restricted, unless specified otherwise by the MSAs itself. By default all contributions will be accessible, through the IG, for all participants in this FPG on IT Collaboration. In regard to the planning, it was asked whether other activities overlap or can overlap with this FPG s planning. This could, indeed, be the fact. An effort will be made to avoid any overlap. However, the planning can only be guaranteed for 2 months in advance. 2.3 IT Governance IT Governance, in this FPG s context, is considered as a mean to an end, namely desilo the different Fiscalis IT areas (VAT, Excise, Recovery, and Direct Taxation). To achieve this, the participants expertise and input is essential. Participants see IT Governance in different ways: A set of rules, processes and structures; The IT Governance definition as defined by the IT Governance Institute; As part of a larger whole, for which involvement of specific business and technical actors is needed. Views on IT from citizens and enterprises should also be taken on board. Or, it is considered mainly as project governance. As from the 2 nd FPG meeting, the as is IT Governance is planned to be described, based on best practices. In the next meetings, the to be model and possible improvements will be discussed. The outcome of the 5 th meeting is planned to be the actual IT Governance model. This model will be created, keeping in mind that it will follow a small-step approach as it is a challenging subject for which it must be avoided to aim too high and overreach. The outcome for IT Governance will be a proposed IT Governance model, including recommendations for future improvements. The input from MSAs was well appreciated. After consolidation, 25 pages of information were analyzed. It became clear that the participants come out of varying fields of expertise, showing a lot of potential to achieve this FPG s goals. 2.4 IT Valuation To come to IT Collaboration, also IT Governance is required. IT Governance, in its turn, will use IT Valuation and IT Architecture as input. The purpose of IT valuation within this FPG, is Page 5 of 12

6 to support the IT Collaboration by promoting best practices and the development of a methodology. Also regarding IT Valuation, the contributions were well appreciated and even exceeded the expectations. It showed a lot of variety in responses and IT Valuation was viewed from different angles. The opportunities seen for IT Valuation is to shift the focus from IT being seen as cost to a creator of value. The challenge is to come to proper IT Valuation, and this is difficult to achieve. There are numerous parameters to take into account, requiring a mixture of quantitative and qualitative assessments. One way to tackle these difficulties is to cut them down into different parts and handle them as such. The goal is to come to credible and usable IT Valuation, which can be used as input. Input to: Influence (legal) decision makers; Justify the worthiness to (internal/external) stakeholders; Secure adequate budgets for IT & other elements; Choose between possible approaches; Set baseline for monitoring; Provide feedback to (legal) decision makers. 2 main challenges consist within the IT Valuation: assessment of costs and assessment of benefits. Both aspects are about predicting the future but face the issue of limited, or even a lack of, transparency towards the stakeholders. For both costs and benefits, a quantitative and qualitative analysis is to be worked out. As a basis of comparison, previous developments could be used, however, this is not always a possibility. The quantitative assessment of costs is considered to be an easier task than assessing the benefits. Costs are easier to measure and more scientific methods are available. Nevertheless, the challenge of measuring the intangible costs remains. Benefits, on the other hand, are often shared between different stakeholders, can contain sensitive information or are just very difficult to assess by default (e.g. fraud reduction). As a concrete example, there is the IT system EMCS, which is only one part of a wider Excise project. This makes it difficult to assess which value is brought by the IT system EMCS and which portion is generated by other changes. For the quantitative assessment of benefits, the following approach was presented: Mix Tools (use a mix of tools as there is not one single tool that can take into account all aspects); Guesstimate (make a calculated guess on the parameters and variables); Justify (justify the guesstimate); Indicate Confidence Interval (provide a measure for each guesstimate indicating the confidence you have on the guesstimate. E.g. the confidence interval for cost related guesstimates will most likely be higher); Confront with facts (confront the guesstimates with facts); Confront with others (compare the data with data from other sources e.g. other MSs); Improve (improve the IT Valuation); Page 6 of 12

7 Monitor (monitor the IT Valuation); Improve (repeat the improvement and monitoring steps). The qualitative assessment of benefits is more vague than the quantitative assessment. This makes that it is harder to be convincing. However, it is considered that it is easier to achieve. If the revenue is estimated, based on a huge set of assumptions, to be x million EUR in 5 years, you have made a quantitative assessment that is not worth much. Relative improvements, contributions to strategic goals can sometimes be better expressed via qualitative assessments. The Netherlands provided input on techniques that can be used for IT Valuation but pointed out how difficult it is to choose a valuation method in a given situation. There is no unified method. Malta suggested to apply the concept of IT Valuation on the Mini One Stop Shop (MOSS) project. With the participation of the MSs, one could develop one system instead of building 27 systems separately. Some MSs explained that they did not apply IT Valuation, others said that they perform complete IT Valuation. As an example, participants indicated to use the high-level business case and SWOT analysis. The challenge MSs see, is that there is no coherence between the use of these tools. Regarding IT Valuation, the following planning is envisaged: Before meeting 2: gather & exchange parameters, tools, threats, methods, obstacles, practices, literature, considerations ; Meeting 2: discuss input, agree on ToC, document outline; Meeting 3 4: flesh out, contents, ensure cohesion; Meeting 5: discuss draft document, apply to examples; Meeting 6: discuss updated draft document, examples; Meeting 7: review meeting; Meeting 8: approval & round-up. 2.5 France Presentation on IT Valuation France contributed during this meeting by sharing their experience on IT Valuation. During the presentation France s political context, experience and material was discussed. Since 2001, France started managing its budgets differently. The valuation is now performed on the public administration itself. This means that the Return Of Investment (ROI) is not always applied on each IT project (e.g. EMCS is not valuated separately but is valuated as part of a bigger whole). However, there is a need to evaluate the IT project to be able to make the corresponding justifications. Currently, each IT project uses its own methods and tools for IT Valuation. One approach taken by France, is to first determine the total cost of a project. Secondly, specific indicators are put in place so that it can be verified that the IT project delivers the results as expected. The difficulties, faced today by France, is that there are no common methods and tools. It was noted that France has already quite some things in place to come to proper IT Valuation (e.g. indicators, decision making, goals). However, the appropriate methods and tools are still Page 7 of 12

8 missing. It was also reminded that it is the purpose of IT Valuation to come to a methodology that addresses these issues. Additionally, it was reminded that any contributed information will not be shared outside of the FPG and will not be published within the FPG if explicitly requested by the contributor. A practical technique for IT Valuation is envisaged. Depending in the implementation, this may be easy or not, however, it should always be pragmatic. The summary of the post-it exercise concluded that: A lot of MSs want to know more about the available methods for IT Valuation and which method to use at a particular stage; MSs would like to have a look at cost data from other MSs for benchmarking purposes; MSs would like to have a look at the benefit data of other MSAs; Use IT valuation to reduce the costs. 2.6 IT Architecture IT Architecture has also it challenges but it can be grasped more easily as it is more concrete. This is confirmed by the MSs contributions on the subject. The IT Architecture will also be a mean to achieve IT Collaboration. It is seen rather as an opportunity instead of a problem that needs to be addressed. It is an opportunity to do things differently and better. The idea is to document the existing and new applications in order to find commonalities. Hereby, it is not intended to stick to or use a particular standard or framework (e.g. TOGAF) but rather use the experience of the FPG participants. However, DG TAXUD has provided a simplified IT Architecture framework that will be used within this FPG. It describes 4 perspectives (business, functional, application and technical) that will be covered. These perspectives will be applied on 4 domains (DG TAXUD, Common, National and External domain). Based on this framework, a template is created which is to be used by the participants to document their IT Architecture. For the 2 nd meeting, the participants are asked to produce partial models for each of their IT systems. DG TAXUD identified 16 IT systems. The list will be communicated to the participants in due time. For the next meeting, the post-it approach will be used. The participants will be divided into several groups to perform the work within the different aspects. Because of this approach, the next meeting will take 2 days. The planning is scheduled to be as follows: Meeting 1: set the scene; Meetings 2 to 5: build the IT Architecture maps to be sent for review by 01/02/2013, comments due by 15/02/2013. Attributes will be created to aggregate functions, applications and components to be used in the meta map. The creation of these attributes is performed by the CPT and is already ongoing; Meeting 6: review meeting of IT Architecture maps; Meeting 7: review meeting of IT Architecture meta map to be sent for review by 15/03/2013, comments due by 29/03/2013; Meeting 8: final deliverables and next steps. Page 8 of 12

9 It was asked whether the proposed model is similar to what was used within Customs. It was clarified that the same 4 perspectives were used within Customs. There are, however, differences but TAX/EMCS sectors are closely working together with Customs in sharing experiences. The approach taken in this FPG will result in a less detailed model as the IT Architecture within Customs has reached already a higher maturity. Aiming for the same level of detail would be overreaching. The idea is to document the existing and new systems, after which, if time allows, more detail can be provided. Also the context (the Modernised Customs Code (MCC)) in which Customs applied IT Architecture is different from what this FPG is trying to achieve. 2.7 Austria Presentation on IT Architecture Austria is redesigning it s IT systems by which the mixture of technologies and platforms will be replaced by open source alternatives. The new architecture will be a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA). Also network components will be shared between all applications to avoid redundancy and save costs. Like this Austria now has components that can be used by anyone and/or components that can be used within Excise and Customs. Examples are Access and Identity Management, the e- Archive, electronic signature service and access to basic data (e.g. tax payers information). All these are shared and provided as a service. This redesign also means that their current applications also have to be redesigned to fit into this new SOA. Austria mentioned the following challenges: Meet the requirements for all IT applications and components; Get a clear definition of interfaces and components, to avoid rework and Request for Changes (RFC); Acquisition of basic data; Integration of existing applications with new applications; Time and budget; Performance risks. It was asked what the link is between the redesign of the IT Architecture and costs in the context of IT Valuation. As this is Austria s first attempt in redesigning the IT Architecture in this extend, they don t yet have much experience in assessing the costs and benefits. Malta noted that sometimes there is no choice as to implement or upgrade an application, e.g., products are no longer supported or legacy products are used. This leads to additional or increased costs. To address this issue, Malta assigns a fixed budget to their IT development. The United Kingdom noted that although Austria is moving to open source products, Oracle databases are still part of the Austrian IT Architecture. UK clarified that, within their IT department, it was decided to choose for Oracle products because of the support that comes along with it. This is something that is not guaranteed with open source products. It was also asked what approach Austria is taking in replacing their system. Austria takes a phased approach in this excersice. They started 2 year ago and currently finished with the left part of the services/components (as depicted in their presentation) and 20% of their applications. Sweden informed on the approach taken for the cost analysis in regard to the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB). That information was not known to the Austrian delegate. Austria did indicate that the use of an ESB might lead to performance issues. Page 9 of 12

10 It was also asked whether the knowledge management module was meant to be used by other ministries. Austria clarified that it was specifically intended for Taxation and Excise. It was indicated that although this presentation was mainly about IT Architecture, it links to IT Governance. More specifically, the decision making. How changes are dealt with and eventually decided. It was asked whether it was a business or IT decision to go for a redesign. The final decision was made by business, but the proposal was driven by IT. The decision went along with an evolution in which different parts of the organisation started to cooperate more. On the question whether some of the core services developed by Austria could be used by other member states, it was clarified that use in other administration is envisaged, but it is not the case at the moment. 2.8 Italy Presentation on the Italian Information System (IS) Italy explained the organisation and it s different entities within the Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance. They define the fiscal policy and strategy. Every year, this strategical view is drawn. It takes into account the as is and to be situation. In relation to the IT Architecture, the current Italian IS consists out of several IT systems and is found to be complex. Italy s presentation covered, besides the above, also the following topics: The network; Security; The evolution of their IT systems. It was noted that ITIL is currently being implemented. In light of this, it was asked whether there are currently other methodologies used. At the moment there is no uniform methodology in place. Malta informed that they use the ITIL methodology for Service Management and the PRINCE2 methodology for their Project Management, throughout all their IT projects. Italy clarified that for each IT project the approach and/or methodology is determined. The security policy is, however, an example of a policy that is the same for all IT projects. 2.9 Malta Presentation on IT Collaboration Malta noted that IT is seen more and more as a utility as it can be found in businesses everywhere. End users expect that applications work and they do not stand still with the budget and time constraints IT projects have to face. End users are conditioned to the use of the applications. Nowadays, IT must become more cost effective and add value throughout the business. On top of that, it has to be possible for these aspects to be measured. In light of this FPG on IT Collaboration, Malta pitched the idea of using MOSS as a Proof of Concept (PoC). The idea is to use MOSS as a PoC to cover all 3 aspects within IT Collaboration. Meaning that the participant s contributions (e.g. their best practices, methods and tools) can be used on MOSS. It was noted that MOSS is one of the IT systems that is to be documented within the IT Architecture and therefore can be considered as a PoC. The participants will be asked to provide their opinion on this proposal through written procedure. The Netherlands already confirmed their support for the proposal. An idea worth considering is to identify and include specific indicators in future specifications of IT systems. These indicators should allow, after some time of operation, a retroactive Cost Benefit Analysis to verify the initial IT Valuation and/or to justify the expense. Page 10 of 12

11 From an IT Architectural point of view, Malta sees opportunities, amongst others 1, for: Discussing the architecture on itself; Defining common and/or reusable modules/components. Something to take into consideration on this point is that it can take a lot of effort; Share information on the requirements, design, development methods and tools,... E.g. to apply a change on an IT system in on MS, can take a lot of effort and cost in comparison to another MS simply because of differences in the design. Regarding IT Governance, the following was mentioned: Come to common approaches, standards, tools and methods; Define a common project structure; Include Risk and Incident Management. And for IT Valuation, the following opportunities were identified by Malta: To determine the requirements for Cost and Benefits Assessments. Questions regarding costs and benefits are asked late in the development lifecycle. Addressing these kind of questions earlier would allow implementation of measurements in the design of the application; Evaluated different models (e.g. function point analysis); Opportunity to measure costs at specific stages in an ongoing project; Determine benefits and their measurement during the project cycle Sweden Architectural overview Sweden presented an Architectural overview of the Swedish tax agency. Sweden has developed, in-house, frameworks based on the JAVA platform. The first one is called ZI or the Internet Framework. It handles security and tracing functionalities and provides uniformity. The framework is a JAVA Archive (JAR) that can be imported and used within a JAVA project. The framework provides Application Programming Interfaces (API) which allows a JAVA project to use the frameworks functionalities. Besides that it is also used as distribution point for other external components. VIP, is the 2 nd framework. The framework is developed to counter the fact that budget and time are increasingly absorbed on maintaining the IT systems. The functionalities provided by the VIP framework make indirectly more time available for development. It is the Architect Council that takes the decisions regarding products, frameworks, and so on. The domain architects are active in four areas: business, information, technical and application. Within each domain, the corresponding domain architect can make his/her own decisions. It was noted that using common functionalities by MSAs can cause some issues regarding e.g. security, confidentiality, integrity. Lithuania noted that they used Swedish e-commerce software in the past. This experience can be used as input for the FPG. 1 For a detailed overview, please, refer to Malta s presentation Page 11 of 12

12 DOCUMENT HISTORY 2.11 Conclusion DG TAXUD closed the first FPG083 meeting by concluding that: For IT Governance: There is an opportunity statement, supported by the MSAs; The objective is to desilo the Fiscalis IT Areas; To deliver a document/model with recommendations, to be reviewed at meeting 5; A small step approach will be taken; The input from MSs was presented and summarised; There should be an alignment as much as possible with IT Architecture and IT Valuation. For IT Architecture: There is an agreement on the proposed framework; By the 2 nd meeting, participants are to map their IT systems. DG TAXUD will share the list of 16 T-IES which it is documenting. For IT Valuation: Shared conviction that the need for IT valuation is growing to increase the efficiency and added value; That the goal of IT valuation must be to increase the efficiency and added value; Major interest in experience at other MS ; And how to apply their experience practically; Agreement on usefulness of EU-wide dimension; Hope for hands-on approach recommendation. It was reminded that the participants will be asked to provide their position on using MOSS as a Proof of Concept (PoC) through written procedure. It is expected that the participants provide their own, personal view on this proposal. 3 DOCUMENT HISTORY ED. REV. DATE DESCRIPTION ACTION(*) # PAGES /06/2012 Draft version I All /06/2012 Submitted for Review R/I Submitted for Acceptance R/I 3 * Action: I = Insert, R = Replace, D = Delete Page 12 of 12