Open Source Government Software Suite

An interesting post on the Gov 2.0 Australia community got me thinking about the future of open source software, the growth of collaborative communities, and Government business systems. Open Source is something we’ve moved into quite heavily in terms of our business systems focus due to the maturity of many of the vendors – like SugarCRM, Talend,  Atlassian etc.

The author of the post – Wayne Eddy raises the question about Government expenditure on proprietary software and whether Government would deliver better value to their constituents by embracing open source and using this to build a Government software suite.

As I thought about this the idea really intrigued me so I started making a list of pros and cons and a rough outline of how this ‘might’ look.

The Barriers (are not with Open Source)

I hate to start on a negative but I have to as I think the barriers to making this happen are quite significant.

1. The major software giants have deep pockets and will spend a lot of money to kill off an initiative such as this. They all have a vested interest in keeping open source in its cute cubby hole.
2. Add to this the threat O/S poses to the big system integration vendors. That’s a pretty big bear you’re stealing cake from…
3. How do you distinguish between raw open source and commercial open source? Or are we simply shifting the customer/vendor paradigm?
4. The Culture of “nobody got fired buying IBM”. There’s safety in dealing with global giants – though I bet there are a few GOC’s and Departments around the country who beg to differ…
5. The inherent disorganisation of the open source crowd. Let’s face it, O/S people are well different. I’d argue it’d be a bit like herding cats

The Opportunity for an Open Source Government Software Suite

Depending on how you approach this I can see merit in this idea and I can see an attractive model being developed.

I view this as an ecosystem of solutions that can be tied together with a common glue. Realistically we’d need to have a panel of O/S vendors for each core area along with an agreed set of protocols as to how data and integration is managed. You would also need to create a certification program so that any vendor wanting to be part of the panel has to meet a minimum set of standards with these standards covering core areas such as stability, documentation, development standards etc.

The real opportunity by doing this is that Government fosters broad collaboration as listed vendors can co-create solutions amongst themselves and in conjunction with Government. For example, a group of vendors could collaborate to create a small council business system – where the functionality is pared back such that the ‘product’ suits many of the smaller regional councils in Australia where resources and budgets are limited.

I think the ecosystem would also be attractive for the SI vendors. It gives them a chance to foster innovation and sponsor development that is owned by the Government and O/S community and is there for the benefit of Government. This shouldn’t be new for some of the major SI companies given the likes of Cap Gemini and Logica already have relationships with leading O/S vendors like Talend.

Most importantly, you start creating an IP pool that remains in Australia and is there for everyone in Government to benefit. Any international vendor wanting to utilise IP overseas could be expected to pay a royalty back to the Australian ‘pool’.

Australian Companies and Twitter

In January and February I wrote a couple of posts about Twitter and the fact (in my opinion of the time) major Australian brands were failing to register on the Twitter-scape and that Twitter might even be the great never was. My position regarding Twitter is softening, and following on from our survey, evidence is emerging that some companies and brands are starting to get into the space.

Funnily enough, through using Twitter I connected to @JamesDuthie and found a very interesting article he wrote about Australian businesses and brands on Twitter.

The post is a very good run down on what’s happening with some key, big brand companies. What I particularly liked about the post is the fact he did analysis on that the Twitter account was doing, giving us an assessment from his perspective. I concur with much of what James writes and some of the companies he’s highlighted deserve credit for getting in and having a public go (are you listening big Australian banks?). Clearly these companies are going to learn and start being even more innovative – James kind of alluded to this in his review of the travel related sites – so it’ll be interesting to see what they do going forward. We thrashed round a few ideas (yes, over Friday beers) that we feel would be simple to implement but deliver powerful relevance for their followers.

I am still of the opinion that the big companies aren’t getting this (or social media for that matter) but I am impressed that many small companies (i.e. @babysitterdirec) are using Twitter.

Finally, I was really impressed with the comment provided by Robyn Munro (@robynemu) of Atlassian. Her response outlines the challenges many companies face in terms of individual ID’s vs. company ID’s. I guess this is to be expected from someone like Atlassian given their stellar reputation for innovation and community engagement (I just wish they’d return my web form requests for partnership info). What stands out here is that they’ve decided to just get on with it. Yes there are challenges and issues, but let’s do something anyway and learn on the fly.

Finally finally, Inspiredworlds touched on an issue that doesn’t get much chatter – cyber squatters. I know Twitter has a policy on this but I’m wondering whether it’s a barrier and making corporate Twitter use all too hard for some of the big companies?