Dear open standards lobby: SHOUT LOUDER!!

bryang | 1 Comment
| More

There is a hugely important debate taking place in the UK IT community at the moment, one that will have equally huge significance for almost everyone who buys IT in this country.

It's about open standards - and in particular, what definition the UK government will use for the open standards policy that will determine much of the future of public sector IT procurement. But this isn't just an issue for IT chiefs in government - the longer term implications will affect every IT leader in every sector. With government being such a major influence on IT suppliers, the policy it adopts will have a big input into the product development of any vendor that wants to sell to the public sector, and hence to the products they sell to the private sector too.

It's a complex and often emotional debate.

For the layman, when software types start talking about patents and intellectual property and throwing around jargon and acronyms such as RF (royalty free) and FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory), there's a natural tendency to switch off.

Don't worry - I'm not going to get into that sort of detail here, although if you read on I will point you to other articles on Computer Weekly and elsewhere that will help to explain some of those finer points.

Instead, I want to point a finger at the supporters of open standards and open source - simply because they need to make their opinions heard more widely and loudly in this critical debate.

Let me explain.

There is a consultation underway, led by the Cabinet Office, to invite views on the proposed definition of open standards that the government wants to embed into its IT strategy.

Senior IT people in government want to free themselves from the perceived lock-in associated with proprietary software - to cut costs, increase choice, and open up the public sector market to a wider range of products and suppliers; to ensure a "level playing field" between large and small, proprietary and open source; to allow taxpayers' money to be spent on the best outcomes, not the only product that is compatible. Few could argue that is not a good thing.

It's no secret either that there are people in senior government IT positions who have long been proponents of open source and open standards - not least the new deputy government CIO, Liam Maxwell.

It's equally no secret that there are those in government IT who feel the big suppliers that dominate Whitehall IT spending have not delivered value for money and their stranglehold needs to be reduced.

Understandably, open standards is seen as a way to achieve that.

That consultation process includes a number of public meetings, open to anyone with an interest in the topic to air and share their opinions and feed into the debate. There is also an online questionnaire inviting anyone to give their views. The Cabinet Office is being rigorous in ensuring it is open to, and seen to be open to, every side of the issue.

Earlier this week, Computer Weekly contributor Mark Ballard, who writes for our Public Sector IT blog, wrote a report based on his sources, which suggested that the first of these public meetings was dominated by the proprietary software lobby.

Mark has previously written about the extent to which major software firms such as Microsoft are lobbying government to ensure the open standards policy does not go down a path that might make it less likely or more difficult for buyers in its biggest UK customer to procure their proprietary products. You would expect them to do little else.

I leave it to you to decide whether this is "vested interests" or simply standard commercial practice.

Mark's blog post has stirred up something of a hornet's nest, with some participants refuting his reported version of events - and we have offered those participants a platform to air their views in response. We will be publishing their articles on ComputerWeekly.com very soon.

Nonetheless, there is a polarisation forming around what you might simplistically call the "open" lobby and the "proprietary" lobby. And there is a feeling that the proprietary lobby, with its greater resources, lobbying experience, and its business models at stake, is dominating the argument.

This has been the case for many years. I hate to say it, but in 12 years of reporting on IT, and many years before that working in the industry, I've seen the open lobby - open source developers, open standards proponents, free software fans, etc - spend too much time in the corner, huddled together saying to each other, "This is awful, dreadful, don't they understand?"

That's a personal observation - which I expect many in that lobby will disagree with, some quite strongly.

But the open lobby is facing something of an Agincourt here, its Waterloo, or Custer's last stand, depending on your preferred historical analogy.

There are some great people in the open lobby, with relevant and important opinions, whom I have a lot of respect for.

But too many - not all, but a lot - are simply not vocal enough in this debate. They can say they are right until they are blue in the face, but "right" does not mean they will win. They have to play the game the way their opponents have set the rules - unless and until they start winning some battles, they will never get the chance to set the rules themselves.

Mark's blog post reported that many in the open lobby felt the consultation meeting had not been publicised widely enough; there are some taking to Twitter to complain that they were not told about it or invited. Sorry, but that's no excuse. You can't complain you weren't invited next time Microsoft (or whoever) signs a multimillion-pound deal with the government for "proprietary" software.

Get used to the fact that the game is not being played by your rules. You don't win a hand of poker by betting with a five-card trick; you learn how to play a Royal Flush.

Now I'm not trying to say that one side is wrong or one side is right. It is a complex and highly nuanced topic. I have strong sympathies with many of the arguments of the open lobby, I'll admit. But I can see the perspective of the proprietary suppliers too.

I will, however, urge the open lobby to mobilise itself, to organise itself as well as its perceived opponents. Don't moan about not being at the meeting - go to the next one, and the next. Respond to the online consultation now. Comment on this blog post. Comment on Mark Ballard's blog post. Comment on articles from people on both sides of the debate when they're published here and elsewhere. Comment on any of the blogs or articles I've listed below.

Shout louder, walk taller, talk to your opponents and not just your supporters. Engage in the debate - actively, loudly, and with all the passion you have for the subject. Do it now. Whoever comes out on top of this critical debate, we need every voice on every side to participate.

There is only one community I want to win - and that's IT buyers (and ultimately taxpayers, that means you and I). But we need every part of the supply-side to be equally involved if that is going to happen.

Further reading:

If you want an easy-to-read explanation of the jargon of FRAND and RF and so forth, I recommend this article: Ignore the extremists in the software standards wars - by Leading Edge Forum researcher Simon Wardley published on Forbes.com

Cabinet Office open standards consultation

Report from the first public meeting by its host, Cabinet Office policy lead on open standards, Linda Humphries

Details of future public meetings

Blog post by Peter Brown, a participant at the first public meeting

Blog post by IT architect Dr Jeni Tennison on her response to the consultation

Report on the first public meeting of the open standards consultation by its chairman Andy Hopkirk

By Mark Ballard on Computer Weekly's Public Sector IT blog:

Proprietary lobby triumphs in first open standards showdown

Microsoft redeploys OOXML in open standards battle

Questions over open standards lobbyists

Microsoft hustled UK retreat on open standards, says leaked report

Open standards rift tears UK policy to shreds

Open standards: UK dithers over royalty question

Hope shines through crack in lid of open standards coffin

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

1 Comment

I get troubled every time I see open standards and open source lumped together. They are quite different and in detail opens up debates that become “emotional” as evidenced by your comments! Government just have to make it clear that any software they buy must be readily accessible to allow across government exchange of information and where open source product is available use it on the basis the TCO compares favourably against any proprietary software. Custom coding applications in open source will not be cheap but that takes me to a higher priority that I believe is now on the government agenda. They are now looking to set up the capability to see what new techniques are out there with a strong focus on supporting the users.

Just this week Naomi Bloom a renowned consultant, analyst and thought leader with a strong HRM focus posted a must read article on Agile, Models-Driven Definitional Development – see http://infullbloom.us/?p=3222
Some quotes that should encourage Government that this is where knowledge will pay handsomely.
“Writing less code to achieve great business applications was my focus in that 1984 article, and it remains so today. Being able to do this is critical if we’re going to realize the full potential of information technology”
“….how those models can become applications without any code being written or even generated."
“…object models become the functionality of the applications with a minimum of human intervention, whose business functionality is therefore built and modified only at the models level. Such an approach can be very flexible initially and over time, easy and fast to implement, and inexpensive for both the vendor/provider and customer to acquire and maintain”
“If I’m right, you’ll want to be on the agile, models-driven, definitional development side of the moat thus created, whether you’re an HR leader, working in the HRM software vendor community, or an investor in that community.”

Later in a tweet Naomi said “It really matters how your vendors build their software, not just what they build” and Michael Krigsman a leading analyst tweeted referring to the article “Pointing to the technical foundation of future”.

This is now happening and the speed of development with in built agility all developed in business language will bring huge benefits to Government. Yes legacy is a big issue but use this new capability to modernise use of legacy. This is so much more important that the squabbling over open standards and open source which should be determined by common sense as I have articulated?

Leave a comment

Have you entered our awards yet?

Archives

Recent Comments

  • David Chassels: I get troubled every time I see open standards and read more

Dilbert

 

 

-- Advertisement --