« Smart tech:registration forms that forward |
Main
| New Statesman looking for innovative e-activists »
March 31, 2006
Any hope for Open Source in government?
Posted by Alexandra Samuel
Tom Adelstein has written a widely-bookemarked piece on LXer, Why I stopped promoting Linux in government. His frustration boils down to skepticism about political decision-makers themselves:
I would characterize the people involved in these type of organizations as nasty bureaucrats. I have never met one of them who cared about the people they serve. The ones I have met only care about their careers. They would cut the heart out of the person in the next office in a minute.
I'm sympathetic to both the importance and challenges of introducing open source software in government. Open source tools are often -- though not necessarily -- an economical choice for government, and even more important, government support for open source software helps to foster affordable alternatives for lower-income computer users and small businesses. That's part of the reason I often work with open source tools, especially when helping government clients.
But chalking up government resistance to open source to bureaucratic selfishness does a tremendous disservice both to government, and to the open source movement. My experience in government (as a former political staffer myself, and as a longtime consultant to public sector clients) suggests that public servants are no more -- and very often much less -- self-serving than your average private sector wage slave (or software engineer). A public sector career isn't a fast-track to wealth; it's a career choice that most frequently appeals to people who at least start out with a strong desire to help their communities or countries. Sustaining that motivation may be difficult (especially in the face of widespread public cynicism about bureaucrats) but that's probably not the explanation for the difficulty in promulgating open source software in government.
What does make it difficult is the relative riskiness of embracing open source tools. I've seen plenty of bureaucracies that are perhaps excessively risk-averse, but the open source movement has done little to address that risk aversion. (Nor is that risk aversion entirely inappropriate: it's easy for failed government expenditures turn into news headlines.)
Rather than complain about the limited scope for innovation in government, open source developers need to recognize not only the opportunities (in terms of scale) but also the challenges (of risk aversion) in the government market. The way to address those challenges is not to pillory public servants, but to develop the kind of professional services, documentation and business cases that proprietary software vendors offer to the public sector market. Bureaucrats need to know that if they go to the wall in battling for an open source option -- and it often is a battle, despite policies that nominally favour open source solutions -- they will have an army of skilled software professionals who can ensure the successful deployment of open source tools. That doesn't just mean ensuring success in the technical sense, but understanding how software tools can be successfully deployed within the organizational and political context within which governments work.
Smearing public servants as "nasty bureaucrats" doesn't paint the open source community as sensitive to the particular needs of the public sector market. Happily there are plenty of open source developers who are working hard to prove otherwise.
Comments (7)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: e-Government
POST A COMMENT
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › Avaaz is here
- › Creative Commons Salon launches in The Netherlands
- › e, the undersigned,...
- › Letter-writing was never easier
- › Amnesty presses Internet freedoms at UN's Internet Governance Forum
- › RootsCamp: Post Election Open Sessions from The New Organizing Institute
- › Can we trust voting computers?
- › Online shopping guide: the Election Advent Calendar
1. Anonymous on April 1, 2006 5:12 PM writes...
I'm just curios if you even read the LXer article at all? Seems to me you just used its title to further your agenda. This article you've writtin is nothing but fluff and a wasted minute read.
Permalink to Comment2. Fred on April 1, 2006 10:52 PM writes...
I read the LXer article. It is a bitter, self-serving screed by a guy who lost a software war. And if he really saw what he says he saw at DOE and did not blow the whistle, then he is part of the problem.
Permalink to Comment3. Budgie47 on April 3, 2006 2:53 AM writes...
I just think this is a bit more of a practical step forward than all the hot air blown in massachusetts really .....
http://www.naa.gov.au/recordkeeping/preservation/digital/applications.html
and
http://xena.sourceforge.net/
Permalink to Comment4. john on April 3, 2006 8:19 PM writes...
Very interesting piece. I think you are right to say that "chalking up government resistance to open source to bureaucratic selfishness does a tremendous disservice both to government, and to the open source movement."
It is however, not merely risk aversion. Most Govts have two major parties. One in power, and one trying to get into power. The priority for the party in power is to stay in power tomorrow. The priority for the party trying to get into power is to do so as quick as possibe. Sadly, both parties tend to think that longer term strategic thinking on Govt infrastructure will help neither today or tomorrow.
There is another issue here as well. Aside from the arguments of economic value or proprietary lock in, and that is freedom of speech. It is of fundamental importance that a level of communication is available between govt and citizen that is free of commercial obligation or interest.
The Venezuelan Govt have recently gone open source, citing the reason of technological sovereignty, but I have not been able to find out if they are using open protocols for communication.
The Norwegian Govt have decided to make all government information that is of public interest free, not just as in "Beer", but as in "Speech."
Recently in the UK the Guardian Newspaper started a campaign to make Govt information that is of public value (maps for example) freely available. You can read more on the subject at freeourdata.org. However, they have used the narrow terminology of free as in beer alone.
If information is made freely available, but in a format that requires a commercial application - is it free? Of course not.
I have been blogging about this for a while now - you can read more at http://www.midfieldmaestro.com/?p=121 - and click next to see how the story develops.
Regards,
Permalink to CommentJohn
5. Paul Evans on April 4, 2006 10:21 AM writes...
I'd like to pick this up as well
"chalking up government resistance to open source to bureaucratic selfishness does a tremendous disservice both to government, and to the open source movement."
I think that this characterisation of the civil service says quite a lot about some sections of the open source movement.
On another point, Alexandra seems to be sharing the view of buraucratic selfishness with Patrick Dunleavy's 'bureau-shaping' model. While I broadly agree with this, there is also the issue (from Parkinsons Law) that 'bureaucrats recruit subordinates not rivals'. Civil servants often don't look for a 'win-win' relationship with suppliers - indeed anything that looked like that kind of concession would attract criticism. But they are not interested in developing the kind of sector that is likely to provide a good quality of service.
Smaller sustainable businesses, I would suggest, are generally a better supplier for all but the massive software contract. But public procurment doesn't favour such businesses.
And open source solutions (ones that are nominally 'supplier independent') often get chosen rather than ones that are supplied by a company that is committed to client retention on quality.
If you'll forgive me for linking, I've covered this on my own blog, so I'll leave this one here:
Permalink to Commenthttp://nevertrustahippy.blogspot.com/2005/04/why-public-sector-websites-are-so.html
6. Fred on April 4, 2006 4:52 PM writes...
"The way to address those challenges is not to pillory public servants, but to develop the kind of professional services, documentation and business cases that proprietary software vendors offer to the public sector market."
Proprietary software is a non-issue. We went through Proprietary Software Hell (WordPerfect, cc:Mail, Netware) once, and we got over it. The issue is industry standards, and whether anyone likes it or not, many of today's industry standards were developed by Microsoft.
I just got back from the software store, where I checked every office software package on the shelf that competes with Microsoft Office. Every single one of them prominently displays the same phrase: Microsoft Office Compatible. So, by the way, is Mozilla Thunderbird, which saves files in the .eml format used by Microsoft Outlook.
So let's say that I want to deploy Thunderbird at the bureau where I used to work. Who's going to change the registered file type on 1600 PCs, some of which are in remote locations far from hands-on support? More to the point, who's going to *pay* to have that task done, not just on current PCs, but on all future hardware buys, all of which come with Microsoft Office pre-loaded?
If open source advocates want to see their preferred software accepted by government agencies, they first have to demonstrate compatibility, then make a valid business case for adoption that goes beyond just shouting, "It's free! It's free!", because we learned a long time ago that everything comes with a cost. So address the migration costs, and the support costs, and the training costs. Then maybe someone will take a serious look.
But software wars? No time, no inclination, no thanks. If it doesn't use industry standards, it's DOA.
Permalink to Comment7. Fred on April 4, 2006 10:37 PM writes...
"Smaller sustainable businesses, I would suggest, are generally a better supplier for all but the massive software contract. But public procurment doesn't favour such businesses."
Paul, this may be true in your country, but it is definitely not true in mine, as evidenced by the 8(a) STARS Governmentwide Acquisition Contract (GWAC) administered by the US General Services Administration.
That being the case, with all due respect, the glittering generalities are not appropriate.
Permalink to Comment