Category Archives: tech

Excellent article by Glenn Brunette on the Top 5 Solaris 10 Security Features

Excellent article by Glenn Brunette on the “Top 5 Solaris 10 Security Features You Should Be Using” . …..

Enterprise Architecture @ Sun Microsystems

As I mentioned in this post Enterprise Architecture Practitioners Conference 2007 here is my presentation in full from that event – along with the speakers notes.Not yet attached is the overview of differing architectural skill / capability ‘domains’ which I ‘white-boarded’ at the event – but I’ll do a post later which includes a web friendly version of that and link it in.Don’t forget that you can use the ‘Body Image Size’ function over on the right hand side to resize the images to something you find more acceptable.

Enjoy !

Enterprise Architecture @ Sun Microsystems

  1. Welcome to the Conference !
  2. Introductions
  3. Contents
  4. The 3 major uses of EA @ Sun Microsystems
  5. EA used internally at Sun
  6. Sun internal EA has delivered…
  7. EA used externally for Sun Customers : Why do customers involve Sun in there EA Programmes
  8. EA used externally for Sun Customers : Supporting customers EA teams helps Sun to…
  9. EA used externally for Sun Customers : Three EA case studies…
  10. EA case study no. 1 : A large Utility company : When EA goes ‘Bad’
  11. EA case study no. 2 : A large Government department : EA & SOA – the perfect marriage ?
  12. EA case study no. 2 : A large Government department : EA + SOA = SOA Adoption Roadmaps
  13. EA case study no. 3 : A large Government organisation : “It’s about the people, stupid !”
  14. Enterprise Architecture and Innovation…
  15.    …using EA to perform customer analysis
  16. In Summary – Enterprise Architecture ‘Best Practises’
  17. Where can you get EA help at Sun Microsystems ? Try over here…
  18. Q&A;
  19. Thank you very much & enjoy the rest of the Conference !

Welcome to the Conference !

Hello everyone,

I’d just like to start off by thanking the Open Group for organising this event, specifically
John Spencer, who kindly asked me to present to you all today, and Allen Brown, the
Chairman of the Open Group, who’s given Sun, and I, a very warm welcome today.

And I’d also like to thank you all for coming along to see me, I hope you enjoy the
presentation.

Introductions

So who am I ?

My name is Wayne Horkan, and I’m the Chief Technologist (CT) for the UK and Ireland at Sun
Microsystems.

I’ve been the UK & Ireland Chief Technologist for the last eighteen months, and I’ve been
at Sun for the last seven years, in total.

As CT I provide Technical Leadership to the entire UK and Ireland Sun organisation, with specific responsibilities for the senior customer facing Business and Technology Consultants in that organisation. A significant part of my role is spent engaging with our customers, and I sit on a number of our customers Technical Governance structures and boards – all of whom are responsible for generating and managing EAs.

Furthermore historically Sun and the Open Group have had an excellent relationship, with
Sun having been a founder member of the Open Group.

Contents

I’m going to cover the three major uses of EA at Sun Microsystems, including three case
studies from our customer engagements.

After that I’m going to discuss our “Seven Rules for Successful EA”, which were drawn
out from lessons learned from these and other engagements.

That’s going to be followed by a short Q&A; before I finish.

The 3 major uses of EA @ Sun Microsystems

If we look at the three major applications of EA at Sun Microsystems, they are:

  1. Internally – EA used by Sun internally to manage it’s own IT estate
  2. Externally – where Sun consultants have been involved with customer EA teams and
    EA initiatives
  3. Both – Or rather EA practiced internally to better understand our external customers’ IT
    estates

EA used internally at Sun

EA was introduced into Sun Micro by our previous CIO – Bill Vass.

Before Bill came to Sun he worked in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of the
CIO. In this capacity, Bill was director of three large sectors of the U.S. Department of
Defense’s IT infrastructure. and was very familiar with EA from the introduction of
DODAF.

His roles at the DOD included:

  1. Director DOD where he was software manager for over 30 projects
  2. CIO at the Pentagon in infrastructure
  3. Networks operation Manager at the Security’s Division

Sun has an EA office which co-ordinates EA across Sun’s IT Operations (‘ITops’) – Bill
set this operation up about four years ago.

Our current CIO – Bob Worrall, having taken over from Bill about a year ago has the EA
office reporting directly to him.

Sun internal EA has delivered…

It has delivered 3 important pieces of work:

  1. An EA of Sun’s IT Ecosystem – but an EA is not just a means in itself. By developing
    an EA we have been able to start work at EA Planning, and thus able to deliver even more
    definite business benefit.
  2. Project Helios, which has been delivered into production, an online Runtime,
    Service/Asset Management System. This for me is “Asset Management evolved” – as it
    allows you to view at Runtime Business Services to Business Units, to Application
    Services, to Application, to Operations Team, to Infrastructure & Hardware, to Data
    Centre & Location and to Facilities Management. It is a cornerstone of our SOA adoption
    roadmap and will become an online management information system.
  3. Project IBIS, stands for “Integrated Business Information Solution” and is a
    concentrated effort to reduce complexity across the Sun IT Estate. The IBIS project will be
    looking at consolidating circa 1,000 business applications, world-wide, into a single
    Oracle Financials runtime. We are achieving this strategy by replacing the atypical “80%”
    of all functionality with a single implementation of Oracle financials, combined with an
    SOA approach of encapsulation & aggregation for the remaining “20%” functionality.

In the UK we have a saying about Cobblers Shoes – the saying goes that cobblers shoes
are always in poor condition because the cobbler could at any point repair them – that’s
what he does of course. And I think a little of that happened at Sun.

Because were a technology firm, full to the brim with smart innovative technologists, it
was always supremely easy to construct applications, and even worse – easy to support
them well into production.

Thankfully Project IBIS is going to change that. We have spent the last 2 years auditing
all related and impacted business processes and applications across Sun and have
developed a plan & route into the future. Furthermore we have implemented a governance
structure which will minimize this happening again.

Obviously Project IBIS is a massive concern – affecting circa 40,00 staff worldwide, not
only producing efficiencies in the Supply chain, simplification of the Estate, but also
reduction of support required and the costs attributable to such a difficult to manage IT
estate.

So you can see we have a very live, well placed and well sponsored EA function within
Sun.

EA used externally for Sun Customers : Why do customers involve Sun in there EA Programmes

Next I’m going to talk about the use of EA externally with our Customers.

Sun gets involved with customers EA initiatives, and we are often asked to supply Senior
Technologists into customers EA governance structures to help with EA definition.

This happens for a number of reasons, including:

  1. Vendor representations – customers want tier one vendors to act as IT / Technology
    industry representatives.
  2. Decision ‘Backup’ – validation of opinions and techniques based upon experience of
    seeing it being done elsewhere.
  3. Trust – the customer trusts Sun for impartial advice.
  4. Reliance on core technical stock – if the customer has a large amount of Sun technology
    they might want representation from us in moving that forward.
  5. Consultant specialist knowledge, experience or relationships – an ex-employee, for
    example, or someone involved in a previous implementation.

EA used externally for Sun Customers : Supporting customers EA teams helps Sun to…

As the Technology Leader for the UK and Ireland, I actively encourage these relationships
– as they:

  1. Give Sun a chance to demonstrate value – outside of pure product.
  2. Allow us a better understanding of the aims and challenge of our customer
  3. De-risk implementations by giving us opportunity to contribute to the design and
    implementation of new systems as well as a long term and strategic view of the customer
    IT ecosystem.

Additionally it allows us to “up skill” our own staff in EA delivery.

EA used externally for Sun Customers : Three EA case studies…

I’d just like to talk briefly about some of the customers who we’ve worked with their EA teams.

I’m going to cover three case studies:

  • firstly a large utility company – “When EA goes ‘Bad’”
  • secondly a very large government department – an example of “EA and SOA”
  • thirdly, another extremely large, government organisation – “EA Technical Governance” or “it’s about the people, stupid !”.

EA case study no. 1 : A large Utility company : When EA goes ‘Bad’

We got involved with the EA work at this customer around 3 years ago. It was extremely
interesting to see how EA was being used, how it had evolved and the issues that they had.

I call this “when EA goes bad” – because in my mind it was the best (or worst, given your
viewpoint,) example of “Ivory Tower Syndrome” – a problem when EA teams become
isolated, withdrawn and stop communicating.

Issues included:

  1. EA was over “deliverable focused” and “data driven” – with a lack of a “big picture”
    view.
  2. Not Inclusive – leading to severe “Ivory Tower Syndrome”.
  3. Lack of clear objectives for the EA team to deliver against.
  4. £80m spend on a single project cancelled – due to the EA Team.
  5. No / lack of Senior Sponsorship / Visibility – Accountability

I personally conducted two reviews for them. Firstly, a review of the vendors to their 70m
pound outsourcing deal – where we subsequently had to redesign their proposed operating
structure so that it was based upon a cross cut of technology skills and vendor and
project inclusion.

Secondly a review of an ongoing project which had incorrectly been identified by the EA
team as a strategic component. Initially this was a combined workflow and customer
management system – including remote, wireless, handheld data collectors (for ‘pipe’
asset location).

The programme had been due to deliver £1 m in a year savings, initially costing £8M This
had very soon ballooned to £11M, then £40M, and finally £80M – including requiring an
estimated further £40M, so a total of £120M, to be delivered.
You may ask why a programme with a 120 year return on investment (ROI) would still be
being delivered.

Unfortunately the EA council, which had become very parochial due to a lack of new
members and lack of integration with the project members & architects had deemed parts
of the program to be fit to repurpose as an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) – effectively they
said that the programme was delivering a Strategic corporate component.

This wasn’t the case as it was built as an “end-point system to end-point” system model
(commonly called Point to Point). A legacy approach to integration, one that, for apart
from very small systems, has been discounted. It’s extremely costly in terms of connecting
new systems and would not scale as an Enterprise corporate component – neither in terms
of ease of re-provisioning nor development nor Runtime reusability.

If the EA team had listened to the development team they would have known this – but
because of “Ivory Tower Syndrome” and the organisational hierarchy involved they were
not open to learning this particularly bad news. The EA team had become elitist, out of
step with the business, disconnected to the project teams, and had stopped communicating.

After reviewing the Programme it was shut down by the incumbent IT Director, with the
resultant loss of over 400 jobs. Obviously we were congratulated for saving the other
£40M – but I would have preferred for the original EA team to have not become so
inwardly focused, and to not have mistakenly championed a system which would have
never have been able to grow into the strategic corporate component that they had
imagined. We subsequently helped the customer to rebuild its EA function with a new,
inclusive Governance structure.

EA case study no. 2 : A large Government department : EA & SOA – the perfect marriage ?

We were asked to get involved with this customers EA board when they were reviewing
their SOA implementation and had asked Sun to develop their SOA Adoption Roadmap.

We found a legacy enterprise model which had not been updated for a number of years –
unfortunately it had been delivered by Business Analysts so it was very much a catalogue
of business processes. Very little was related to real world application / logical or
infrastructure / physical technical domains.

We found that to deliver a realistic SOA Adoption Roadmap – in terms of ability to be
implemented – we needed the beginnings of an Enterprise Architecture to provide a
contextual backdrop upon which to base our SOA Adoption plan.

So we started by rapidly developing a light weight yet inclusive EA Model which included
the major corporate components that were due to be involved in the SOA implementation.

EA case study no. 2 : A large Government department : EA + SOA = SOA Adoption Roadmaps

We were able to define the strategic roadmap (and roadmaps) for implementation of an
SOA across the organisation, once this was done. Furthermore, we could understand the
implications of what we were planning to do by their impact on the other corporate
components. This allowed us to model differing roadmaps, and judge them on a variety of
criteria.

The SOA Adoption Roadmaps could be compared and judged against:

  1. Functionality delivered – i.e. what capabilities would be introduced at which point in
    the overall implementation plan.
  2. Costs to implement – for each stage, or alternate stage, what the cost would be, as well
    as it’s relationship to previous and future stages.
  3. Complexity of implementation – how difficult it would be for each stage, and some of
    the risks involved (large discreet stages, versus, small “phased” stages).
  4. Non functional, but strategic and re-useable – the “cross the board” estate capabilities,
    such as the messaging sub-system (Enterprise Service Bus, or ESB, as it’s also known),
    non-functional items such as aggregated audit, which could be re-used outside of the SOA
    implementation.

EA case study no. 3 : A large Government organisation : “It’s about the people, stupid !”

This case study is about EA & Technical Governance – and I’ve called it “it’s about the
people, stupid!”. EA is really about the people – those helping to deliver it, those
influenced by it, and those who it delivers for. I feel that it is imperative to get the right
mix when building an EA function.

The organisation at the centre of this case study is the single largest employer in the UK,
with around 1M staff. It is a distributed organisation supporting the needs of all subjects
in the UK.

It is currently going through a massive change program – an ambitious plan to provide an
integrated stack of functionality across the organisation and it’s subsidiary organisations.
Comprised of a central message subsystem and five major Service Provider Regions. Sun
is involved in delivering the messaging subsystem, or rather G2G backbone (very similar
to a B2B system) which supports all data traffic.

I was asked to intervene in an issue with the prime vendor / supplier to the end customer –
one of the largest UK telecoms companies.

When I got on site I realised that the issue was one of technical governance model and
that although we had teams of application architects and teams of infrastructure / system
architects we did not have any Enterprise Architects. People who would get a contextual
view of what was being attempted, nor, as they weren’t any, our ability to map to the
customers EA team !

By insisting we had a team of EA’s led by one of Sun’s most experienced Enterprise
Architects we were able to move the project out of escalation and avoid severe financial
penalties, which would have been levied if communication had continued to fail between
our teams.

Enterprise Architecture and Innovation…

At Sun we see ourselves as a force for innovation – and the vanguard of disruptive
technologies.

So it shouldn’t be a surprise that we take EA principles and methods and shake them
around a bit … quite a bit.

At Sun in the UK and Ireland we are using EA in the pre-sales process, obviously where
possible and legally acceptable, to map customer accounts.

   …using EA to perform customer analysis

We also use EA techniques to help understand our customers better. Often our customers
are more than happy that we are so interested in them, and the successful evolution of their
IT / IS Estates.

We call these rapid, light weight, EA methods collectively as Sun LEAF (Light-weight
Enterprise Architecture Framework)

By mapping out our customers IT / IS Estates, and by relating Business Units, to
functional and non-function corporate components and the application architectures,
software stacks and physical architectures that under pin them we are able to learn an
unprecedented amount about our customers use of technology.

We can use the information to identify a number of items – such as which corporate
components consist of Sun Technology – and more importantly which ones don’t – and
thus are applicable for targeted sales. Which business units have systems we have no
visibility at all – and so we need to investigate more. What technologies connect together
and how easy it might be for us to displace them with the least amount of impact on the
customer estate.

The Sun LEAF programme is currently in its second pilot prior to roll-out. Some significant
success have already been made, which I can’t currently disclose at the moment.

In Summary – Enterprise Architecture ‘Best Practises’

That wraps up the overview of EA use at Sun Microsystems. However, I thought it would
be useful to look over the best practices we have identified and developed at Sun for EA.

I think it’s obvious that EA needs to rapidly speed up it’s time to delivery – without a large
drop in the quality of EA being delivered. Basically we, as Enterprise Architects, all need
to be smarter at our game. That’s why I welcome the focus on EA methods, tools and
standardisation that this conference, and the Open Group bring.

I’ve seen too many EA programs either fail to deliver against there original goals, get lost
in the detail without delivering the “big picture” / contextual view promised, and,
increasingly in the UK and Ireland, where the average time in role for a CIO in a top 200
company has slipped to 2 to 3 years maximum, fail to deliver in the timescales of the
original sponsor – only to lose sponsorship & support and be closed down without
delivering at all.

  1. EA must relate to a definite deliverable goal or aim – otherwise it can become an in
    means in itself. Obvious examples include:

    • Reducing complexity – and the cost reductions and savings that obviously result
    • SOA Adoption Roadmaps – or EAI / Integration
    • Plan for the future of the technical Estate – fashionably called EA Planning.
  2. Don’t labour it – keep “fast and light weight”. Unless you really need to – get quick
    demonstrable ‘wins’ onside to encourage buy in and acceptance. Think about the concept
    of “gearing” – delivering discrete pieces of the EA which can relate to actual business
    value which can then be used to justify the next stages proposed.
  3. Inclusion – Involve people from the wider technology eco-system, both internally and
    externally – both vendor and project staff
  4. Rotation – avoid “Ivory Tower Syndrome” by rotating staff in and out of the EA team
  5. Get the right Technical Governance skills base mix (NB Use the whiteboard to
    demonstrate – EA Technical skill domains spider diagrams developed by Sun)
  6. Must get the right level of sponsorship – EA functions straight into the CIO office.
  7. Keep aligned to the Business Strategy Board – EA is about the Technical Strategy for a
    company, and it must relate to the Business Strategy of that company – or will end up
    delivering something that the business can not adopt.

Where can you get EA help at Sun Microsystems ? Try over here…

So where can you get help from Sun re: Enterprise Architecture.

If you have a Sun account team, and I know some of you do, then use that account team to
identify local experts – reference this event, my presentation and me too.

Alternately you are very welcome to get in touch with me, and I’ll either help identify the
best person to help you in the circumstance, or even work with you directly.

Q&A;

That concludes my presentation on Enterprise Architecture @ Sun Microsystems – I very
much hope that it’s been enjoyable and educative.

My contact details are on the slide behind me – if you’d like to get in touch I’d be very
happy to hear from you.

We just have time for a short question and answer session – so any questions ?

Thank you very much & enjoy the rest of the Conference !

Thanks a lot for all your questions, and thank you very much again for coming along to
see me today.

Just like to say “all the best” and I hope you all enjoy the rest of the conference.

Fin.

Related Links:

Enterprise Architecture Practitioners Conference, 2007

I’ve finally prepared my slides from when I presented at the Enterprise Architecture Practitioners Conference, 2007, so just thought I’d finalise by covering the day and getting the slides online…

I have to say it was a great day – Enterprise Architecture (EA) is one of my favourite disciplines and getting to present on the subject for the conference was something I’d looked forward to since the previous years event.

The conference was hosted in Paris, at the Paris Hilton, just off the Sienne – it was hosted by the Open Group, and I was kindly asked to present by John Spencer, the recently retired Director of The Open Group’s Architecture Forum, and once I was there I was warmly welcomed by Allen Brown, the President and Chief Executive Officer of The Open Group.

As you can probably guess I’m very passionate about EA, in fact any (almost all) of the methods and techniques for getting a contextual, “Big Picture” view of an IT / IS estate ecosystem (what I like to call ‘Macro IT’) – and I’ll be writing a little more about some of these methods in latter posts.

As an industry we’ve been pretty successful to date about understanding and evolving the knowledge and experience around both Infrastructure and Applications. What we’ve been much less successful at, and I believe that it’s due to demand (and compromised by time to deliver), is understanding how these technologies, are put together as systems in a holistic manner, and how those systems themselves co-exist in Enterprise IT eco-systems (and to an extent how they compete with each other as ‘functional’ entities).

Last year when I presented at the Enterprise Architecture Practitioners Conference, 2006 (hosted in London), my slides were much more visual, and focused on how EA was being used at Sun, they were well received, but the comments afterwards were that they were too ‘high level’. So this year I decided to focus much more on Case Studies where we had been involved with Customers EA programmes. The change in direction must have worked because I got a half room standing ovation – the first I’ve received of that size (circa 200 there – I was still on a high about it for at least a couple of weeks).

Because of this there are two version, one with my speakers notes attached and one without – I’ve also created a ‘blog post from the slides (including the speakers notes) which I’ll put online tomorrow.

PDF with speakers notes

PDF without speakers notes

Last years slides are also available (“Enterprise Architecture Practitioners Conference 2006”), and are also on the ‘Architecting the Enterprise’ web site.

Related Links:

UK G2G revisited

Some advice from Ian Dunmore over at Public Sector Forums regarding the article I produced looking at UK G2G systems and there possible evolution.

He’s noted that there is some confusion about what I’m saying with these articles, with readers commenting that I’m suggesting that it is a way forward for the co-ordination of UK G2G systems.

Unfortunately I feel that would be too progressive, and that actually we need some mature discussion about the G2G systems in the UK, which are carrying a variety of data (including ‘Citizen’ data), before we start looking at what we should do about the co-ordination of these systems.

The message that I’m trying to get over is that:

  1. There are common usages of identity across the UK Government (“Identity Ontologies”).
  2. Around these common usages of identity G2G systems have ‘sprung up’.
  3. Given the projects known to be delivering in the near future, what will this ‘eco-system’ of UK G2G systems look like in the short term.
  4. Given what is known we can postulate a little further out to what the ‘eco-system’ of UK G2G systems might look like in the mid-term.
  5. The G2G systems in the UK are at different levels of maturity.
  6. The G2G systems in the UK have differing (technical) architectural topologies.
  7. Given the near future state of these G2G systems can we predict how they might evolve ?
  8. It’s likely that it will go in one of two ‘architectural’ directions:

  9. I’m not advocating any of the models listed above over any of the others – but I am trying to raise the visibility of the topic. Some of the questions and issues at large include:

    • Shouldn’t someone be worrying about this for us – and planning it out in a sensible manner ?”
    • Aren’t there security (primarily of information) issues ? What about the ‘Data Protection Act’ (DPA) ?
    • Given the amount of ‘Functional Overlap’, i.e. systems performing the same (or very similar) function to it’s neighbour, shouldn’t we be looking at combining some of this together ? Otherwise won’t we end up building almost identical systems repeatedly ?
    • Shouldn’t we try and achieve savings by combining physical infrastructure and hosting ?
    • How does ‘Shared Services’ play into this ? How can this be done and achieve the ‘t-Gov’ agenda ?
    • Is this ‘Citizen Centric’, and will it deliver to the majority of the population ? Should it be, given a number of the common usage of identity are not ‘Citizen Centric’ ?
    • Increasingly isn’t this becoming a piece of ‘Critical National Infrastructure’ ? And thus needs a more appropriate focus from Government ?
    • Some of these G2G systems are starting to move away from there original designs, what implications do these changes have, and have they been planned for appropriately ?
    • These G2G systems are starting to be connected together – what issues does that bring to areas like the DPA ? And what other implications does this have in terms of these systems themselves ? Will these systems be flexible and agile enough to allow these new data communications (without costly re-engineering) ?
    • Who should be looking into this, and managing it on behalf of the UK ? The Cabinet Office ? The Prime Ministers Delivery Unit (PMDU) ? The UK CIO, the CIO Council and the CTO Council ? The Security Services ? Or another body ?

I’m almost certain that other questions and issues will come to light, that’s one of the major reasons I’m working with the Public Sector Forums team to try and gather as much opinion as possible.

Once this is done I’m hoping we will be looking at building up some joint recommendations.

Given my background and role it would be extremely easy to start off with “well you could (or should) do it like this” – however, firstly, that’s not my style, and, secondly, my experience in the implementation of large scale IT systems has taught me to gather opinion up front – to be inclusive – and that’s the first step to delivering good technology solutions which meet there user’s requirements.

More soon – hopefully when we’re ready to start looking at some early recommendations…

UK G2G at the Public Sector Forums

Just to announce that we will be posting some recommendations regarding the evolution and strategic management of the UK G2G systems documented on this site over that last week or so. When I say we – well read on’t…

The extremely nice people over at Public Sector Forums (Hi Ian D. !) have been very kind about the overview of UK Government G2G Messaging Sub-Systems that I posted recently.

Public Sector Forums (PSF) is the leading online information service of it’s type focusing on all things ‘e-Gov’ and ‘e-Gov’ related in the UK – and I’ve been a fan for a number of years – ever since a friend of mine had an article posted with them (Alan Mather’s article ‘Ten Years of ‘e-Gov”).

Robin Wilton – one of Sun’s global Corporate Architect’s (with a particular focus on ‘Federated Identity’) and a co-chair of the Liberty Alliance’s Public Policy Expert Group (as well as being a participant in the Special Interest Group (SIG) on Identity Theft) said this about the PSF recently:

“Any readers who work in the UK Public Sector may already be aware of Ian Dunmore’s Public Sector Forums website (if not, check it out; it’s a look at UK public sector reality which is… frank and unvarnished, shall we say). To my frustration, I can’t get to the documents themselves, because (perhaps wisely) they don’t let tech vendors like me anywhere near the actual content, but even Ian’s regular newsletters are a welcome arrival in the inbox. He has a refreshing perspective and a great way with words. To the point: the most recent PSF newsletter included a link to the table of ID Fraud figures, so I headed over to take a look.

In a post about Sun Live ’07 earlier this year (which was excellent, by the way, and thanks to all of you who attended), Robin also had this to say about PSF: “These folks seem to know more about what’s going on in UK public sector organisations than the civil servants do themselves…” – so praise indeed.

So like Robin (above) and I, unless you work for a Public Sector organisation, you may find that you won’t be able to access the interesting content hosted by PSF, although the newsletter is still very much worth a read – and I would recommend subscribing if any aspect of your role touches into ‘UK Government IT’.

PSF has a really vibrant forum community, from across the whole of Government, and as such they have run an article on the work I’ve done looking at UK G2G messaging systems, with a goal of acting as a catalyst for discussion of the topic, and here’s the quote from PSF:

TECHTALK: G2G MESSAGING – A GURU SPEAKS

For the techies among you, especially anyone involved either with GC or working in central government. Wayne Horkan is Chief Technologist for Sun Microsystems for the UK and Ireland and – as a friend of ours puts it – ‘a ‘deeply passionate, technical guru who can conjure up a vision from a few words that few are sufficiently bright to grasp then articulate it in a detail that again only the brightest can grasp’. Wayne has worked on or reviewed just about every major IT project in government over the last few years and his is a voice to be reckoned with. Here we’re very pleased to bring you – lifted from his blog with permission – his fascinating look at G2G messaging systems currently running. This is important thinking and to be missed at the government’s peril since so far as he (or we) can tell it’s the only overview on the topic in existence and has therefore got to be a starting point for a sane look at enterprise architecture and shared services.

Pick it up at the following link: http://www.publicsectorforums.co.uk/page.cfm?pageID=3846

If you do work in the Public Sector, or Government, Education and Health (GEH) as it’s fashionably known, and you’d like to comment, just to let you know all the PSF forum comments will be ‘boiled down’ by the PSF team, and will go toward a set of recommendations we hope to jointly author regarding the evolution of the G2G systems in the UK. Obviously I’ll do the same with comments I receive here, and any I receive directly.

You can expect follow up postings on the subject that will give an update of where we are with the recommendations, and the recommendations themselves over the next couple of months.

Evolution of UK Government Messaging Systems

This is the third part of a three part overview of UK Government G2G Messaging Sub-Systems.

Specifically this post is looking at the “Evolution of Messaging Sub-Systems used by the UK Government” – given the current, and the near-future, state of UK G2G systems, how might we expect them to mature and evolve.

At a minimum I would recommend reading part one of this series of articles, “Messaging Sub-Systems in the UK Government”.

The near future – the most likely Shared Services Model

Shows which organisations are most likely to share “information” and function across the emerging UK G2G infrastructure.

UK-G2G-Systems-0.1.5

So… What Next ? It is only a matter of time before these Ontologies start to share information in a more controlled and planned manner.

In fact data traffic between a number of these G2G systems is already being planned out.

It’s not hard to see that an “Evolution of the UK Government G2G eco-system” is taking place, specifically around two primary models: “Mesh” or “Hub”.

Mesh

Shows the Mesh model

UK-G2G-Systems-0.1.6

Currently the data traffic flows between the UK Government G2G systems (and constituents / members of those G2G eco-systems) are being planned to be developed in a point-to-point manner. The diagram shows just how convoluted that could become (if not worse), and easily shows how many connections, and end-points would need to support a full flow of information across these G2G systems.

In earlier versions of this analysis I used to pun that this model was “a bit of a ‘Mesh’”. Believing that moving forward the more controlled model of the Hub would win out over the Mesh model. However, given the lack of understanding of this issue space, probable costs involved in doing something more strategic (although the cost of doing large numbers of point-to-point integrations would dwarf these), and a very ‘stove-piped’ view of individual programme functional requirements, there is a lack of movement towards a more centralised Hub model at the moment.

Hub

Shows the Hub model

UK-G2G-Systems-0.1.7

I used to say that “my money’s” on the Hub Model, because: The Hub model allows for a host of new functionality, from a potential real time UK modeller & analysis, to a single one-stop shop access point, and a definitive cross UK ID understanding.

But the until the issue space is better understood and appreciated I doubt there will be more movement towards this model, and for the time being the “spaghetti” of the Mesh model will proliferate.

Simon Freeman’s “Decentralised” Hub

Shows the the evolved Hub model postulated by Simon Freeman.

UK-G2G-Systems-0.1.8

Simon Freeman’s (Ex-eGU Chief Architect for the GG) opinion is that the major G2G Message Hubs will merge, and that the strongest (think VHS vs. Betamax, or even better, Ethernet vs. TokenRing) will win out – based upon volume & variety of usage (principally leaving the GG as the strongest by this metric). New functionality (see above) will then be built over this merged hub.

Even Chris Haynes, Director of EDT (Delivery and Transformation Group) at the Cabinet Office, recently said “Gateway is the emerging backbone of Government Service Identity Management.” in a presentation titled “Identity Management across the Public Sector”.

The accompanying diagram represents that possible evolution of the Government Gateway into the UK wide central G2G system.

That concludes my overview of UK Government G2G Messaging Sub-Systems – hope you enjoyed it.

Part one of this article, “Messaging Sub-Systems in the UK Government”, and part two, “Comparison of Major Messaging Sub-Systems in the UK Government”, are also avialiable.

As I mentioned in the first part of this series, I very much hope that at the very least the co-ordination of these G2G messaging systems will come under the remit of a cross UK government organisation, such as the CIO Council, and that John Suffolk, the UK Government CIO will be involved in supporting that initiative.

In a later post I will be looking at “Shared Services” in greater depth. Specifically at what “Shared Services” means to me, a value model (for judging how “Shared” that “Shared Service” is) and potential value calculator (I’ve got most of the content, just need time to get it online).

I will also delve into the Government Gateway, especially communication to and across it via Departmental Integrations Server (DIS) devices.

And I may even be up for a critique of the “UK Cross Government Enterprise Architecture”, hosted over at the UK Government’s CIO Councils CTO Council website.

Comparison of Major Messaging Sub-Systems in the UK Government

This is the second part of a three part overview of UK Government G2G Messaging Sub-Systems.

Specifically this post is a “Comparison of Major Messaging Sub-Systems in the UK Government”, looking in more detail at three of the largest UK G2G systems and contrasting them with each other.

I’ve split it into two parts:

Comparison of the major Identity Ontologies

I’ve found that for any of these systems to truly deliver significant value they need to support four basic components. In fact this is no different of any large integration system found in any other sector. The four basic building block are:

  • Internal (Back-End) Integration – preferably “Service” focused, there has to be a way to unlock the functionality and processing capability within the individual departments, organisations and authorities. Whether this is via a “Service Oriented Architecture” (SOA) or “Enterprise Application Integration” (EAI) a fundamental premise is that data can be sent and received from these “Back-End” systems.
  • Shared Identity – An Ontology wide shared understanding of Identity is required for these disparate systems to share data and function with the correct level of authority.
  • Messaging System / Backbone – An Ontology wide & inclusive G2G messaging system – unlike the internal messaging systems used within Departments, Organisations and Authorities (typically under one management team and are “closed systems”), the G2G systems are typically outside any single organisations monopolistic control, requiring participation from the wider membership of that Ontology to deliver data communication across it’s members.
  • Access (Front-End) Gateway(s) – Portal or other Front-End access point – visibly delivers much of the value, which is actually brought into being by the previous three building blocks.

Table comparing the major Identity Ontologies

The table below shows each of the Ontologies I had identified in my earlier post, and rates them across the four areas described above.

  Silobusters / Internal Integration Common Ontology Wide Identity G2G Messaging Subsystem(s) Access Gateways Other Notes
Citizen Some Internal Integration – not yet focused upon the real-time provision of services Yes – via the Government Gateway Yes – via the Government Gateway Mostly Organisation specific, some centralisation – via the Government Gateway Only Ontology heavily in production – Hub & Spoke Model
Justice Little or no Internal Integration None Defined / Agreed Three Major messaging systems evolving – CJEX, Impact & DISC – natural segregation of case information Mostly Organisation specific, very little centralisation (mapping to messaging systems) Triple Hub Model evolving – Based around Data Segregation (“data firewalls” likely to be required)
Immigration None we are aware of (Little or no Internal Integration) None – would heavily be based on Passport data for early revisions None – Was due to have a single link to Police ‘Schengen’ Systems, however this has paused, as has our implementation of Schengen Organisation specific  
Transport None we are aware of (Little or no Internal Integration) None – would heavily be based on Driving License data for early
revisions
None we are aware of Organisation specific  
Health Brownfield Integration at the Local Service Provider (LSP) level slowing – more
research needed
Some – evolving based around ‘Patient’ data NHS Data Spine – 5 Sub-Hubs at the LSP – a Star Hub Model   Hub & 5 Sub-Hubs Model (Star Model)
Security None we are aware of (Little or no Internal Integration) Unknown by Author SCOPE – No Data – Assume some inclusion of G2G type functionality Unknown – Organisation specific ?  
Military None we are aware of (Little or no Internal Integration) Unknown by Author DII – No Data – Assume some inclusion of G2G type functionality Unknown – Organisation specific ?  
Education None we are aware of (Little or no Internal Integration) Unknown by Author Currently under investigation Mostly Organisation specific, very little centralisation  
Other(s)         Fire Service ?

If you can help fill out this table – then kindly get in touch (preferably via the “comment” mechanism at the bottom of this post) and I’ll be happy to republish with suggested amendments.

With hindsight what I feel that what I should have done with this table is break the Ontologies down into their constituent members – especially when looking at how much internal integration has been and is being planned to be delivered in the near future.

Comparison of three of the largest UK G2G systems

Now I’ll be looking in more detail at three major Messaging subsystems, and comparing them against each other.

The three major G2G messaging systems in government are:

The Government Gateway, the NHS Data SPINE and the Criminal Justice Exchanges

UK-G2G-Systems-0.1.9

This diagram shows the three major G2G areas that we identified above: it allows us to see each of them in contrast to the other – hopefully making the differences more pointed (and thus more obvious).

The (Single) Hub & Spoke model used by the Government Gateway

Shows the “Hub & Spoke” used by the Government Gateway.

UK-G2G-Systems-0.1.10

Notable points:

  • The Gateway has to be Highly Available – or nothing Communicates if it’s down
  • The Sub-Spokes shown communicating into Local Authorities actually just pass traffic straight through to the Government Gateway – there is no way to keep traffic within a ‘Sub-Hub’ – all traffic terminates, originates, or passes through the central ‘Hub’
  • Relies upon a DIS box as an end point – this acts a “Guaranteed Delivery” mechanism as once on a DIS box the traffic is assumed will (eventually) arrive at the central Hub

Five Point “Star Hub” Model used by the NHS NPfIT Data SPINE

Shows the “Star Hub” used by the NHS NPfIT Data SPINE.

UK-G2G-Systems-0.1.11

Notable points:

  • The model implies that if the central hub is unavailable end-points (hospitals, LHA / LHB’s) connected to a Local Service Provider (LSP) will still be able to send and receive data with their Regional Siblings
  • Of course we now have 6 messaging systems, with almost identical functionality (apart from the Authorisation and Authentication, and the Registration and Enrolment).
  • The diagram is slightly incomplete as it’s likely that Hospitals, etc, would plug into the LHA / LHB’s for a region – who would then in turn plug into the Regional LSP

“Tri-Hub” model currently evolving within the (Criminal) Justice Ontology

Shows the “Tri-Hub” developing in the Home Office / (Criminal) Justice Ontology.

UK-G2G-Systems-0.1.12

Notable points:

  • Although this has evolved out of exasperation (with Centralised Functions, like the CJIT Exchange) – it actually makes a lot of sense
  • It allows for data communications between like for like organisations, but logical & physical segregation between the Courts, etc. & the Police, etc. & the Home Office / NOMS, etc.
  • I believe that ‘information firewalls’ will evolve to segregate (and keep secure) information between these three primary groups – the Police & Courts can not share certain case information – it’s possible they can be aware it exists, but not the content – this model allows for ‘localised’ sharing, but secure within a group
  • The model also implies that by having no central hub means it is more resilient – end-points will still be able to send and receive data with their Group Siblings – as well as having dual resilient routes

That completes part two of my overview of UK Government G2G Messaging Sub-Systems.

Again come back in a couple of days for the next instalment – the “Evolution of Messaging Sub-Systems used by the UK Government” – given the current, and the near-future, state of UK G2G systems, how might we expect them to mature and evolve.

Part one of this article, “Messaging Sub-Systems in the UK Government”, is also available.

Messaging Sub-Systems in the UK Government

This is the first part of a three-part overview of UK Government G2G Messaging Sub-Systems.

Specifically, this post looks at “Messaging Sub-Systems in the UK Government” and is an overview of what’s in place, what’s not, and how I’ve classified them.

If you’ve been involved with Government, Education, and Health (GEH) IT implementations over the last few years, you will no doubt have come across some of the major G2G systems that have been developed, and are continuing to mature.

Since just before Tony Blair announced UK Online in September 2000, with a pledge to provide all government services online by 2005, there have been movements towards greater co-operation and joint working across the UK Government.

In the UK we’ve been hearing about “Joined-Up Government” and “Shared Services” for a number of years. Reports such as the Gershon Review, the Transformational Government Strategy and the Varney Report all call for government departments and organisations to work together to deliver more capabilities and greater savings.

With this drive towards greater cohesion, we have seen systems gravitate around what I call “Identity Ontologies” – Identity as understood and utilised by certain naturally grouped Government Organisations, Departments and Authorities. Sharing of Information is being done in departments which have a natural affinity for their peers, based around these Identity Ontologies.

For a number of reasons, security of information being exchanged being one, privacy and civil liberties being another, restriction of information (at least some of it) is, and will continue to be, limited across these Ontologies.

I was told by Brian Woodford, lately of Sun Microsystems UK, now at Tata Consulting and previously at BT, that in BT groupings similar to these are called UK Government “Communities of Interest” (COI), however as none of my BT contacts can confirm, nor deny this, I believe it to be both anecdotal and apocryphal.

Identity Ontologies

This diagram shows the major “Identity Ontologies” in the UK GEH arena.

UK-G2G-Systems-0.1.1

Purposefully it does not show:

  • Education Ontology – possibly a subset of Citizen, although currently they are looking at a National Programme which could also encompass Data Sharing across a G2G system.
  • Fire Service (and related Emergency Services) – currently these fall under the remit of the Department for Communities and Local Government (DfCLG), however from 2001 to 2006 they had reported into the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), and before 2001 the Home Office. I believe they have an affinity to the Home Office based G2G system(s), although heavily related to those of the local authorities.

It’s very likely there may be other Ontologies, however given the conversations I have had with a number of senior civil servants and government IT professionals I believe it to be quite inclusive.

One of the most interesting items is that Local Government and Authorities often connect to almost all of these Ontologies.

Why does this stuff matter?

By understanding the current overall government IT landscape, and the systems under procurement we can postulate how the UK Government IT Landscape may mature and thus should “evolve”. Rather than these systems evolve into place, it is my belief that at the very least it should be overseen and planned in a strategic manner by a responsible government department, such as the CIO Council (led by the UK Government CIO, John Suffolk). This is very much along the lines of the the aim of Enterprise Architecture, and certainly has a relationship to Enterprise Architecture Planning.

Currently Sharing Services

Shows the major G2G messaging systems related to each Identity Ontology, and which organisations are sharing “information” via these messaging systems.

UK-G2G-Systems-0.1.2

This diagram shows the “Identity Ontologies” represented by there underlining, and supporting, G2G messaging systems, and other end-point systems which had been connected up (or were due to connect up) by the start of 2006.

Obviously with subject matter is so large, and covering such a large IT eco-system, it has been necessary to abstract a certain level of detail out of this overview.

Aren’t the Departments, Organisation and Authorities already sharing information ?

Of course the UK Government shares massive amounts of data, much of it electronically, however the amount that is transmitted via G2G data exchanges, in a shared and common model, is much smaller (in number, if not volume) than the amount sent via point-to-point data exchanges.

The advantages of using a G2G system rather than relying on a large number of point-to-point data exchanges is that there is a significant reduction of effort in terms of connections and connection end-points which need to be built and maintained. It also allows the G2G communication to share frameworks such as error & exception handling, audit & traceability, security & inspection, and management information. These are very similar to the advantages found in Enterprise Application Integration (EAI).

Due to Deliver Shared Services Soon

Shows which organisations are due to share ‘information’ soon.

UK-G2G-Systems-0.1.3

So this diagram shows which end-points are due to connect into their respective G2G systems, and thus share data soon.

The differences between this and the previous diagram are striking and obvious, and is due to the proliferation of integration and data sharing which is occurring, and is due to take place, across the UK Government IT eco-system.

Supporting Network Infrastructure

Shows the network backbone – in context.

UK-G2G-Systems-0.1.4

Very similar to the last diagram – however shows there major sets of network infrastructure which underpin these messaging systems:

  • The Citizen Identity Ontology focused GSI2 network.
  • The Home Office related Police National Network (PNN3).
  • The NHS NHSnet (actually being superseded by the NHS National Network or N3).

Most Likely Shared Services Model

Shows which organisations are most likely to share “information”.

Based upon the previous analysis, this diagram gives the best prediction for which systems would be connecting soon. The renewed focus on the road transport network and the advances being put forward to enable portions of the road traffic pricing mechanisms bear out some of my predictions.

Since these diagrams were drawn up a number of departments have undergone significant changes, however much of this analysis is still valid.

That completes this part of my overview of UK Government G2G Messaging Sub-Systems.

Come back in the next couple of days for the second part – “Comparison of Major Messaging Sub-Systems in the UK Government”, looking in more detail at three of the largest UK G2G systems and contrasting them with each other.

UK Government G2G Messaging Sub-Systems

Just to say that over the next weeks posting’s I will be looking at UK Government Messaging Sub-Systems. ….. 5 Trackbacks

Sous-systèmes de transmission de messages dans le gouvernement Britannique

C’est la première partie d’une vue d’ensemble de trois parts des sous-systèmes BRITANNIQUES de transmission de messages du gouvernement G2G . …..

영국 정부에 있는 전갈 하부 조직

이것은 영국 정부 G2G 전갈 하부 조직 의 3개 부품 개관의 첫번째 부분이다. …..

De Subsystemen van het overseinen in de Britse Overheid

Dit is het eerste deel van een driedelig overzicht van de Subsystemen van het Britse Overseinen van de Overheid G2G . …..

Mitteilung-Subsysteme in der Britischen Regierung

Dieses ist das erste Teil eines Überblicks mit drei Teilen über BRITISCHE Mitteilung-Subsysteme der Regierungs-G2G . …..

Przesyłanie wiadomości Sub-Systems w the UK Rząd

To być the pierwszy część trzy część przegląd UK Rząd G2G Przesyłanie wiadomości Sub-Systems . …..

Subsistemas da mensagem no governo Britânico

Esta é a primeira parte de uma vista geral de três porções de subsistemas BRITÂNICOS da mensagem do governo G2G.

Especificamente este borne olha da “subsistemas mensagem no governo BRITÂNICO” e é uma vista geral do que sejam in place, do que não sejam, e como mim os classific.

Se você estêve envolvido com o governo, a instrução, e a saúde (GEH) ELE execuções sobre os últimos anos, você terá vindo sem dúvida através de alguns dos sistemas principais de G2G que foram desenvolvidos, e está continuando a amadurecer-se.

Desde que imediatamente antes que Tony Blair anunciou em linha BRITÂNICO em setembro de 2000, com uma garantia fornecer em linha todos os serviços governamentais em 2005, houve uns movimentos para a maior côoperação e uma junção que trabalha através do governo BRITÂNICO.

No Reino Unido nós fomos audição sobre “o governo Juntado-Acima” e “serviços compartilhados” por um número de anos. Os relatórios tais como a revisão de Gershon, a estratégia transformacional do governo e o Varney relatam toda a chamada para que departamentos governamentais e as organizações trabalhem junto para entregar mais capacidades e maiores economias.

Com esta movimentação para a maior coesão, nós vimos sistemas gravitar em torno do que eu chamo da “Ontologies identidade” – identidade como compreendida e utilizada por determinados organizações, departamentos e autoridades naturalmente agrupados do governo. A partilha da informação está sendo feita nos departamentos que têm uma afinidade natural para lá pares, baseados em torno destes Ontologies da identidade.

Para um número de razões, segurança da informação que está sendo trocada ser uma, privacidade e as liberdades civis que são outro, limitação da informação (pelo menos algumas dele) é, e continuará a ser, limitado através destes Ontologies.

Eu fui dito por Brian Woodford, ultimamente de Sun Microsystems Reino Unido, agora em Tata consultando e previamente no BT, que nos agrupamentos do BT similares a estes são chamados o governo BRITÂNICO as “comunidades do interesse” (COI), porém como nenhuns de meus contatos do BT podem confirmar, nem negam este, eu acredito-o para ser anedótico e apocryphal.

Ontologies da identidade

Este diagrama mostra da “os Ontologies principais identidade” na arena do Reino Unido GEH.

Purposefully não mostra:

  • Ontology da instrução – possivelmente um subconjunto do cidadão, embora atualmente estejam olhando um programa nacional que poderia igualmente abranger a partilha de dados através de um sistema de G2G.
  • Serviço de fogo (e serviços de urgências relacionados) – atualmente estes queda sob o mandato do departamento para as comunidades e o governo local (DfCLG), porém 2001 a 2006 tinham relatado no escritório do deputado primeiro ministro (ODPM), e antes de 2001 o escritório Home. Eu acredito que têm uma afinidade aos sistemas baseados do escritório Home G2G, embora relativo pesadamente àqueles das autoridades locais.
É muito provável lá pode ser outros Ontologies, porém dado as conversações me tiveram com um número altos funcionários públicos e de governo ELE profissionais que eu o acredito ser completamente inclusivo.Um dos artigos os mais interessantes é que o governo local e as autoridades conetam frequentemente a quase todos estes Ontologies.
Por que este material importa?Pela compreensão do governo total atual ELE paisagem, e pelos sistemas sob a obtenção nós podemos postular como o governo BRITÂNICO ELE paisagem pode se amadurecer e assim se “evoluir”. Um pouco do que estes sistemas evoluir no lugar, é minha opinião que pelo menos deve ser vigiada e planeado em uma maneira estratégica por um departamento governamental responsável, tal como o Conselho de CIO (conduzido pelo governo BRITÂNICO CIO, pelo Suffolk de John). Isto é muito ao longo das linhas o do alvo da arquitetura da empresa, e tem certamente um relacionamento ao planeamento da arquitetura da empresa.

Atualmente compartilhando de serviços

Mostra os sistemas de mensagem principais de G2G relativos a cada Ontology da identidade, e que organizações estão compartilhando da “informação” através destes sistemas de mensagem.

Este diagrama mostra da “os Ontologies identidade” representados lá sublinhando, e o apoio, de mensagem de G2G sistemas, e outros sistemas do valor-limite qual tinha sido conetado acima (ou eram devido conetar acima) pelo começo de 2006.

Obviamente com assunto é tão grande, e coberta tal grande ecossistema, ele foi necessário abstrair um determinado nível de detalhe fora desta vista geral.

Os departamentos, a organização e as autoridades já não estão compartilhando da informação?Naturalmente o governo do Reino Unido compartilha de quantidades maciças dos dados, muito dela eletronicamente, porém a quantidade que é transmitida através das trocas de dados de G2G, em um modelo compartilhado e comum, é muito menor (no número, se não no volume) do que a quantidade emitida através do ponto às trocas de dados do ponto.As vantagens de usar um sistema de G2G um pouco do que confiando em um grande número ponto para apontar trocas de dados são que há uma redução significativa do esforço nos termos das conexões e dos valores-limite da conexão que precisam de ser construídos e mantido. Igualmente permite que a comunicação de G2G compartilhe de estruturas tais como a manipulação do erro & de exceção, o exame & a rastreabilidade, a segurança & a inspeção, e a informação de gerência. Estes são muito similares às vantagens encontradas na integração da aplicação da empresa (EAI).

Devido entregar logo serviços compartilhados

Mostra que organizações são devido à informação do `da parte’ logo.

Assim este diagrama mostra que valores-limite são devidos conetar em seus sistemas respetivos de G2G, e compartilha assim de dados logo.

As diferenças entre esta e o diagrama precedente são impressionantes e óbvias, e são devido à proliferação da partilha da integração e de dados que está ocorrendo, e são devidas ocorrer, através do governo BRITÂNICO ELE ecossistema.

Infra-estrutura de rede de apoio

Mostra a espinha dorsal da rede – no contexto.

Muito similar ao último diagrama – entretanto mostra lá jogos principais da infra-estrutura de rede quais sustentam estes sistemas de mensagem:

  • A rede GSI2 focalizada Ontology da identidade do cidadão.
  • O escritório Home relacionou a rede nacional da polícia (PNN3).
  • O NHS NHSnet (realmente sendo substituído pela rede nacional de NHS ou pelo N3).

Modelo compartilhado mais provável dos serviços

Mostra que organizações são mais provável compartilhar da “informação”.

Baseado na análise precedente, este diagrama dá a melhor predição para que os sistemas estariam conetando logo. O foco renovado na rede de transportes da estrada, e os avanços que estão sendo propor para permitir parcelas dos mecanismos da fixação do preço do tráfego de estrada carregam para fora algumas de minhas predições.

Desde que estes diagramas foram elaborados um número de departamentos submeteram-se a mudanças significativas, porém muita desta análise é ainda válida.

Isso termina esta parte de minha vista geral de subsistemas BRITÂNICOS da mensagem do governo G2G.

Voltado nos pares de dias seguintes para a segunda parte – “comparação de subsistemas principais da mensagem no governo BRITÂNICO”, olhando mais detalhadamente em três dos sistemas os maiores do Reino Unido G2G e contrastando os um com o otro.

传讯子系统在英国政府

这是 英国政府G2G传讯子系统 三部分概要的第一个部分。 特别地这个岗位在英国政府看“传讯子系统”并且是什么到位,什么概要不是,并且我怎么分类了他们。 如果您介入了以政府、教育和健康(GEH)它在过去几年实施,您无疑遇到了被开发了的某些主要G2G系统和继续成熟。 因为,在托尼・布莱尔宣布了英国在网上在2000年之前9月,以在网上提供所有政府工作的承诺在2005年以前,有运作横跨英国政府的运动往更加伟大的合作和联接。 在英国我们是听力关于“被加入的政府”和“共有的服务”几年。. …..

Sottosistemi di messaggio nel governo Britannico

Ciò è la prima parte di una descrizione delle tre parti dei sottosistemi BRITANNICI di messaggio di governo G2G . …..

Messagingundersystem i UK regeringen

Denna är den första delen av en överblick för del tre av UK Messagingundersystem för regeringen G2G . …..

イギリスの政府のメッセージサブシステム

これは イギリスの政府G2Gのメッセージサブシステム の3部の概観の最初の部分である。 具体的にはこのポストはないものがの、そして私それらを分類したいかに、ものを設置されている「イギリスの政府のメッセージサブシステム」を見、概観にである。 政府、教育および健康(GEH)にそれここ数年にわたって実施かかわったら、間違いなく開発された出くわし、成熟し続けている主要なG2Gシステムのいくつかに。 . …..

Sub-Systems послания в UK правительстве

Это будет первая часть обзора 3 частей UK Sub-Systems послания правительства G2G . …..