The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”,
“SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in
this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
The notations and conventions used for the patterns in this
document are covered in section 1.7 below.
[RFC2119] S.
Bradner, Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt, IETF RFC 2119, March 1997.
[Alexander 1964] C. Alexander, Notes on the Synthesis of Form,
Harvard University Press, 1964
[Alexander 1979] C. Alexander, The Timeless Way of Building,
Oxford University Press, 1979
[Brown 2011] P. Brown, Introducing Pattern Languages,
http://peterfbrown.com/patternlanguages.aspx, March 2011.
[Coplien 1996] J. O. Coplien, Software Patterns,
Bell Laboratories, The Hillside Group 1996
[EIF] The European
Interoperability Framework, version 2, European Commission 2010, Annex 2 of
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0744:FIN:EN:PDF
[OIX] Open Identity Exchange, http://openidentityexchange.org/
[SFIA] The Skills Framework for the
Information Age, SFIA Foundation, http://www.sfia.org.uk/cgi-bin/wms.pl/932
[SOA-RAF] The SOA Reference Architecture
Framework, OASIS, http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=soa-rm
[SOA-RM] The Reference Model for
Service-Oriented Architecture, OASIS, http://docs.oasis-open.org/soa-rm/v1.0/
[PMRM] The Privacy Management Reference
Model, OASIS, http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=pmrm
[TGF-Primer] Transformational Government Framework Primer, 17 March
2011. OASIS Committee Note Draft 01 http://docs.oasis-open.org/tgf/TGF-Primer/v1.0/TGF-Primer-v1.0.docx
The text in the remainder of this section 1
Introduction is for information only and is neither normative nor part
of the TGF Pattern Language.
Transformational Government is defined in the Framework as
“A managed process of ICT-enabled change in the public sector, which puts the
needs of citizens and businesses at the heart of that process and which
achieves significant and transformational impacts on the efficiency and
effectiveness of government.” This definition deliberately avoids describing
some perfect “end-state” for government. That is not the intent of the
Transformational Government Framework.
Rather, the focus is on the process
of transformation: how a government can build a new way of working which
enables it rapidly and efficiently to adapt to changing citizen needs and
emerging political and market priorities. Central to this process is a strong
emphasis on leadership and governance as well as an
active role played by all stakeholders in the creation, delivery
and use of government services.
Whereas the [TGF-Primer] is intended primarily as a
detailed and comprehensive introduction to the Framework, the TGF Pattern
Language is intended as a working reference manual and tool of the main concerns
that the Framework covers. It is intended to be readable end-to-end as a piece
of prose but is structured also in a way that lends itself to being quoted and
used pattern by pattern and to being encapsulated in more formal, tractable,
and machine-processable forms including concept maps, Topic Maps, RDF or OWL.
The idea of Pattern Languages, as a process for analyzing
recurrent problems and a mechanism for capturing those problems and archetypal
solutions, was first outlined by architect Christopher Alexander [Alexander
1964] and [Alexander 1979]: “The value of a Pattern Language is that remains
readable and engaging whilst providing basic hooks for further machine
processing… [it] is not an ‘out-of-the-box’ solution but rather some ‘familiar’
patterns with which a team can work” [Brown 2011].
Each pattern in a pattern language is expressed essentially
as a three-part rule:
The context in which a
particular problem arises (the ex-ante condition) and in which the pattern is
intended to be used;
The ‘system of forces’ or problem
to be solved and that includes the drivers, constraints and concerns that
the pattern is intended to address – Alexander highlighted that this ‘system’
often involved conflicting forces (for example, an architect’s desire
confronted with a material limitation) that the pattern should seek to resolve;
The ‘configuration’ or solution.
The exact configuration will vary from one pattern language
to another but each pattern in the TGF Pattern Language will be structured as
follows:
The name of the pattern and
a reference number
An introduction that sets
the context and, optionally, indicates how the pattern contributes to a larger
pattern
A headline statement that
captures the essence of the problem being addressed
The body of the problem
being addressed as well as constraints and evidence for the pattern’s validity
The solution stated as an
instruction or instructions – what needs to be done
Optionally, some completion
notes that links the pattern to related and more detailed patterns that further
implement or extend the current pattern. This may also include references to external
resources that are not part of the standard
The patterns of the TGF Pattern Language are grouped
together and organized into a series of sections, corresponding to the
high-level structure of the Transformational Government Framework.
Some patterns may be used in more than one part of the
overall Framework but will only be outlined completely once, when first
encountered. Thereafter, reference will be made back to its original
definition.
Below is an example of a pattern together with comments
about the notation and conventions used.
Note: The example is not a pattern that is
part of the TGF Pattern Language as it was drafted from an early proof of
concept. It is strictly informative.
[1]
Collaborative Stakeholder
Governance
It
is a core responsibility of the [22] Transformational
Government Leadership and stakeholders together to design and deliver
a [5] Benefit Realisation Strategy. The [29] Business Management Framework provides
guidance on six key aspects of business management including collaboration
between stakeholders. Both [21] Strategic
Clarity and [24] Stakeholder
Engagement ensure that stakeholder views are clear and understood;
and effective [38] Policy Product Management
helps ensure that they share a common understanding of TG program expectations,
including the [2] Guiding Principles.
v v
v
The TG program
requires a process by which all key stakeholders are identified, engaged and
buy-in to the transformation program.
Development and delivery of an
effective Transformational Government program requires engagement with a very
wide range of stakeholders, not only across the whole of government but also
with the private sector, voluntary and community sectors as well as with
business and citizen users of public services. A significant effort is needed
to include all stakeholders in the governance of the Transformational Government
program at an appropriate and effective level.
The Collaborative Stakeholder Governance Model assists a TG
program to engage successfully with stakeholders and align them effectively
behind shared objectives. It does this through stakeholder mapping and stakeholder
engagement as well as keeping an eye open to potential or required cooperation
with TG programs of other governments and agencies.
Therefore:
A conformant TG program must have
a Collaborative Stakeholder Governance Model as part of its overall business
management.
This model must explicitly articulate a comprehensive
stakeholder map, coupled with the structures, processes and incentives needed
to deliver full understanding and buy-in to the program, plus effective
stakeholder action in support of it.
Tooling should be provided with
the aim of supporting all stakeholders and facilitating their collaboration as
partners in the TG Franchise Marketplace.
v v
v
Stakeholder
collaboration is further aided by a [37] Common
Terminology and Reference Model and more specifically an up-to-date
mapping of stakeholders depicted in a [63]
Stakeholder Model, and their engagement through the [74] Stakeholder Engagement Model; in addition
to a clear understanding of how they form part of the TG [58] Ecosystem and contribute to [75] Interoperability. Stakeholders also play
key roles in the development of the [39]
Franchise Marketplace Model.
In the increasingly common situation of governments being
expected to deliver better and more services for less cost whilst maintaining
high-level oversight and governance, the Transformational Government Framework
provides a methodology for designing and delivering an effective program of
technology-enabled change at all levels of government.
The Transformational Government Framework (TGF) is made up
of four high-level components that can be seen schematically below:
Figure 1 - The Overall Framework
The patterns in the TGF Pattern Language mostly cover the
core delivery processes, “topped and tailed” by patterns concerned with Guiding
Principles and Critical Success Factors.
The Transformational Government Framework is made up of a
core of 20 patterns, starting and ending with high level concerns, Guiding
Principles and Critical Success Factors.
[1]
Guiding Principles
A one size-fits-all approach to government
transformation will not work. There are nevertheless some guiding principles
which are universal and help inform the delivery of services.
v v
v
A management hand on the tiller is not enough to deliver
effective transformation.
“Transformational Government” is a managed process of
ICT-enabled change in the public sector, which puts the needs of citizens and
businesses at the heart of that process and which achieves significant and
transformational impacts on the efficiency and effectiveness of government.
However, even the most well intentioned and effectively governed program can
drift off course without clear direction provided by explicit and
well-publicized guiding principles.
Therefore:
Use a set of high-level guiding principles
that cover as a minimum the need to:
-
Develop a detailed and segmented
understanding of your citizen and business customers;
-
Build services around customer needs, not
organizational structure;
-
Ensure citizen service transformation is
done with citizens, not to them;
-
Grow the market;
-
Manage and measure key critical success
factors.
v v
v
See also “Part II, Component 1: Guiding Principles” in [TGF
Primer].
Delivering these principles, in line with the Critical
Success Factors, involves re-inventing every stage of the service delivery
process. The Transformational Government Framework identifies four main
delivery processes, each of which must be managed in a government-wide and
citizen-centric way in order to deliver effective transformation. Most of the
following patterns are concerned with the delivery processes and are presented
in four sections :
·
Section 2.1 Business Management
·
Section 2.2 Customer Management
·
Section 2.3 Channel Management; and
·
Section 2.4 Technology Management
Patterns [2] to [19] below cover these four delivery
mechanisms.
The core set of TGF patterns is completed by the key [20] Critical Success Factors.
[2]
Program Leadership
Transformation programs require strategic
clarity and sustained leadership over a period of years.
v v
v
There is no “ideal” leadership structure
for a transformation program. Transformational government cannot be pursued on
a project-by-project or agency-specific basis but requires a
whole-of-government view.
The transformational government program
needs to connect up relevant activities in different agencies at different
levels of government within and between countries. All program stakeholders
have a common, agreed and comprehensive view of what the program is seeking to
achieve.
The optimal positioning of the leadership
team will depend on the context of each specific government. Key functions
should be occupied by individuals with sufficient authority to command the
resources and mobilize the support necessary to fulfill this mission. Effective
leadership of a program requires the senior accountable leaders to have access
to a mix of key skills in the leadership team which they build around them,
including: strategy development skills, stakeholder engagement skills,
marketing skills, commercial skills and technology management skills. It is not
essential that all Ministers and senior management are committed to the
transformation program from the outset. Indeed, a key feature of an effective
roadmap for transformation is that it nurtures and grows support for the
strategy through the implementation process. However, it is important that the
program is seen not simply as a centralized or top-down initiative. Sharing
leadership roles with senior colleagues across the Government organization is
important.
Therefore:
Have a clear vision based on an All-of-Government view and
focus on results.
Focus on taking concrete,
practical steps in the short to medium term, rather than continually describing
the long-term vision.
Whether a political leader or senior management, commit
to the program for the long term. This is particularly relevant given the
realities of changing political leadership and underlines the need for
continuity across those changes.
Establish clear accountability at
both the political and administrative levels of the program.
Deploy formal program management
disciplines and have a clearly identified mix of leadership skills.
Engage a broad-based leadership
team across the wider government.
Ensure the Program’s
interoperability with other services and programs through appropriate
Government-to-Government cooperation.
v v
v
Establish a strong Business Case and know what outcomes you
want to achieve, know where you are now and how you will measure success. These
are amongst several [20] Critical Success Factors and which are further detailed in Part II of the [TGF Primer].
The private, voluntary and
community sectors have considerable influence on citizen attitudes and
behavior. These influences must be transformed into partnerships which enable
the market to deliver program objectives. This requires a “map” of all
stakeholders as part of overall business management.
v v
v
It is not enough to map and understand
stakeholder relationships and concerns. Classic
models of ‘actor’ and ‘stakeholder’ also need to be re-assessed
Leaders from all parts of the government organization, as
well as other organizations involved in the program, are motivated for the
program to succeed and are engaged in clear and collaborative governance
mechanisms to manage any risks and issues. The development and
delivery of an effective Transformational Government program requires
engagement with a very wide range of stakeholders, not only across the whole of
government but also with the private sector, voluntary and community sectors as
well as with business and citizen users of public services. A significant
effort is needed to include all stakeholders in the governance of the
Transformational Government program at an appropriate and effective level.
The generic concept of ‘User’ that is
dominant in traditional IT stakeholder engagement models needs to be replaced
by a model that disambiguates and identifies the different interests and
concerns that are at stake as well as the key groups of stakeholders in the
development of any service. By clearly separating out key stakeholder groups
and starting to recognize and articulate their specific concerns as stakeholders
(any individual’s role may vary according to context), an understand
can evolve of how stakeholders relate (in different roles): to each other; to
various administrations and services involved; to policy drivers and
constraints; and how these all come together in a coherent ecosystem supported
by a Transformational Government Framework.
Therefore:
Put a Collaborative Stakeholder
Governance Model in place that ensures that all stakeholders are identified and
engaged; and that they buy-in to the transformation program.
Create a Stakeholder Engagement
Model that ensures that there are adequate Stakeholder Engagement Structures, Stakeholder
Engagement Processes and Stakeholder Incentives in place.
Have a clear understanding both of
the transformational government program as well as how to engage with it,
irrespective of stakeholder role – as user, supplier, delivery partner
elsewhere in the public, private and voluntary sector, politician, the media,
etc.
Develop a comprehensive
stakeholder map, coupled with the structures, processes and incentives
needed to deliver full understanding and buy-in to the program, plus effective
stakeholder action in support of it.
Model the
stakeholders, actors and systems that comprise the overall service ecosystem
and their relationships to each other. Maintain and update the stakeholder
model on a regular basis.
v v
v
There is no single, correct model for doing
this successfully, but any conformant TGF program needs to make sure that it
defines its own Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement Model which explicitly
articulates all of these elements: map all stakeholders, coupled with the
structures, processes and incentives needed to deliver full understanding and
buy-in to the program, plus effective stakeholder action in support of it.
Map All Stakeholders and maintain this map as part of
overall business management. The development of successful Customer Franchises
within the [7] Franchise Marketplace will depend on the
effectiveness of collaborative governance.
See also “The Stakeholder Engagement Model” in Part III(a)
(“Guidance on the TGF Business Management Framework”) of the [TGF Primer]
In any change program of the breadth and complexity that the
TGF supports, it is vital that all stakeholders have a common understanding of
the key concepts involved and how they interrelate, and have a common language
to describe these in.
v v
v
Leadership and communication both break down when
stakeholders understand and use terms and concepts in very different ways,
leading to ambiguity, misunderstanding and, potentially, loss of stakeholder
engagement.
Concepts do not exist in isolation. In
addition to clear definitions and agreed terms, It is the broader understanding
of the relationships between concepts that give them fuller meaning and allow
us to model our world, our business activities, our stakeholders, etc. in a way
that increases the chance that our digital systems are an accurate reflection
of our work.
Therefore:
Ensure that all stakeholders have a
clear, consistent and common understanding of the key concepts involved in
Transformational Government; how these concepts relate to each other; how they
can be formally modelled; and how such models can be leveraged and integrated
into new and existing information architectures. To this end:
Seek agreement among stakeholders to establish and
maintain an agreed and shared Common Terminology and Reference Model.
v v
v
This enables any conformant agency to use a
common terminology without ambiguity and be sure that these terms are used
consistently throughout all work.
A core terminology is proposed in the [TGF
Primer] and any program should consider this as a basis for their own
terminology and reference model.
In any
government, “Policy Products” - that is, the written policies, frameworks and
standards which inform government activity - are important drivers of change.
In the context of Transformational Government, the [2] TGF Program
Leadership will use a wide set of Policy Products to help deliver the
program.
v v
v
Traditional policy approaches for e-government have often
been too narrowly focused. An effective Transformational Government program
requires a more holistic approach to policy development.
We define a "Policy Product" as: any document
which has been formally adopted on a government-wide basis in order to help
achieve the goals of citizen service transformation. These documents vary in
nature (from statutory documents with legal force, through mandated policies,
to informal guidance and best practice) and in length (some may be very lengthy
documents; others just a few paragraphs of text).
Over recent years, several governments have published a wide
range of Policy Products as part of their work on e-Government, including
e-Government Visions, e-Government Strategies, e-Government Interoperability
Frameworks, and Enterprise Architectures. Other governments are therefore able
to draw on these as reference models when developing their own Policy
Products. However, we believe that the set of Policy Products required to
ensure that a holistic, government -wide vision for transformation can be
delivered is much broader than is currently being addressed in most
Interoperability Frameworks and Enterprise Architectures.
This more holistic approach is captured in the matrix shown
below, which MUST be used to create a map of all the Policy Products needed to
deliver a particular TGF program effectively. This matrix maps the four
delivery processes of the TGF (Business Management, Customer Management,
Channel Management and Technology Management) against five broad
interoperability domains identified in the [EIF] (technical, semantic,
organizational, legal, and policy interoperability). While the EIF framework is
conceptually complete, mapping it against these core delivery processes
provides a much clearer sense of the actions needed.
Therefore:
Use the following matrix to
classify the Policy Products:
|
Delivery Processes
|
Interoperability
Levels
|
|
Political
|
Legal
|
Organizational
|
Semantic
|
Technical
|
|
Business
Management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer
Management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Channel
Management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Technology
Management
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identify, for each and every cell in the matrix, the
policy product(s) that are needed to deliver the Transformational Program
effectively. More than one policy product may be required per cell but every
cell MUST be completed.
v v
v
The [2] TGF Program Leadership should undertake this
policy gap analysis through the [3] Collaborative Stakeholder Model,
and then ensure that the accountability and process for developing any missing
Policy Products is embedded within the [10] Roadmap for Transformation.
Examples of policy products that can be found to populate
the cells of the matrix can be found in ‘Policy Product Management’ in Part
III(a) of the [TGF Primer].
There is a seeming paradox between
keeping “global” oversight of all aspects of a customer’s needs at the same
time as delivering well-targeted services which implies continual structural
reorganization.
v v
v
Too many government departments and agencies have
overlapping but partial information about citizens but nobody takes a lead
responsibility for owning and managing that information. There is a tendency to
reorganize government structures to reflect every change in service delivery
Government transformation programs typically involve a shift
from silo-based delivery towards an integrated, multi-channel, citizen-centric
service delivery platform offering "one stop" government. Developing
such a service requires a clear end-to-end service definition: a comprehensive
documentation describing the product which will be offered to citizens.
Therefore:
Establish a Transformational Business Model that
encourages internal cultural change.
Build services around citizen and business customer
needs, not organizational structure. This will include providing people
with one place to access government, built around their needs (such as
accessibility).
Do not spend money on technology before addressing
organizational and business change and do not re-invent wheels.
Build a cross-government strategy for common citizen data
sets and common citizen applications (e.g. authentication, payments,
notifications).
v v
v
This pattern is essential in order to enable personal data
under citizen control.
Rather than attempting to restructure Government, “Customer
franchises" MAY be built - using the [7] Franchise Marketplace - which sit within the existing structure of government and
act as change agents. Multi-channel delivery of services can be provided through
optimized [17] Channel Transformation. Common citizen data
sets can be built as shared services with personal data under citizen control
and managed using [19] Technology Development and Management.
A central task of the [2] TGF leadership and the [3]
Collaborative Stakeholder Model is to develop a [6] Transformational
Business Model which enables the machinery of government to deliver
citizen-centric services in practice.
v v v
It has arguably been the failure to address the need for
a new business model that has been the greatest weakness of most traditional e‑Government
programs.
What best practices exist which governments can draw on to
address this requirement in a proven and low-risk way?
For the most part, the transition to e‑Government has
involved overlaying technology onto the existing business model of government:
a business model based around unconnected silos - in which policy-making,
budgets, accountability, decision-making and service delivery are all embedded
within a vertically-integrated delivery chain based around specific government
functions. The experience of governments around the world over the last two
decades is that this simply does not work. Many attempts have been made by
governments to introduce greater cross-government coordination, but largely
these have been "bolted on" to the underlying business model, and
hence experience only limited success.
We recommend implementation of a business model which has
been adopted successfully in governments as diverse as the UK, Hong Kong,
Croatia, Abu Dhabi and Australia (where it has been adopted by both the South
Australia and Queensland governments). Called the “Franchise Marketplace”,
the model permits the joining-up of services from all parts of government and
external stakeholders in a way that makes sense to citizens and businesses, yet
without attempting to restructure the participating parts of government.
Key features of this
business model are:
·
It puts into place a number of agile,
cross-government, virtual "franchise businesses" based around
customer segments (such as, for example, parents, motorists, disabled people).
These franchises are responsible for gaining full understanding of their
customers' needs so that they can deliver quickly and adapt to changing
requirements over time in order to deliver more customer centric services -
which in turn, is proven to drive higher service take-up and greater customer
satisfaction.
·
It provides a risk-averse operational structure
that enables functionally-organized government agencies at national, regional
and local to work together in a customer-focused "Delivery
Community". They do this by :
-
Enabling government to create a
"virtual" delivery structure focused on customer needs
-
Operating across the existing structure of
Government (because the Customer Franchises are led by one of the existing
"silos") and resourced by organizations that have close links with
the relevant customer segment including, possibly, some outside of government
-
Dividing the task into manageable chunks
-
Removing a single point of failure
-
Working to a new and precisely-defined
operating model so as to ensure consistency
-
Working across and beyond government to manage
the key risks to citizen-centric service delivery
-
Acting as change agents inside Government
departments / agencies.
·
The model enables a "mixed economy"
of service provision:
-
firstly, by providing a clear market framework
within which private and voluntary sector service providers can repackage
public sector content and services; and
-
secondly by deploying ‘Web 2.0’ type approaches
across government that promote re-use and ‘mash-ups’ of existing content and
services, to make this simpler and cheaper at a technical level.
·
The whole model is capable of being delivered
using Cloud Computing
Therefore:
Use the Franchise Marketplace model, building a virtual
business layer of “customer franchises” which sit inside the existing structure
of government and which
a) deliver user-centric, trusted and interoperable
content and transactions to citizens and businesses; and
b) act as champions of and drivers for citizen-centric
service improvement within the government.
v v v
The Franchise Marketplace is a specific example of a [6]
Transformation Business Model and is considered as the most effective and
lowest risk way of delivering the element of the [1] TGF Guiding Principles
which requires Transformation Programs to “Build services around customer
needs, not organizational structure”.
Implementing a Transformational
Government program and establishing [12] Brand-Led Service Delivery involves taking a holistic, market-driven approach
to service design and delivery, which in turn often requires new skills. Part
of the responsibility of [2] Program Leadership is to ensure that program leaders have the skills needed to drive all aspects of
the program. This focus on skills has of course to be part of an effective HR
Management discipline.
v v
v
Governments generally lack the key skills to manage
service development. Where they do exist there is often reliability on a small
number of individuals with no continuity plans in place for when those
individuals are either absent for any reason or leave the team.
We know that the full range of business change, product and
marketing management, program management, and technology skills needed to
deliver transformational change does not already exist in our organization.
Many of the policy products required for the
Transformational Government program will take us into new territory and it is
unlikely that we will all the skills necessary to develop these in-house.
Therefore:
Ensure the right skills mix is
available to the program, particularly in the leadership team but also
throughout the whole delivery team.
Map out the required skills
together with a clear strategy for acquiring them and a continuity plan for maintaining
them.
Be prepared to buy-in or borrow
the necessary skills in the short term to fill any gaps.
Ensure that the program
leaders, i.e. the senior accountable leaders, have the skills needed to drive
ICT-enabled business transformation, and have access to external support.
Ensure there is skills integration
and skills transfer by having effective mechanisms to maximize value from the
skills available in all parts of the delivery team, bringing together
internal and external skills into an integrated team.
v v
v
The development of a Transformation
Competency Framework is a good way of producing a taxonomy of the competencies
required to deliver ICT-enabled transformation, which should then be
underpinned by tools enabling organizations to assess their competency gaps and
individuals to build their own personal development plans. Deployment of a formal competency framework such as [SFIA]
can be helpful in identifying and building the right skill sets. As an
example see the UK’s eGovernment Competency Framework which is available at www.civilservice.gov.uk/my-civil-service/networks/professional/it/framework.aspx
.
See also [5] Policy Product Management and [20]
Critical Success Factors.
Governments rely heavily on
suppliers to deliver large parts of their services. These suppliers are usually
external organizations but they can also be other internal parts of government.
The management of supplier relationships needs to sit above the management of
individual contracts and it is important that distinction is fully understood
by all parties.
v v
v
Transformational Government programs
require effective, partnership-based relationships with suppliers.
Supplier partnerships should set
out a formalized and robust way of managing, monitoring and developing supplier
performance whilst at the same time minimizing risks to the business. They
focus on the overall relationship with suppliers rather than the specific
relationship around an individual contract.
Successful supplier partnerships require specific skills
sets to effectively manage the relationship. Attention should be given to this
as part of the wider focus on ensuring the requisite skills are available to
the program.
Therefore:
Select
suppliers based on long-term value for money rather than price, and in
particular based on the degree of confidence that the chosen suppliers
will secure delivery of the expected business benefits.
Manage
the relationship with strategic suppliers at the level of top management on
both sides of the partnership with joint responsibility for the success of the
program.
Resolve
issues on a regular (e.g. daily) basis rather than as part of regular schedule
partnership review meetings.
Look for
pragmatic solutions to problems and opportunities for improvement within the
overall relationship without contravening any particular contract.
Ensure
client/supplier integration into an effective program delivery team with shared
management information systems.
Ensure
there is always a win-win situation for both sides of the partnership.
v v
v
A good example of Supplier
Management Guidelines is available at: www.ogc.gov.uk/contract_management_strategic_supplier_management.asp
See also the [3] Engagement with Stakeholders, [7]
Skills and [8] Franchise Marketplace.
It is essential that the vision
of the [2] Program Leadership, and the associated [6] Transformation
Business Model and process of [5] Policy Product Management are
translated into an effective Roadmap for Transformation. This should not be
some all-encompassing master plan – which tends to be brittle and prone to
failure – but a pragmatic framework for delivering clearly identifiable results
in achievable stages.
v v
v
Big-bang approaches don’t work
Since everything can clearly not be done at once, it is
vital to map out which elements of the transformation program need to be
started immediately, which can be done later, and in what order. The "big
bang" approach to implementation has been shown not to work or be
effective. By its nature it is heavily reliant on significant levels of
simultaneous technological and organizational change. Instead, a
transformational government program will develop a phased delivery roadmap
which balances quick wins with the key steps needed to drive longer term
transformation.
Therefore:
Establish a phased Transformation Roadmap.
Work with citizens and businesses to
identify a set of services which will bring quick user value.
Give priority to services which can be
delivered quickly, at low cost, and low risk using standard (rather than
bespoke) solutions.
Establish systems to learn from early
customer experience, to improve services in the light of this, and then to
drive higher levels of take-up.
Work with early adopters within the
government organization in order to create exemplars and internal champions and
thus learn from experience and drive longer-term transformation.
v v
v
The [TGF Primer] gives further details of best
practices for planning and delivering a Transformation Roadmap. In particular,
it sets out a Strategic Trade-off Model which can be helpful in guiding the
focus of the [2] Program Leadership through the course of
the transformation program as it evolves. It also describes the typical
structure of a best practice Transformation Roadmap, covering five main phases:
Plan, Initiate, Deliver, Consolidate,Transform.
The Transformation Roadmap should be pursued with due
attention to risk management, and should therefore include checkpoints at key
stages to allow regular, independent review of performance against the [20] Critical Success Factors.
[11] Benefits realization
No program has any value if it
does not or cannot deliver what has been promised. Benefits Realisation is therefore
a core responsibility for the [2] Program Leadership.
v v
v
All intended benefits need to be delivered in practice, and
this will not happen without pro-active benefits management.
Many organizations often fail pro-actively to manage the
downstream benefits after an individual ICT project or program has been
completed. Often, ICT programs are seen as “completed” once the
technical implementation is initially operational. Yet in order to reap the
full projected benefits (efficiency savings, customer service improvements
etc.), on‑going management is essential, often involving significant
organizational and cultural changes. The Transformational Government Framework
does not seek to specify in detail what benefits and impacts a Transformational
Government program should seek to achieve – that is a matter for each
individual government. However, the TGF does set out a best practice approach
to benefit realization.
Therefore:
Establish a
benefits realization strategy to ensure that the intended benefits from the Transformational
Government program are delivered in practice. Build that strategy around the
three pillars of Benefit Mapping, Benefit Tracking and Benefit Delivery:
·
Set out all the intended outcomes from the
transformation program and be clear how the outputs from specific activities
and investments in the program flow through to deliver those outcomes;
·
Baseline current performance against the
target output and outcomes, define “smart” success criteria for future
performance, and track progress against planned delivery trajectories aimed at achieving these
success criteria; and
·
Ensure that
governance arrangements are in place to ensure clear accountabilities for the
delivery of every intended outcome.
v v
v
See also Component 4 (“Benefits realization Strategy”) of
the [TGF Primer] for further details. The benefits realization strategy
should be a formal document, developed as part of the [5] Policy Product
Management process and in collaboration with [3] Engagement with
Stakeholders. Benefits realization is an integral part of the [20] Critical Success Factors, and review of progress
against the benefits realization strategy should be part of the checkpoint
process recommended therein.
[12] Brand-Led Service Delivery
Insight into citizen and business
needs helps develop a detailed and segmented understanding of citizens and
businesses as customers of government services.
v v
v
A lack of focus on users often leads to duplicated and
inefficient government services delivered through inappropriate channels.
Understanding user needs, and how to design and deliver
services that users will engage with, is a discipline in which governments lag
behind the best of the private sector.
In a brand-led company, customer insight informs all aspects
of the product development process, and involves a comprehensive program of
qualitative and quantitative research to understand and segment the customer
base. Lessons learned from this are fed into a brand-led product management process
- not as a one-off input of initial research, but through a continuous process
of iterative design and customer testing. A key output from this is a set of
brand values for the product or service, which then need to drive all aspects
of service delivery, and marketing communications for the service. And this is
all managed as an iterative process of continuous improvement, not a linear
one.
This is not typically how governments manage their own
service development, and governments generally lack the skills to do it. Yet if
governments are to succeed in the ambition of shifting service delivery
decisively away from traditional channels to lower-cost digital channels, then
these marketing challenges have to be met.
Therefore:
Establish a culture of Brand-led Service Delivery across
government, based around three key pillars of Customer Insight, Product
Management, and Marketing and Communication:
·
Customer Insight: Don’t assume to know what users of a service
think. Be obsessive about understanding the needs of customers – both internal
and external – on a segmented basis. Invest in developing a real-time,
event-level understanding of citizen and business interactions with government.
·
Product management: Establish a brand-led product management
process covering all stages of government service design and delivery, agreed
and managed at a whole-of-government level, which gives citizens access to
services through a "one-stop" service available over multiple
channels.
·
Marketing and communication: Use the brand values for one-stop
government to drive all aspects of marketing and communications for government
services.
v v
v
Often, governments may face significant gaps in terms of the
people and skills needed to manage brand-led product development and marketing
cycles of this nature, so identifying and addressing these gaps as part of the [8] Skills strategy is vital. It is also vitally important that the drive
to brand-led service delivery is led at a whole-of-government level: the
element of the [1] Guiding Principles which points to the need to “own
the customer at the whole-of-government” level is therefore of particular
significance for this pattern. The cultural change required by brand-led
service delivery will be facilitated and accelerated through [13] Citizen
Empowerment.
Many e-Government programs have
failed because the citizen is seen as simply a passive recipient of services
rather than an actor in their design and delivery.
v v
v
Citizen Service transformation is done with citizens,
not to them
The focus of a Transformational Government program is on
citizens and businesses and not just on the narrower idea of “customer” as a
passive consumer. Citizens and businesses are engaged as owners of and
participants in the creation of public services.
Therefore:
Engage citizens directly in
service design and delivery.
Encourage and enable service
innovation in the Citizen-to-Citizen, Business-to-Citizen,
Citizen-to-Government, and Business-to-Government sectors.
Give citizens the technology tools
that enable them to create public value themselves and give them ownership and
control of their personal data.
Make all non-personal government
data freely open for reuse and innovation by citizens and third parties.
v v
v
Encourage internal cultural change with the [6] Transformational Business Model as well as through [3] Engagement with Stakeholders by use of a [7] Franchise Marketplace.
A key element of the [1] TGF
Guiding Principles is that “Citizen Service transformation is done with
citizens, not to them”. One of the consequences of this is that an effective
identity management strategy needs to give citizens ownership and control of
their personal data.
v v v
Identity management is a key enabler of effective service
delivery, yet something with which most governments struggle. At the heart of
that struggle is often a failure to put the citizen at the center of
government's thinking about identity.
Identity is a complex, and by definition deeply personal,
concept. A single citizen in fact has multiple, overlapping "identities,
each of which may be associated with different rights and permissions, even
different addresses. These identities overlap, but in some cases the citizen
may want to keep them separate in order to protect his or her privacy. At other
times, the citizen may want them to be joined up, and be frustrated at
constantly having to furnish government with the same information over and over
again. Governments have often struggled to manage this complexity, for reasons
described in [TGF Primer].
A wide range of agencies, standards bodies and advocacy
groups are deeply involved in many aspects of the work needed to resolve these
problems, from technical models for privacy management (such as the OASIS [PMRM])
through to the business, legal and social issues around online identity
assurance (such as promoted by [OIX]). It is not the purpose of the
Transformational Government Framework to address the details of identity management
but rather to give high-level guidance on the main issues that a conformant
program should seek to address - based on a set of best practices which is
emerging around the world and which we believe represents a way forward for
citizen service transformation, which is broadly applicable across a very wide
range of governments.
Therefore:
Establish a Citizen Identity Management Framework and
within this:
-
Have a business architecture based on
federation between a wide range of trusted organizations (the Government,
banks, employers etc.), and a clear model for cross-trust between these
organizations;
-
Use a supporting technology architecture
which does not rely on monolithic and potentially vulnerable large databases
but which, in line with the SOA paradigm, uses Internet-based gateway services
to act as a broker between the different databases and IT systems of
participants in the federated trust model;
-
Place citizens themselves directly in
control of their own data, able to manage their own relationship with
government – whether on their own behalf as citizens or in another identity
relationship or intermediated role – and with clearly visible controls to
reassure them that this is the case.
v v v
Further
details about this Citizen-Centric Identity Management approach are described
in [TGF Primer]. No one Government has implemented all features of this
approach, but all are being successfully deployed around the world, and
together they represent our view of the approach to identity management which will
best help deliver Transformational Government. This pattern is important in
order to deliver integrated, citizen-centric services as part of a [6] Transformational Business Model and the [7] Franchise Marketplace, as well as to enable the citizen-led
service innovation envisaged by [13] Citizen Empowerment. At a technology level, the approach is underpinned by the SOA-based [19] Technology Development and Management.
[15] Channel Management Framework
Government services to citizens
and businesses are delivered through a wide range of channels. One of the core
aims of a Transformational Government program is to ensure that these channels
are managed in the most cost-effective way at a whole-of-government level, and
meet the needs of citizens.
v v
v
Delivery of
services needs to be citizen-centric, with services accessible through both a
"one-stop" service and through a wide range of private and voluntary
sector intermediaries. The one-stop service should be offered over multiple
channels, but with clear policies to shift service users into lower-cost
digital channels (including a digital inclusion strategy to enable take-up of
digital services by those segments of the population currently unable or
unwilling to use them).
Channel management is often a
weak spot in government service delivery, with widespread duplication,
inefficiency and lack of user-focus. Experience has shown the common pitfalls
to include:
·
Managing new, digital
channels as "bolt-ons", with business and technical architectures
which are entirely separate from traditional face-to-face or paper-based
channels
·
No common view of
citizen service across multiple channels
·
Operational practices,
unit costs and service standards for many channels which fall well below
standards set for those channels in the private sector
·
A reliance on
government-owned channels, with insufficient understanding of how to partner
with private and voluntary sector organizations who have existing trusted
channels to government customers
·
Unproductive and costly competition among
service delivery channels
Transformational Government
programs seek to avoid these pitfalls, by building a channel management
approach centered on the needs and behavior of citizens and businesses.
Therefore:
Establish a Channel Management Framework, which includes:
·
a clear audit of
what existing channels are currently used to deliver government services, and
the costs and service levels associated with these (‘Channel Mapping’); and
·
the vision and
roadmap for developing a new channel management approach centered on the needs
and behavior of citizens and businesses (‘Channel Transformation’).
v v v
This pattern helps deliver
integrated, citizen-centric services as part of a [6] Transformation
Business Model and the [8] Franchise Marketplace, as well as to
enable the service innovation envisaged by [13] Citizen Empowerment.
It is extended by two further
patterns, [16] Channel Mapping and [17] Channel Transformation
Strategy.
[16]
Channel Mapping
A vital first step in developing
a [15] Channel Management Framework is to carry out a mapping of
existing delivery channels across government, and to put a cost to each
transaction delivered through these channels based on standard industry assumptions.
v v v
Government service delivery organizations often do not
have a clear and quantified understanding of which channels their customers
use, what the average and marginal costs of delivery through these channels is,
or how service levels and customer satisfaction vary by channel.
When government organizations carry out a full channel
mapping for the first time, a common finding is that much customer contact
between governments and citizens/businesses is:
·
unnecessary - because
the user is struggling to find the right place to get the service they need,
resulting in multiple contacts before their need is finally resolved
·
hidden and un-costed -
because only some of these customer contacts are caught by existing management
information systems. The rest are just lost within the broader operational
structure and budget of the organization.
And when channel mapping is undertaken at the
whole-of-government level, it typically highlights significant duplication across
government (for example: having multiple high-street locations in the same
town serving different government departments or agencies; thousands of contact
telephone numbers; hundreds or even thousands of web-sites). There is
significant scope for delivering both cost savings and service improvements by
joining government services together through channels managed on a shared
basis, and through channels managed by private and voluntary sector
intermediaries.
Therefore:
Establish a clear map of customer interactions by channel, and the true
costs of these, in order to provide essential data in both building the
business case for service transformation, and in highlighting priority areas
for reform.
Take a holistic approach to understanding the range of
channels through which government services are and could be delivered,
including both “Channel Mix” (that is, the physical type of channel being used,
including face-to-face, mail, e-mail, Internet and telephone) and also the
variety of "Channel Ownership" options which are available (including
service delivery through private and voluntary sector channels).
v v v
This pattern is needed to inform development of a [17]
Channel Transformation Strategy. Further details on how to set about
Channel Mapping can be found in Part III(c) of the [TGF Primer].
[17] Channel Transformation
The [15] Channel Management Framework requires a TGF
program not only to undertake [16] Channel Mapping of existing channel
usage and channel costs, but also to develop a Channel Transformation Strategy
which sets out the vision and roadmap for developing a new channel management
approach centered around the needs and behavior of citizens and businesses.
v v v
Government can learn a lot from the best of private
sector approaches to channel management, but also needs to recognize unique
challenges and opportunities which apply to channel management in the public
sector.
Once a full [16] Channel
Mapping has captured the current channel mix and cost base, it is important
to map out a strategy for the future desired channel mix, and the future
customer experience over different channels. Successful private-sector
businesses tend to be more effective at this than government. They understand
that each channel opens up different ways to create value for customers, so
they differentiate services across channels. They also take a hard-nosed
approach to channel management, with customers being encouraged to use the
channels that are most efficient from a business point of view. They also
realize that channel shift is a complicated process, which needs planning over
a multi-year period.
Transformational Government programs adopt a similar
approach, setting out clear strategies for channel transformation. Typically
though they recognize two distinct differences between the public and private
sector:
·
First, government has an obligation to provide
services on a universal basis, so is not able to pick and choose which
customers it will engage with through different channels. "Directed
choice" towards cheaper channels is therefore the strategy selected for
most citizen-facing services (although a number of governments are increasingly
looking to make Internet-only services the norm for businesses).
·
Second, in terms of the online channel,
government is in a unique position compared with any other online service
provider. Whereas an online bank or retailer is limited by the size of the
online population in the market, a government can take action significantly to
increase that online population. "Digital inclusion" policies, aimed
at increasing the proportion of citizens who have access to and confidence in
using online channels, are therefore an important part of government channel
strategies which would not normally be seen in their private-sector counterparts.
In addressing these issues, it is important to recognize
that government service delivery cannot be divorced from what is happening in
the broader market: the expectations of citizens and businesses are shaped by
their experiences of other services. Demand for e-services across society will
continue to grow while other market players (in the private, voluntary and
community sectors) will have a significant influence on citizen attitudes and
behavior.
Therefore:
Develop a Channel Transformation Strategy and within this:
·
Shift users where
possible to lower cost digital channels - including through digital inclusion
policies which build access to and demand for e-services in those segments of
the population which face barriers to their use;
·
Optimize the cost
and performance of each channel, using public and private sector benchmarks to
drive improvement;
·
Improve
cross-channel management, by building channel support services around a common,
web-based infrastructure in order both to improve customer service and reduce
costs;
·
Facilitate
development of a thriving mixed economy delivery of services;
·
Build partnerships
which enable the market and others to work with the government to deliver
jointly-owned objectives.
v v v
The Channel Transformation Strategy must be informed by [16]
Channel Mapping, and must address how to shift users into lower-cost
channels while maintaining and reinforcing [13] Citizen Empowerment.
The mixed economy of delivery of government services is developed with private
and voluntary sector intermediaries and SHOULD be addressed using the [8]
Franchise Marketplace pattern. A significant effort is needed to include all
stakeholders in the governance of the Transformational Government program at an
appropriate and effective level: see [3] Engagement with Stakeholders.
The key milestones and accountabilities for delivery of the Channel
Transformation Strategy should be embedded within the [10] Roadmap for
Transformation.
[18]
Resources Management
All too often, technology
resources are seen as a means to an end, artifacts that are used to accomplish
a particular problem at hand and thus something transient to be disposed of at
the end of a particular cycle. As systems become more complex and organizations
mature, resource re-use becomes ever more important and prevalent.
v v
v
Technology resources need to be managed as much as any
other resource.
Technology resources are increasingly re-used beyond the
scope of their original intended use. This is to be encouraged. However, in
order to be re-used effectively, resources need to be identified and managed by
explicitly designated owners and also be identifiable across ownership domains.
The ability to identify a resource is important in system
interactions, in order to determine such things as rights and authorizations,
as well as to understand what functions are being performed; what the results
mean. Within large-scale, SOA ecosystems, interactions take place across
ownership boundaries and the combination of interactions can be unpredictable.
Identifiers provide the means for all resources important to a given SOA system
to be unambiguously identifiable at any moment and in any interaction.
Establishing resource identity and subsequently managing
those resources and their identities thus become an important part technology
management.
Therefore:
Manage information and ICT system
resources as distinct, valued assets
Manage issues related to the
Identification, ownership, stewardship and usage policies for each asset type.
v v
v
Section 3.1.3 of the [SOA-RAF] looks at the issue of
resources and how they should be identified and managed.
[19]
Technology Development and Management
Technological change is more
rapid than organizational change and yet governments often find themselves locked-in
to particular technology solutions.
v v
v
Governments need to protect themselves against the
downside of technology evolution and maintain governance of ICT development and
deployment
Transformational Government needs a strategic IT platform to guarantee future agility as business and customer priorities
change. Such a platform cannot afford to be locked-in to specific technologies
or solutions that prevent or limit such agility.
Therefore:
Concentrate
technology resources and efforts around leveraging open standards and SOA
Principles so as to ensure development and deployment agility, and support all
customer interactions, from face-to-face interactions by frontline staff to
online self-service interactions.
Use the Reference Model for
Service-Oriented Architecture [SOA-RM] as the primary source for core concepts and definitions of the SOA
paradigm. Have a clear understanding of the goals, motivations and requirements
that any SOA-based system is intended to address. Identify boundaries of
ownership of all components in any SOA ecosystem.
Realize discrete
services that can perform work on behalf of other parties. Use common
building blocks that can be re-used to enable flexible and adaptive use of
technology to react quickly to changing customer needs and demands. Have clear service descriptions and contracts for any capability
that is offered for use by another party.
Manage key ICT building blocks as
government-wide resources and make them available as shared services - in
particular common data sets (e.g. name, address); common citizen applications
(e.g. authentication, payments, notifications); and core ICT infrastructure.
Wherever possible prefer interoperable,
open standards, particularly when well supported in the market-place.
Pay due attention to the total
cost of ownership and operation of technology and consider the possible value
of open source when making technology choices.
v v
v
This pattern should be seen in conjunction with the [10] Roadmap for Transformation.
The [EIF] has a useful definition of “open” in 5.1.1
“Specifications, openness and reuse”.
[20] Critical Success Factors
There is now an increasing body
of research which seeks to understand why some ICT‑enabled transformation
programs succeed and why others fail. Effective risk management is part of the
solution but consideration of a range of success factors is needed for the
delivery processes covered in the patterns above.
v v
v
Programs and projects which seek to
deliver Transformational Government face significant risks to successful
delivery. Clarity and insight into the
consequences of transformation are needed.
It is unrealistic to expect to get everything right first
time and moving forward will be a process of continuous improvement. Systems
are needed which allow the government organization to understand the current
position, to plan, to move quickly, and to learn from experience.
These risks are not related to the
technology itself – which is largely mature and proven – but rather to business
and cultural changes. Such changes are needed within government to deliver the
business management, customer management and channel management transformations
required as part of a Transformational Government program. A conformant
program needs to keep track of a core set of critical success factors
throughout the lifetime of the program.
Therefore:
Manage and measure a clearly
defined set of Critical Success Factors.
Seek regular,
independent review of performance against those critical
success factors.
Have mechanisms in place to assess
risk and handle monitoring, recovery and roll-back.
v v
v
The
[TGF Primer] recommends nine core Critical Success Factors:
-
Strategic Clarity
-
Leadership
-
User Focus
-
Stakeholder Engagement
-
Skills
-
Supplier Partnership
-
Future-Proofing
-
Achievable Delivery and
-
Benefits realization
[11] Benefits realization is used to measure the level of success in achieving [20] Critical Success Factors.
See “Part II, Component 2: Critical
Success Factors” in [TGF Primer] for further details.
The following
conformance statements indicate to what extent each of the patterns above are
used in a transformational government program.
All conformant Transformational
Government programs:
1. MUST
use the [1] Guiding Principles;
2. MUST
have [2] Program Leadership including:
-
Clear accountability at both the political and
administrative levels;
-
Deployment of formal program management
disciplines;
-
A clearly identified mix of leadership skills;
-
Engagement of a broad-based leadership team
across the wider government.
3. MUST
demonstrate [3] Engagement with Stakeholders;
4. MUST
agree and use a [4] Common Terminology;
5. SHOULD
create a Policy Product Map (using the matrix as a tool to help identify the Policy
Products required) within the relevant government as outlined in [5] Policy Product Management;
6. MUST
have a [6] Transformational Business Model;
7. SHOULD
use the [7] Franchise Marketplace model;
8. MUST
address [8] Skills issues;
9. MUST
establish a [9] Supplier Partnership.
10. MUST have a [10] Roadmap for Transformation;
11. MUST have a [11] Benefits realization strategy which addresses the areas
of benefit mapping, benefit tracking and benefit delivery;
12. MUST
have a [12] Brand-Led Service Delivery Strategy,
which is agreed and managed at a whole-of-government level and which addresses:
-
Customer Insight
-
Product Management
-
Marketing and communication;
13. MUST have a [13] Citizen Empowerment framework, which encourages and
enables service innovation in the Citizen-to-Citizen, Business-to-Citizen,
Citizen-to-Government, and Business-to-Government sectors;
14. MUST
have a [14] Citizen Identity Management framework,
which:
-
Uses a federated business model;
-
Uses a service-oriented architecture (as part
of the wider SOA described in the TGF Technology Management Framework);
-
Is citizen-centric, giving citizens control,
choice and transparency over personal data;
15. MUST have a [15] Channel Management Framework;
16. MUST
include [16] Channel Mapping;
17. MUST address [17] Channel Transformation;
18. MUST provide [18] Resources Management;
19. MUST address [19] Technology Development and Management;
20. MUST measure and
manage [20] Critical Success Factors and SHOULD
consider using at a minimum the specific critical success factors outlined in
the [TGF Primer].
The following individuals have participated in the creation
of this specification and are gratefully acknowledged:
Participants:
Oliver Bell, Microsoft
Corporation
John Borras, Individual Member
Peter F Brown, Individual
Member
Nig Greenaway, Fujitsu Ltd
Ted Haas, GS1
Andy Hopkirk, Individual
Member
Gershon Janssen, Individual
Member
Arnaud Martens, Belgian SPF
Finances
Steve Mutkoski, Microsoft
Corporation
Chris Parker, CS Transform Ltd
John Ross, Individual Member
Trond Arne Undheim, Oracle
Corporation
Colin Wallis, New Zealand
Government
David Webber, Oracle
Corporation
Joe Wheeler, MTG Management
Consultants, LLC
|
Revision
|
Date
|
Editor
|
Changes Made
|
|
01-incomplete
|
2011-05-17
|
Peter F Brown
|
Initial Draft – incomplete
|
|
02-complete
|
2011-06-13
|
Peter F Brown
|
Complete draft – first full (draft) set of patterns
|
|
03-incomplete
|
2011-07-05
|
Peter F Brown
|
Incorporates comments, edits from TC members
|
|
03-incomplete
|
2011-07-11
|
Peter F Brown
|
Update of missing patterns and revisions of text so far.
Two patterns, [4] and [18], still missing
|
|
03-complete
(This document)
|
2011-07-13
|
Peter F Brown
|
Completed draft. Ready for submission as Committee
Specification Draft
|
|
03-complete
|
2011-07-18
|
Peter F Brown
|
Minor typos corrected
|
|
03-complete
|
2011-07-20
|
Peter F Brown
|
Typos and minor textual amendments proposed by Nig
Greenaway
|
|
04
|
2011-08-03
|
Peter F Brown
|
Amendment to conformance clause 9 modified as per TC vote
on 21 July 2011
Acknowledgments section completed
|
