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.
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
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
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.
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.
Posted by John Smith on June 30, 2007 at 03:17 PM GMT #
Hiya John,
Couple of things - firstly it's not my approach - what I've done is catalogue and qualify the Major UK G2G Messaging Systems, that are already in place, or are being built out at the moment - and then extrapolate from there.
I'd suggest that you read (or read again) part one of the article "Messaging Sub-Systems in the UK Government", which gives an overview of the UK G2G systems in place.
The point of 'Identity Ontologies' is that actually not many of them are 'Citizen Centric', the only one that is explicitly 'Citizen Centric' is the Citizen 'Identity Ontology', predominately serviced by the Government Gateway (GG).
The Criminal Justice 'Identity Ontology' is mainly 'Criminal Record Centric', the Health 'Identity Ontology' is mainly 'Patient Record Centric'.
The point that I'm trying to bring out is that "failing to plan, is planning to fail", and that integration between these G2G system is already taking place.
Rather than this be an 'ad hoc', and 'point to point' exercise, with a great deal of functional overlap, I'd suggest that there should be a task force to manage this in a much more 'Joined Up' manner.
Secondly - as to the DPA, yes it's a major issue, and that's why I postulate 'Information Firewall' which, in part, ensure that this is addressed. I suspect it would be better to have a consolidated functionality around DPA, rather than leave it to a 'point to point', per 'flow' function.
The integration between these G2G systems does concern me, as does functional overlap, and functional overreach. For instance the GG was supposed to be 'Hub and Spoke' only (I'm sure you'd be welcome to ask the original design team). However Local Authorities (LAs) have started to aggregate services, even into the private sector (mainly suppliers to LAs I believe). This additional functionality, which was not originally planned for does concern me - as does the possible sharing of data into the private sector.
I'm not saying "let's build a massive cross government G2G hub", I'm saying this integration between these G2G systems is happening, and we need to understand the implications of this.
It would be extremely nice that someone had some responsibility for it too.
All the best,
Wayne
Posted by Wayne Horkan on July 02, 2007 at 10:11 AM GMT #
Posted by Miles Peters on July 04, 2007 at 07:09 AM GMT #
Miles - it's great to hear from you again - and good to see you've turned up at Derby City Council.
As I recall you were one of the better technologists I worked with: in fact I remember you were one of the few guy's to borrow my copy of Richard W. Stevens "Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment", and apart from me, the only one to understand it enough to use the information in it - chat's over 'breakfast' about socket programming come to mind.
I'd be very happy to arrange to meet you and the guy's at DCC, although you might want one of our Id experts to come along too. Given I got your email address from the comment - I'll use that to arrange.
Good to see my weblog has found one old friend after only being up for a couple of months too !
Posted by Wayne Horkan on July 07, 2007 at 07:50 AM GMT #
Thanks for pointing out my new found fame on your blog. I would point out these views below are mine and not government's, not least of all because I don't work for gov any more. I must admit that it amuses me a great deal when identity is discussed by IT suppliers. In fact I had a good laugh when Mr XYZ representing IT suppliers of Gov came on Radio 4 on Sunday and moaned about the lack of requirements on the identity programme. I would be interested to hear your views. And to Miles Peters' comment above, I think it important to note that SUN provided a 'hub' to the Home Office some time back and despite the fact that Gateway is all built on Wintel, Wayne consistently has supported its use.
One of the issue facing government on identity is that it is not a technical problem. If gov takes forward a huge programme of IT without solving the business issues it would surely be guilty of not learning past lessons. As far as I can see, they have taken a look at what is needed in gov from a identity perspective and realised that there is plenty there to be getting on with.
Identity cards are continually focused on anti-terrorism devices. This position has no credibility because the focus is on 'card' and not the wider identity needs. A card carrying population will still have terrorists.
So IMHO the way to look at ID is to look at the outcomes gov needs to achieve and then look at the best way to achieve them.
So let's have a go.
1) Reduction in fraud in benefits
2) Immigration controls
3) Reduction in tax fraud and avoidance
4) Entitlement to other Gov servics (NHS etc)
In the UK there is a basic set of issues to do with benefit and tax. There are 4 key categories
1) The people who knowingly defraud tax and benefit system
2) The people who defraud tax and benefits by accident because the system is hard.
3) The people who pay the right tax and benefits by accident because the system is hard
4) The people who pay the right tax and benefits because the know what they are doing.
To help 1-4 above, identity management needs to ensure that each person who is liable for tax and benefits has one identity tied to one human being. I suspect that what government has realised is that a huge % of our population has an NI number but until now HMRC would not allow the number to be used for wider purposes. This seems to be changing. Once we are in a position where each taxpaying person or benefit receiving person is identified consistently by a single number such as NI it means that better detection of fraud can occur and save the UK a huge amount of money. The second issue once you have all these NIs is to tie a single human being to its ownership and ensure that there are ways to detect if any given human is attempting to get two identities. Thats where the biometrics come in. So I suspect that the reason the big IT approach for identity cards is being revisited is that by simply widening NI usage across Gov and reusing the database already in existence in DWP the Gov can go a long way to achieving some of its goals. Introduction of biometrics is a harder problem to solve technically but we can start to reap big benefits from just the first step.
I won't go into the other points in the initial 4 as this is already way too long. I would however counter the position on DPA. It is by far the biggest excuse I have heard in gov for not solving these problems and yet has very few grounds. I firmly believe that if you want services from gov then you need to accept a certain loss of privacy. It is a difficult pill to swallow but ultimately there are lots and lots of bad people out there who are robbing hard working tax payers of lots and lots and lots of money. Why is it unreasonable to ask people to prove their identity. We should also note that the privacy being fought for is only perceived anyway. If gov wants to cross check your details because of fraud suspicion then data can be shared. It is just unreliable ad costs money (us money).
Let me put this another way. If we assume benefit and tax fraud costs the UK (guess only) 4 billion pounds per year. Now lets say that the average tax payer pays about 20K per year in total taxes (its probably far less). That means that 200,000 people's hard earned tax cash will simply walk out the door this year. Let's put it another way. That means that for a working life of 30 years over 6000 people will work all their lives paying tax to cover 1 year's losses to people who think it is ok to defraud the UK tax and benefit system. Now put yourself in one of those 6000 people's shoes. You will pay taxes all of your life for nothing and so will every one you know, and probably most of the people you will ever know. Next year, another 4 billion will go missing.
Data protection should not be an excuse for such haemorrhaging of cash.
The one final point which I think demonstrates the real issue to be sorted out by ID. The guy on Radio 4 said that even if ID agency gets the solution on there is no obligation for any Gov department to sign up and use. I am not sure what is more outrageous, the possibility that they may not sign up or that they are given an option at all.
So let's not get to wrapped up in tech on ID. There's load's to be done with what we have if the right policy and delivery was put in place today. Further IT spend is just a red herring. A very expensive red herring.
IMHO
PS. You can tell this is a techie blog as you have to type in BR in the text to get a new line!
Posted by Simon Freeman on August 06, 2007 at 02:33 PM GMT #
Posted by Wayne Horkan's weblog: eclectic on February 21, 2008 at 12:17 AM GMT #
Posted by Wayne Horkan's weblog: eclectic on February 21, 2008 at 12:18 AM GMT #