A blind focus on standards will hinder the development of public IT

By Louise Keldorff, Director and Christian Vibe Scheller, Lead Architect for Custom Application Development, NNIT

When public authorities base their IT tenders on the standards set by FDA (Fællesoffentlig Digital Arkitektur), the risk is that they will get IT systems that do not match the complex requirements of public case-handling, so say two NNIT public IT experts.

With FDA (Fællesoffentlig Digitale Arkitektur), the Agency for Digital Government has set a common framework for the architecture of public IT projects. To a large degree, this framework is based on the requirements of digital case and document-handling systems (so-called ESDH systems). However, the problem is that, in a worst case scenario, this standardized focus will lead to systems that lack necessary functionality and flexibility. So says two of NNIT’s experts in public IT, Lead Architect Christian Vibe Scheller and Louise Keldorff, who is Director of Custom Application Development.

Difficult to meet special requirements with Case 2.0

Among other things, FDA includes a case model (specification of a model for Case-handling Version 2 – also known as Case 2.0), the purpose of which is to facilitate data exchange between systems by standardizing case definitions. The things is, as pointed out by Louise Keldorff and Christian Vibe Scheller, this type of standardization does not meet the specific and complex needs of different public authorities and individual case-handling processes. For this reason, NNIT is recommending that public authorities do not limit themselves to the FDA standard when tendering IT projects.

The NNIT experts are making their point because public case-handling systems are complex. Every system must support specialized needs and have specific case-handling abilities to ensure correct and more or less automated case-handling.

“Ways of working, processes and dependencies will vary depending on the regulation any given case-handling system supports. We are talking about complex case-handling that cannot be defined or managed in the same way. Case 2.0, on the other hand, describes a set of relatively generic abilities that, typically, are standard in the ESDH systems. We know from experience that it is difficult to support complex case-handling if you have to follow the case definitions of Case 2.0,” states Louise Keldorff.

Christian Vibe Scheller elaborates:

“By following the guidelines of Case 2.0, you also follow its case definitions and classifications. That makes perfect sense for an EDSH system where each case is handled individually. But for complex case systems with millions of cases to be designed according to the same standard does not make sense. Complex case-handling systems may also require information that is not tied to a particular case. E.g. information about vehicles, weapons or education. The FDA standard does not provide any help in this regard. Similarly, the standard does not provide any recommendations for how information of this type may be tied to the cases.”

Standards may hinder development

The problem with the FDA standards is that they are based on problems that apply to ESDH systems, but they are rarely ideal when applied to more complex systems such as case-handling and pay-out systems. The experts therefore assert that the FDA standards may hinder development – and may ultimately result in the need for expensive and complex adjustments in order to meet complex requirements.

“If public authorities need an EDSH system, it is perfectly fine to follow the recommendations. The trouble is that, in most cases, a standard ESDH solution will not be the best way to go, because, for the most part, an out-of-the-box ESDH system will not be able to handle the unique processes and business rules needed in public systems,” says Christian Vibe Scheller, and he continues:

”I realize this is controversial considering the number of public ESDH systems that already exist today. The problem is that all case-handling systems will be cast from the same mold – regardless of the legal area they serve and the rules that apply to that particular area. One-size-fits all simply does not apply.

A standard solution may well be the most expensive

Instead, NNIT recommends that public authorities develop tenders for IT projects that specify requirements for systems based on the actual ways of working, processes and business rules rather than “settle” for the FDA recommendations. This will determine whether the standard ESDH solution is the most appropriate.

“A thorough assessment of functional requirements and ways of working is crucial because it will ensure certainty of both budget and delivery as well as reduce the risk of delays. If you make the wrong choice, you will likely end up adding expensive and time-consuming add-ons to the standard system, because complex processes rarely lend themselves to standard solutions,” says Louise Keldorff.

Custom-made won’t necessarily break the budget

Custom-made systems are often – and wrongly – branded risky in relation to the defined and tendered framework. Nevertheless, custom-made solutions can be based on standard components that may be adapted to whatever specific use required and thereby meet specific needs without starting from scratch.

“The crux of the matter is that public authorities should abandon their inside-the-box thinking and approach new IT projects with an understanding of the unique requirements and challenges it brings. In this way, we can create IT solutions that deliver on desired benefits and functionality to support the specific, complex case-handling jobs,” Louise Keldorff ends.