State Services Commission: E-government Unit

Business case for Shared Workspace- Final February 2003

The Business Case for implementation of a secure electronic shared workspace, for government agencies and stakeholders

Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 3 2. Introduction to the Shared Workspace business case ......................................................... 6 3. Strategic context of this business case ................................................................................ 7 4. Shared Workspace Business plan ..................................................................................... 10 5. Costs and benefits ............................................................................................................. 20 6. Risks and Issues Management .......................................................................................... 25 7. Next steps.......................................................................................................................... 30 Appendix 1. Detailed costing.................................................................................................... 31 Appendix 2. Overseas Examples .............................................................................................. 31 Appendix 3. Technology Trends............................................................................................... 34 Appendix 4. Resources Used .................................................................................................... 35 Parts of this document are commercially sensitive and have been deleted. This is indicated by "[Text deleted]". State Services Commission E-government Unit person to contact about this paper: Ros Coote 495 6752 [email protected] Shared Workspace Project Manager

2

1. Executive Summary Purpose of the business case

This business case is for new funding to implement, in response to demand, secure online tools for collaboration between agencies, and agencies and business partners. Implementing the shared workspace project is a practical way to deliver internal collaboration and wider consultation sought by ministers. It is aligned with other all-of-government capacity building strategies; Review of the Centre, and e-government.

What are agencies looking for?

Shared workspace is designed to meet agency demand for easy access to online secure collaboration. Major drivers of agency demand are (a) they need to consult widely to resolve issues, in less time (b) they need tools and information to support this process efficiently and securely (c) using email for coordinating across agencies is inefficient. (d) working by email with non-SEE-Mail organisations is a security concern.

What is the Shared Workspace?

Earlier work done by shared workspace project took this agency feedback on board and proposed a common, secure platform, for sharing information and supporting team collaboration1. After further research and consultation we are now proposing a modular Tool-box approach2. The Toolbox rationale is: the users’ needs drive how tools are used; tools come from a range of suppliers. Diagram 1. ‘Toolbox vision’ of Shared Workspace Information Sharing

Team collaboration & Networking

Govt Intranet – has many links to it from agency intranets

Calendar Document share

E-Library Links for specialist online tools such as CFISNet

H

Guides, Coaching, Helpdesk

Notifications and discussions

New!

Events and announcements Discussion lists and message archives

1

Shared Policy Workspace Project Report Phase 3. E-government Unit, SSC. April 2001. Lessons from Online Collaboration between NZ Government Agencies e-Government Unit (unpublished) Oct. 2002

2

3

How team collaboration tools would be used

New

Examples of online project team collaboration

Some government employees, particularly in central agencies and policy groups, tend to work within cross-agency project teams and committees. The shared workspace toolbox would provide a protected set of pages on the Web where • members can keep documents and communications of value, separately from their email system • all data and downloads are secured • people anywhere in the world can be members for the period needed • a web browser is the only software members will need. Teams will either be sharing ‘In Confidence’ or ‘Sensitive’ classified information. The shared workspace caters for these classifications only. A prototype collaboration tool is currently supporting the Senior Leadership Management Development Project (SLMD) led by the SSC. The Project Office manages more than ten projects: members are spread across more than twenty five agencies. When they found team support tools weren’t easy to tap into, SLMD partnered with the E-government Unit to establish this prototype. At Treasury, where a second prototype is underway; three groups are currently using it to exchange documentation classified ‘Sensitive’. With online shared workspaces they have • a means to update the teams about the project deadlines etc, • common space for information of use to all • ability to include team members in the private sector and NGOs.

How the intranet tool would be used

In many organisations, intranets are now the main way for an employee to access information of wide corporate value. The shared workspace intranet is also designed to highlight valuable information and make it easy to locate. For instance, the Policy Managers Network is interested in using it to collect and share the policy frameworks and competencies for policy staff. Anyone needing to find out about how other agencies have approached common issues could do so in less than an hour, rather than the days it currently takes (process efficiency).

How discussion list would be used

Input from sector or ‘subject’ interest groups is if ‘government’ email based discussion lists were in place now, they would use them. Example groups include government information technology professionals and social sector policy advisors needing a secure means of examining common issues and answering queries. Continued on next page

4

Where does the shared workspace take us?

Shared workspace is about improved performance across the sector rather than savings. Shared workspace helps government employees • to locate relevant expertise, information, and practices in other agencies • contribute to cross-agency initiatives • to be more effective at running cross-agency projects. The long-term aim is more people/agencies sharing their outputs and this becomes a normal way of operating.

Significance of a common infrastructure

The main quantifiable benefit from the Shared workspace is avoiding costs of several infrastructures for cross agency collaboration. Since this project began, more than five agencies have each set up workspaces for secure collaboration with other agencies. We are aware that other agencies are considering it, pending a funding decision for Shared Workspace.

What will it cost?

Estimated costs for the next three years are: (a) capital investment of $343,900 (b) average operating cost of $420,000 per annum, partially offset by cost recovery, which by Year 3 could be 46%. The average all-of-government benefit from not duplicating infrastructure for online team collaboration is projected to be $210,000 per annum after interviewing agency-run workspaces about set-up and ongoing costs. Benefits of sharing information across agencies can quantified by time saved. This is estimated at $100-$200,000 per annum across the policy community.

Project challenges and measures of success

Performance measures for this project are based on (a) shared workspace users reporting that technology choices are acceptable (b) agencies sharing value-add information, and repeating business (c) shared workspace users following the protocols for the tools (d) re-evaluating tools that are not meeting expectations (e) independent assessment against NZ government security standards.

Business case overview

The balance of the business case is about • developments leading to this business case (section 2) • high level strategic context and aims (section 3) • business plan through to June 2006 (section 4) • costs and benefits (section 5) • risks and issues (section 6) • immediate next steps planned (section 7) Appendix 2 surveys similar projects overseas; Appendix 3 reviews government technology trends.

5

2. Introduction to the Shared Workspace business case Goals of the Shared Workspace project

This Business case seeks funding to enable delivery of the second of the shared workspace project’s two goals First Goal The first goal of the Shared Workspace Project was to: investigate the feasibility of a secure, electronic service to support project work and policy development between agencies and agency stakeholders.3 It has taken three years to learn what the cross-government need for collaboration is going to be over the next few years and how to best meet it. Costs for this stage have been met by the central agencies. Second Goal The second goal of the project is a staged implementation. This goal will probably take two to three years to complete. Section 4 of this document (Business Plan) lays out the projects proposed to achieve this. The E-government Unit of SSC is proposing to implement the shared workspace as part of its programme over the next few years.

How was feasibility determined

These broad objectives were met as part of the feasibility work. (a) Promote and explain the concept of shared workspace. (b) Business drivers for sharing – what are these? (c) What sort of functionality will be most needed? (d) Prototyping technical feasibility and costs of provision. (e) Confirming whether agencies supported it (f) Validating costs vs. benefits (g) Develop business plan and business case for final approval.

Staged Implementation

Objectives associated with this goal are as follows. (a) Plan the implementation in detail. (b) Establish working teams and operations team. (c) Purchase cost-effective products and services. (d) Manage activities and content that will maximize use of the workspace, including policies that guide use. (e) Achieve a successful, staged, implementation. (f) Work out appropriate long-term ownership.

3

Shared Policy Workspace Project Report Phase 3. E-government Unit, SSC. April 2001, Lessons from Online Collaboration between NZ Government Agencies E-government Unit, October 2002

6

3. Strategic context of this business case Evolving context for this project

The shared workspace has both short term and long-term contributions to make to how the public sector operates. These are summarised in this section. A top-down strategic picture has been balanced at all stages by a bottom-up view. This view comes from one-off consultations, product trials with various teams, and dialogue with agency representatives.

Risk reduction

The original strategic context for this project was as a risk management proposition within the S.E.E. project. The concern was to find a way to secure clear text transmission of government ‘work in progress’ over the Internet. A proof-of-concept was developed in 2000, but feedback indicated the workspace technology needed time to mature. -The shared workspace will manage government exposure to risk by securing shared information, at appropriate levels, with tools that intended users will find friendly to use.

Alignment with e-government architecture

A major component of the E-government Strategy is the ‘service delivery architecture’. This architecture requires that generic government functions should, wherever possible, be supported by common technology components used by many or all government agencies (i.e. a build once, use many times approach). The goal is to maximise the capability that ICT’s provide government agencies while minimising the fiscal burden this places on taxpayers. -The shared workspace will host components and services that all government users can use and re-use for information and knowledge exchange, between government agencies and other parties. Continued on next page

7

More effective and efficient way of working

In recent years public servants have increasingly become coordinators of problem solving exercises across multiple agencies and stakeholders. They have also found that they have to work at a faster pace to develop policies and services. In addition, ministers are asking for speedier consultation processes. ‘(…) our expectations of the State Sector's standards, in terms of values and in terms of performance generally (…) is about being more astute and responsive, about better use of systems, about better collaboration - doing it once, well, and sharing the improvement with other agencies. It's about maintaining the highest standards of service and behaviour, that leave a positive impression, not 4 disappointment and resentment.’

Current work practices are not always consistent with the Government’s expectation that expertise and be shared across agencies working on common outcomes. In comparison to what is possible, low levels of sharing constitute a drag on performance (quantitative and qualitative) across the sector. Shared workspace project takes on board the wider potential of secure sharing – such as reducing replication of work by separate agencies and improving coordination of cross-agency initiatives. The shared workspace will: • enable improved coordination between agencies • support people when they are in that coordination role • assist them to find and share information required for complex problem solving in projects or policy development. Taking the allof-government approach

The E-government Strategy contributes to processes of change within the public sector, not just the Public Service. It anticipates a more open and flexible relationship between government, business, communities and individuals. One of the Government’s main goals is to increase participation in government through e-government. The design of the shared workspace (both its governance, and its technical architecture, and the tools it will included) must enable working across traditional boundary lines between central and local government, the public and private sectors, the non-government sector, and individuals. - The shared workspace will contribute to the Government’s e-government goals by: • offering technical capabilities that will be widely accepted and usable by all agencies and a wide range of stakeholders • minimise need for similar infrastructure to be duplicated in agencies • meeting e-government policies and standards where appropriate.

4 Introduction to Statement of Government Expectations of the State Sector Hon Trevor Mallard

8

Strengthening Public sector performance

Recently the Review of the Centre has provided a richer picture of the systemic challenges for those working across a highly fragmented public service, and the positive outcomes for citizens that will arise from more efforts to integrate, and also involve people more in public service processes. [CAB Min (02) 28/9 refers]. The shared workspace project is fundamentally about making sure that those working within, or with, government, are part of an organisation and processes that can be honestly said to be fit-for purpose in the context of the Government’s public sector performance objectives. Diagram 2. maps the initiatives that are aligned with ROC and Improving Public Sector Performance. It comes from a 2002 progress report presented to Cabinet. This map conveys why e-government and shared workspace fit closely with the reforms proposed by the Review.

Diagram 2. Improving Public Sector Performance From Overview Letter to EXG from State Services Commissioner 16 October 02

Attachment 1 Improving state sector performance (for M inisters, citizens and staff) OUTCOM ES M ore focused on results

M ore citizen- and community-centred processes

Better public sector capability Stronger integration of structures & processes

M AJOR IN ITIA TIVES

Senior leadership initiative

E-Government

M anaging for outcomes

-C ircuit-breaker teams -E valuation -Vote chan ges -Inno vation

Stronger people, culture & leadership

-Portal

-E-services

-Authentication

-E-procurement

-Change of address

-Shared workspace

Ethics, values and standards

Review of the Centre initiatives -C ircuit-breaker teams

-R egional coordination

-H R framework

-E valuation

-Netwo rks

-C entral agency roles

-R egional coordination

-Structures

-SSCers mandate

-R esponsiven ess to M aori

-C E Go vern ance

9

4. Shared Workspace Business plan Introduction Shared workspace purpose

The immediate goal is helping those government employees who want to collaborate, share information, expertise and good practice with other agencies and within teams. The long-term goal is we all get used to secure sharing across organisational boundaries and regard this as a normal way of operating. High-level design principles are • shared workspace services are for government agencies, and business partners in private sector and NGOs • users’ needs in those groups drive services – technology is just an enabler.

Progress to date

With these high-level goals in mind, SSC’s E-government Unit has been researching user needs, and how these can be met by available technologies. We are currently testing some tools with real working groups and their data. When we say we shared workspace design has been ‘user-needs driven’ it means we have worked hard at understanding what is most important, to most people, before it is decided to offer a service widely. Good uptake in the future depends on getting this step right. Based on the work and feedback completed, shared workspace will be offering an online 'toolbox', which people can use according to what best suits them, for as long as they need it, at reasonable cost.

Business plan overview

The business plan examines the following topics. Topic Analysis of business drivers Summary of requirements Rationale for the ‘Toolbox’ Which tools best meet user group requirements How to best approach implementation Project descriptions Funding options Measures of success.

See Page 11 12 14 13 Requirement 3 16 17 19 19

10

Business drivers for Shared Workspace Business Drivers in government agencies

Earlier work on the shared workspace concept identified what would drive uptake in agencies. Agency responses have been consistent: (a) they are expected to consult widely to resolve issues, in less time (b) they need tools that support this process efficiently and securely (c) email for sharing and coordinating across agencies is inefficient (d) for those who deal with electronic security, email going between their staff and non-SEE-Mail organisations is a security concern.

Email for collaboration has limits

Each year, more information flows through our email in-boxes. Email is best used a short term, person-to-person exchange. When used for larger group collaboration, say on a policy issue, you get an increase in volume and complexity of messages. After some exchanges the end result is unclear. If a ‘group’ email exchange is ongoing between the mix of the SEE-mail agencies and those not using S.E.E. Mail, then part of the traffic will be moved in clear text, over the internet’s network of servers. When new members join a team, their ability to find out what has happened to date depends on how well a predecessor passes on key documents, or what they find in a corporate filing system. Email is of great benefit in many situations but lacks ability to support people in separate offices collaborating over time, particularly where sensitivity is an issue. However, it will be the only online tool all have common access to.

Comparing agency-run workspace and shared workspace

We consider that this shared workspace initiative will not be the only workspace in NZ government. Why is this? A few have decided this capability is so relevant to their business they need to own the infrastructure, maintain it, and join it to other technical systems. Generally these agency-run workspaces are there to meet special demands in the agency, are managed onsite and have a fair degree of IT involvement. In contrast, shared workspace is a stand-alone, off site resource, meeting cross-agency needs for a given period needing no ongoing IT involvement. The Ministry of Health’s QuickPlaces, Treasury’s CFISNet, and Standards NZ SPEX system, are good examples of agency-run workspaces.

Agency-run workspaces will not scale to all-ofgovernment

These agencies are of the view that it is outside their own roles to run an online scalable service that supports projects outside their departmental outputs. They support a centrally run alternative, used on an as-needs basis by the wider government sector and have given this project generous assistance. Continued on next page

11

Sharing infrastructure make sense

To a very wide range of agencies, it makes sense to respond to a call for greater collaboration across government, with a common collaboration environment, that is designed for all-of-government use. There is a growing group of agencies that acknowledge they do not have the same pressing need to own the tools for collaborating with external partners. They want temporary access to a common infrastructure service • for when they have a specific need to manage process and dynamics of collaborative working • offering generic, easy to use tools • avoiding spend on software, servers, and upkeep • approved for ‘government use’.

Need to share INCONFIDENCE and SENSITIVE information

The government classification scheme was revised in 2000, introducing the classifications ‘In-Confidence’ and ‘Sensitive’. S.E.E. Mail secures ‘Sensitive’ and ‘In Confidence’ email for it’s members, but email to organisations outside S.E.E. Mail is a potential risk to an agency. It is also a fair question whether services hosted by private sector meet the minimum security standards required by the Interdepartmental Committee on Security.5 A collaboration environment for government has anticipated future business need to support both ‘In Confidence’ and ‘Sensitive’ collaboration to manage government risk

Requirements for shared workspace Understanding secure sharing between agencies

‘Sharing’ is a vague notion – but these scenarios can help paint the picture accurately. (a) Individual public servants needing to make connections with people in other agencies and find examples of how other agencies have done similar work. (b) Agencies trying to make something they have done available to other agencies, but not through publishing it on their corporate website. (c) Project leaders needing to ensure all members share an understanding of how the project is getting on and what has been ticked off. Maximising sharing depends on shared workspace meeting the following requirements. Continued on next page

5

Security in the Government Sector (SIGS): 26-Jun-2002

12

Requirement 1. Secure sharing

As mentioned above, appropriate security is a major enabler for sharing by agencies and stakeholders. What will be needed for shared workspace, is tiered or ‘banded’ security. Tier 1 - Sharing between agencies requires each agency to be confident that access is for state sector agencies but no wider. Tier 2 – Networking is based on members being confident that non-members do not have access, and members go through a registration process to get membership. Members will not always be government employees. Tier 3. Formal teams expect that not only will team members have to identify themselves each time to they use the team ‘space’ but they will have different levels of permission to contribute to or read the workspace. Members will not always be government employees. This is where we can anticipate business needs for both ‘In Confidence’ and ‘Sensitive’ collaboration.

Requirement 2. Familiar tools

Feedback from trials showed a shared workspace of any description is far more likely to be used if tools are familiar – and already part of the person’s desktop. Introducing new tools makes uptake more demanding on the user’s time and attention and is harder to justify.

Requirement 3. Matching type of group and online tools

Teams, generally formed for the purpose of problem solving, require a place to store a reference set of documents and other ‘project’ level information securely for the period that work is in development. Subject /interest groups are email oriented, but they do also want storage space for good documents and links, and ability to send attachments or provide links to the information.

Requirement 4. Clear business drivers

The need to support a distributed team working on a major output for their agency/Minister was the driver for setting up some of the collaboration systems now in government. Workspaces set up for such a purpose seemed to be meeting business and user needs. Other agencies borrowed, rented or installed online collaboration tools because they were enthused and wanted to try working this way to see how it could be of benefit. Results here were mixed: one group said they would recommend any other group be sure of all their business drivers before trying online collaboration tools out. One or two groups found that tools had toobroad functionality for their purposes, or they worked too slowly because the servers were based offshore.

13

Requirement 5. Standard methods of use for the workspace

There are areas where agreement needs to be established between government agencies on how to manage and use inter-agency workspace tools. Standard methods of use are made up of good practice, practices to avoid, instructions in how to meet any legal compliance. Their purpose is to make it easier to scale the use of workspace tools up to many users making best use of the tools provided. One example is usernames and passwords. Any person invited to join more than one secure collaboration space finds there are different ‘house styles’ for passwords which prevent them using the same one many times. For people expected to use many passwords and usernames, the hassle factor could be a barrier to them working more online.

Types of exchange unsuited to a shared workspace

Conclusion is that shared workspace will not cater for • Unplanned or informal brief exchanges lasting less then a few weeks. Unsuitable because of lack of structure and stable membership. Email and paper are the only options that cater for this situation effectively. •

Sharing higher levels of classified material e.g. ‘Confidential’ and ‘Secret’ are not in scope because national security information is not permitted to be carried on a public network (e.g. the internet).

Meeting requirements using the Toolbox approach One Tool fits all?

The earlier concept of the shared workspace (April 2001) was one online collaboration tool, that could support • document management • sharing of static information and datasets for groups e.g. Legislation, statistics, research • project administration • access depending on person’s role. Continued on next page

14

Results from observing agency-run workspaces

Findings from case studies done in 2002: (a) The online collaboration tools some agencies used were primarily webbased but supplemented in very important ways with email (invitations, alerts). (b) Project groups using the prototype workspaces, are typically dotted around several organisations including private sector and NGOs. (c) Project leaders need a ‘space’ they can administer with minimal training, and without any reliance on IT people. Project management tools they already used were adequate in the projects we observed. The workspace was for distributing existing progress reports and project plans. (d) We observed that the majority of groups preferred more generic and simple tools. A few project administrators, who with more experience working online, reported frustration when some advanced functions were lacking such as document version-control. (e) Not all staff in agencies are given web access or a web browser - one or two agencies could only ever use the internet email discussion lists. (f) Team members need to know that working online will not be a radical departure from how they currently work.

Lessons learned

Since basic tools were better received by the majority of groups, we decided to: (a) stick to the familiar over the complex tools until there is wider experience with working online (b) find a mix of generic tools rather one advanced, web-based, tool (c) recognise that email is still a key tool because it is so familiar to people (d) leverage agency intranets people are familiar with to highlight shared workspace content, and not expect people will use a ‘second’ intranet (e) run a introductory meeting for each group, where individual users get to preview the ‘workspace’ for their team and agree on how they will be using it.

Lessons incorporated in the Toolbox approach

Diagram 3 shows the range of online tools available for groups to use separately or together according to need. These tools are generic, and proven for the use we intend. Note that specialist tools from agencies such as CFISNet will have hyperlinks on the shared workspace but will be considered as separate entities to shared workspace. Familiarisation with shared workspace will be achieved by hyper linking from agency intranets directly to shared workspace pages standardising the process for adding, training, and supporting new groups. Team collaboration tools are new to most people and are not part of the average user’s desktop system. We think we need to run some projects as full prototypes for several months to ensure we know what users need at the start up, full-swing production and shut down stages of the project lifecycle. Continued on next page

15

Diagram 3. ‘Toolbox vision’ of Shared Workspace Information Sharing

Team collaboration & Networking

Govt Intranet – has many links to it from agency intranets

Calendar Document share

E-Library Links for specialist online tools such as CFISNet

H

Approach to implementing the toolbox

Guides, Coaching, Helpdesk

Notifications and discussions

New!

Events and announcements Discussion lists and message archives

For each tool, there is a prototyping or mock-up stage, usedto • demonstrate what we are planning to a wide range of people. They can then make concrete suggestions, and test with real data. • put the valuable user input upfront - at the stage where changes can be easily made - rather than halfway through a timetabled rollout. • Eliminate unsuccessful tools from the toolbox. Suppliers know up-front that we only undertake to implement the successful prototypes. This approach is preferred because we can use it to • test with real-world firewall rules • test with the range of agency desktop configurations • refine helpdesk and support processes • get input from a wide range of prototype users rather than one pilot group • find out about issues for government intranet managers • build up awareness in agencies that such services will be available.

16

Project descriptions Intranet for government use only

The Policy Managers Network has a special interest in strengthening the public sector policy function through sharing policy frameworks on an all-ofgovernment Intranet. The expense of setting up a secure website is prohibitive for a single group – particularly because it would not be easy for them to make others aware of the information that has been collected. Other content that might fit well in this ‘limited to government’ publishing system: training, strategies and plans, risk management, project management, disaster recovery, and a machinery of government fact file. The Parliamentary Services’ subject portal is an internal database resource highly suitable for wider consumption that we will seek to prototype quite early on under this project. Fee for use: while we are prototyping, fees are nil. Refer to Appendix 1 for Intranet Project cost estimates.

Email discussion lists

H

Feedback from various sector or ‘subject’ interest groups, is that if a secure intranet service existed that they could tap into, they would definitely use this to share information with each other. Email discussion lists are a proven way to support this type of long-term sharing with a changing membership. It is basically a centralised email distribution list manager and message 'archive'. As a list member or list administrator • you know only approved members can receive and send messages to/from the list • you can be based anywhere in the world • you can state how often you want to receive messages (daily, weekly) • you can look up an archive of past messages and document attachments • the archive is password protected and viewed on web pages • your IT requirements are an email address, and web access for the archive. Examples of interest groups include government information technology professionals and social sector policy advisors needing a secure means of discussing issues that interest them. Fee for use: while we are in trial mode prototyping, fees are nil. Use fee for permanent service: One-off charge of $200 per group likely Continued on next page

17

Project descriptions, Continued Platform

The toolbox itself consists of • IT hardware/software platform for the tools to sit on • security implementation • a framework for management decisions and governing the workspace. As mentioned before, it is not within the scope of any one agency to set up an IT infrastructure to support an all-of-government shared workspace; so we have investigated how we can source this outside the public sector. To help assess our requirements for platform hosting we decided to use a hosting centre on a trial basis at Datacom. We approached Datacom because they have already met stringent requirements for hosting government held information and currently host the NZ Government Portal.

Platform costs

It is proposed that capital funding for hardware and OS software is funded through SSC’s E-government Unit. Pricing of hosting services will be negotiated with internal assistance from the NZ Government Portal business manager.

Team collaboration

Web based collaboration tools are a new way of supporting teams and projects that have a finite membership and clear end-date. Shared workspace can offer groups a password protected set of pages on the Web. As a project team member or administrator you can • keep communications of value separately from your email • be based anywhere yet still see what the team is producing • set up email alerts so you know when to check changes to the workspace and your IT requirements are an up-to-date web browser, internet access and an email address.

New!

H

The Senior Leadership Management Development Project is the principal prototype group for collaboration tools. This project office has ten projects running at once and their members are spread across more than twenty-five agencies. each team have a workspace for sharing work-in-progress while the project office workspace contains documents for sharing across all teams and progress updates. Also, three projects have been using online workspaces at Treasury to share ‘Sensitive’ information. Two are spread between Wellington and Auckland and include private sector consultants. Another is used for two agencies without a SEE-Mail link to protect their email. Fees for use: while we are in trial mode participation fee is nil Fee for permanent service being worked out: $1500 per group is likely.

18

Funding options Preferred funding option is central funding with some cost recovery

The best option for the shared workspace ‘toolbox’, is a low-cost, centralised, capital and operational investment, with usage charges set at an affordable rate to help grow the demand. Section 4 discusses the business model that is seen as most appropriate to such a service. Early prototypes have shown that capital requirements would be less than first estimated and that the service could be partly self-funding – either through a once-a-year subscription or one-off fee. A steady growth pattern is expected rather than a busy initial ‘rollout’ stage. (Agency workspaces do not normally account for their set up or running costs and/or charge fees - another reason to keep entry costs low. One crown entity formally recovers operational costs within a broader fee for other services.)

Inappropriate Funding options

We did evaluate options like club funding and full cost recovery and found these have led to poor project outcomes and high risks for all-of-government projects. For example, full cost recovery created incentives for agencies to create their own ‘silo’ infrastructures, or opt out without considering the opportunities they would forgo. From talking with a core group of interested agencies we found that it is unrealistic to get seed funding from a multi-agency club. EGU’s GoProcure agencies were wary of commitments until after the prototype stage is over.

Measures of success Security

S.E.E. and GCSB audits need to be done to confirm information and traffic are secured to government-endorsed security standards.

Adoption

Measuring adoption will be based on measurable actions by end-users e.g. (f) reporting that technology choices are acceptable (g) reporting they used it to share value-add information (h) subscriptions renewed or using the team support tools again (i) following the usage protocols defined for the shared workspace tools.

Ongoing Evaluation

Where tools or services are not performing, an evaluation plan will be needed to guide decisions to keep or suspend services. Also, the governance group may benefit from commissioning independent quality assurance. This would assess progress against the business plan and guide future development.

19

5. Costs and benefits Introduction

This business case is not about savings generated but about value derived across the public sector. This section develops this case in detail. It covers • benefits anticipated • cost efficiency assessment • financial analysis of how SSC’s position is changed by running the shared workspace project over three years. Also discussed are • business model underpinning partial cost-recovery, • opportunity cost of not proceeding with the shared workspace project.

Benefits Tangible benefits

The main quantifiable benefit from the shared workspace is additional cost agencies can avoid by 1. using common infrastructure 2. using shared information. The following discussion explains how each benefit has been quantified.

Using common infrastructure

In the absence of shared workspace going ahead, it seems a reasonable assumption others will go ahead with their own workspace infrastructures. We have estimated three new agencies will do this in the first year, and one more in each year following.6 If the common shared workspace infrastructure existed, costs avoided by all these agencies can be estimated at • capex of $120,000 (first year), and $40,000 in both year 2 and year 3 • opex of $135,000, $180,000 and $225,000. Refer to Table 1 below for total estimated avoided costs.

6

This is based on the number of agency-run workspaces set up in the last two years in the public service now, (five plus) and feedback from a recent survey of e-government uptake across government.

20

Using shared information

The quantifiable benefit to each individual user of shared workspace is time saved because it will become easier to • find relevant expertise, information, and practices in other agencies • share valuable information resources across agencies. Suppose that over the first three years, policy staff using the shared workspace save two hours of their time normally used for informationfinding, or information-sharing. At the generally accepted hourly rate of $100 per policy-person, this saving can be estimated to start at $100,000 and grow to $200,000 per year as the user-base expands (e.g. 500 - 1000 staff by Year 3). Refer to Table 1 for total estimated avoided costs.

Intangible benefits

Intangible benefits discussed in Section 3 were • it is easier to join and contribute to discussion of cross-agency issues • leading to easier coordination on cross-agency projects • and improved security.

Discouraging misuse

Poor email and web surfing behaviour has impacted negatively on the image of the Public Service. Given a choice, we have anticipated agencies will opt for a risk-minimisation approach to introducing online collaboration tools. In the prototypes we have been closely involved in, we have found it important to set realistic expectations and promote responsible online behaviour (e.g. relevance of the Public Service Code of Conduct and the NZ Official Information Act). Designed to help people new to collaboration systems get started on the right track, it also addresses risks of misusing collaboration technologies in the pubic sector environment.

Costs Costs effectiveness analysis (NPV)

After four years Net Present Value (NPV) is estimated at $ +41.02 thousand. Four years is the typical technology investment lifecycle and allows for two years of gradually increasing uptake. Long term the NPV continues to trend strongly towards the positive. Assumptions are • capex and opex cash costs only • no depreciation or capital charge • cost recovery is excluded.

21

Table 1: Cost effectiveness (NPV) 2003/04 Cash Outflows (In thousands) Capex Cash Operating Costs Total

343.90

Cash Benefits Avoided costs Discount Factor7 Cash Savings excluding consumers and benefits Present Values NPV after 4 years

Financial Analysis

2004/05

-

2005/06

2006/07

-

-

238.84 582.74

333.72 333.72

315.56 315.56

315.56 315.56

355.00

370.00

465.00 1.21

465.00 1.33

1.00

1.10

-

227.74

36.28

149.44

149.44

-

227.74

32.98

123.50

112.28

41.02

With capital and avoided costs excluded, SSC’s financial position over three years is as follows (GST exclusive). Partial cost recovery is promising but obviously linked to uptake rate. High uptake in Year 3 could generate $225,000 while Year 1 might generate less then $36,000.

Table 2: Financial Analysis Cost recovery (thousands) Expenses (thousands) Intranet Discussion Lists Platform Team Collaboration Total cost Net Surplus/Deficit

7

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

Total

36

72

195

303

117 34 111 63 324

148 67 149 113 478

128 64 156 112 459

1,261

-288

-406

-234

-958

Basis for discount factor is 10% per annum.

22

Business model Appropriate business models

Shared workspace has looked for a business model that encourages uptake and discourages misuse while being simple to administer. In a discussion with Treasury’s public sector management team, the inter-library loan scheme came up as a relevant model on a number of levels.

Comparison of shared workspace and inter-library loan scheme

Like the scheme, joining shared workspace will mean committing to share some of what you own, but in return • getting access to the collections of the other members • ‘borrowing’ what you need instead of buying/creating it The main quantifiable benefit is avoided costs for all members. The intangible benefit of joining separate resources into one virtual resource benefits the people who want the information most. The long-term benefits accrue for a nation that shares a costly resource as widely and efficiently as possible. As with inter-library loan scheme, charges/subscription will help to • spread costs of administration • incentivise sharing behaviour • incentivise some members to help govern the scheme and decide fees.

Simple fee structure ensures transaction costs stay low

In the 1980s, the inter-library loan scheme came under pressure to allow members who had disposed of their library collections to stay in the scheme. The governance group agreed these members could join on a user-pays basis and exchange inter-library loan vouchers for every item. Tracking and claiming vouchers created work for many members and a few got the benefits. This demonstrates the desirability of keeping to a simple fee structure to prevent rising transaction costs or inequalities creeping in. A simple fee structure would also help potential members budget for future use.

23

Opportunity Cost Impact of not proceeding with shared workspace

It is outside any one agency’s role to create a scalable online service that can support any cross-government project that needs it – therefore multiple agency-run workspaces will emerge as this way of working becomes more accepted. If this were realised, what would we see? Some agency workspaces are hosted in the private sector for ongoing fees, or by an ‘owner’ agency. Operating standards vary a great deal and service levels vary from agency to agency, provider to provider. Because of a fragmented approach, finding completed work done by other agencies remains a challenge. Agencies select the online tools that are easiest for them to afford and maintain; user-driven selection is rare. We can say with certainty, that without the shared workspace we will have separate agency run workspaces using a variety of tools and password systems, ongoing security concerns and duplication of effort and information.

24

6. Risks and Issues Management Introduction

This section provides detail on risks and issues management for the ongoing operation of shared workspace. Risk, impact, and mitigation are defined for • uptake • technology • misuse • governance of a shared input • balancing competing demands on operations and development.

Uptake risk Technology-too hard for most users Probability= unlikely Impact= very high

Mitigation

We have observed that collaboration tools with too many features turn users off and present an uptake risk. This may not be the case forever, as people will become more accustomed to them, but at present this is the reality. This risk impacts the team collaboration function of shared workspace. Impact if realised; little repeat business and tools perceived as too hard to use. Select tools with level of complexity appropriate for the majority of users and make sure channels for user feedback are open and used. Offer groups a choice of collaboration software and see which has more repeat business. Cost of mitigation: Built into project costs. Lengthy prototyping to get user reactions upfront, use helpdesk feedback, and proactively survey people by phone. Work with more than one supplier of collaboration software at lowcost end of the market.

Fees discourage uptake Probability= unlikely Impact= high

We have observed that some government collaboration groups do not have any budget or are very tightly funded and most agency-run workspaces do not charge any fees to users. If shared workspace is perceived to be costrecovery-driven then this becomes a risk to uptake by these groups. This risk impacts the team collaboration function of shared workspace. Impact if realised: groups with no or small budgets will not approach us about team collaboration support. Continued on next page

25

Uptake risk, Continued Mitigation

Communicate that shared workspace is not aimed at full cost recovery. Encourage some groups to consider (the cheaper) Discussion List tool instead of Team Collaboration tool. Consider having a small number of ‘free’ slots per financial year for team collaboration. Cost of mitigation: Add to communications plan; Steering Committee consider pros and cons of ‘free slots’ approach and what that means for running cost: review fee structure annually and re-assess this risk.

Collaboration ‘Hype’ Probability= Moderate Impact= Moderate

Mitigation

Our observations are people have a wide range of expectations about collaborating online; some people are suspicious of the ‘hype’ around it, while others perceive it as a cure-all for cross-agency coordination worries. This risk impacts all services offered by shared workspace. Impact if realised: uptake is stronger than expected and exhausts EGU’s resources – more requests coming in than we can respond to at first; which could lead to end-users disillusionment or initial strong uptake petering out. We have to be confident that the technology is the best match for the group so they will derive real benefit. We must take the time with each group/project for expectations management meetings, upfront. This is the opportunity to clarify expectations and steer people to options that may be better suited to their needs. Cost of mitigation: Already built into operating costs. Business analyst will talk with all new groups and ensures they have understood the limits of the services. Operations staff in EGU might assist if demand rises sharply.

Technology risk Technology change in agencies Probability= Unlikely Impact=Low

Shared workspace exploits interoperable technology across agencies such as, internet, email, and word processing packages. There is some risk that in future less compatible technologies might be adopted by some agencies. This risk primarily impacts the team collaboration tools of shared workspace. Impact if realised: sharing becomes more difficult to achieve for all groups. Continued on next page

26

Technology risk risk, Continued Mitigation

Keep in touch with agencies that are; updating their desktop software, adopting open source, changing firewall security. Ask agencies to assess shared workspace usability as part of their upgrades. Monitor technology queries from users. Cost of mitigation: Built into the Business Analyst role is ongoing dialogue with agencies (a) likely to change platform/perform desktop upgrades (b) those using older/rare desktop technology.

Workspace toolbox goes out of date

Probability= Low Impact= Moderate

Mitigation

Collaboration technology is a growing software market. Many new products turn up each year, some come into popular use and others do not. Shared workspace toolbox has to stay in touch with developments. This risk impacts the team collaboration and distribution list tools of shared workspace. Impact if realised: Workspace is perceived as a lowest common denominator service, suitable only for groups with basic needs. Agency-run workspaces perceived to be running more appealing, more capable software.

Continue to assess products in this technology space for potential future prototypes – work with agency run workspaces to test upgrades of existing workspace tools and form a pool of expertise. Stay user-needs driven and not technology driven. Cost of mitigation: built into capex (replacing server hardware,) and operating costs (maintenance subscriptions for software upgrades, Business Analyst role and external development funds).

Misuse Risk of leaks or other problems caused by misuse of privileges Probability= Rare Impact= Very High

There is a risk that individual users will, intentionally or unintentionally, spread information they can see on the workspace to a larger audience than owners intended. Impact if realised: failure of shared workspace concept. Media or Ministers may be involved. Agencies boycott shared workspace services until issue seems to be resolved. Incentive for more agency-run workspaces. Reputation and trust of shared workspace diminishes. Content or groups are removed. Continued on next page

27

Misuse, Continued Mitigation

Proactively highlight dangers of misuse with all new users (part of the protocols discussion process) and emphasise to administrators that they are responsible for ‘vouching’ their users are given the correct level of access. Have management plans worked out with EGU communications staff for some events e.g. a public leak claimed to come from a shared workspace project. Ensure facilities to extract audit trail information held on the workspace performing properly. Get external quality assurance (QA) on quality of intrusion monitoring and detection from Government Communications Security Bureau. Cost of mitigation: Time spent on preparation tasks and QA tasks built into implementation plans. Monitoring and proactive management occurs within Helpdesk and Business analyst roles respectively.

Governance Governance of a shared input Probability =Rare Impact =Low

Mitigation

Governing a common infrastructure used by all-of-government is fairly new though the NZ Government Portal and GoProcure are setting precedents. There is some risk to the future viability of shared workspace if governance failure occurs but this is unlikely to be publicly visible. Impact if realised: re-assessment of the governance structure for shared workspace, relationship risks with agencies involved. Mitigated by working through the appropriate form of governance with Steering Committee before shared workspace is ‘live’, using the governance framework developed by the EGU. Ensuring commitment from those asked to be part of the governance team to try something new within the NZ public management system. Monitor any governance-related warning signs such as agencies not coming to meetings. Escalate problems to senior EGU people to resolve as soon as they are known. Cost of mitigation: built into next steps (see section 7) and management roles within EGU.

28

Competing Demands Balancing Operations and Development Probability= Almost Certain Impact= Moderate

Mitigation

Shared workspace will always be ‘in development’ to some extent. Running existing services has to be done well yet new services also need work, testing and promotion. Uptake levels will influence probability of this risk being realised. Impact if realised: Development projects have to ‘wait for a quiet patch’ which never occurs. All tasks become high priority and staff get stressed. Involve other agency staff in delivery and promotion of new developments. Consistent staffing levels and effective handover. Scope new developments carefully and prototype before doing final design. Outsource delivery when it is important to meet a deadline. Cost of mitigation: Have different staff with primary responsibility for Helpdesk and Business Analyst work. Increase Business Analyst and development time in years 2 and 3. Some outsourcing funds have been allowed for in annual intranet budget.

Diagram 4. Assessment of Risk Probabilities

Impact 5

4

3

2

1

Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

5

Rare

Governance failure for a shared input

4

Unlikely

Technology change in agencies

3

Moderate

2

Likely

1

Almost certain

Shared Workspace toolbox goes out of date

Problems from misuse of privileges

Fees discourage uptake

Technologytoo hard for most users

‘Collaboration Hype’

Balancing Operations and Development

29

7. Next steps Preparing for Shared Workspace implementation

Next the project will be preparing to turn the shared workspace from an idea into an operational service. From June 2003, for each tool in the Toolbox we will • develop a mock-up or prototype and invite groups to use them • define usage protocols • plan procurement and implementation stage • develop fact sheets about each of the tools in the toolbox • have finalised the evaluation for Intranet and Platform For the shared workspace project overall, we will • have a Statement of Operating Principles approved • scope work for the ‘banded’ security model and user-directory Communications work will be ongoing with • future stakeholders and user groups • suppliers supporting the prototypes • users of the prototypes.

High level project outline 2003-2004

Table 3 shows decision points in the project’s future and time frames. The timetable depends on these factors. • Whether prototype users and stakeholders find tools acceptable or unacceptable • Asking ‘are more prototypes required?’ • Integration with the S.E.E. LDAP directory. This is likely to be key infrastructure for shared workspace scalability. This S.E.E. project is planned for 2003/04 next financial year.

Table 3. High level project outline 2003-2004 Workspace project Platform Statement of Principles Banded Security and user-directory Discussion Lists

Q4 2002 Start prototype

Develop Scope Select prototype

Intranet Collaboration tools

Q1 2003 Run

Start prototype

Start prototype Select and Start prototype Run Start second prototype

Q2 2003 Evaluate Procure Approve

Q3 2003 Implement

Q4 2003 Operate

Q1 2004 Review

Publish

Operate

Operate

Specify and Procure? Start second prototype Evaluate

Implement?

Operate

Operate

Evaluate, Accept, Accept and procure

Procure, Implement Implement

Operate

Evaluate

Accept

Procure

Run

Operate

30

Appendix 1. Detailed costing [Text deleted]

Appendix 2. Overseas Examples Introduction

This Appendix compares the NZ shared workspace projects with a range of overseas projects. Factual information about each project is presented in country-alphabetical order.

Comparison with projects overseas

The NZ shared workspace is smaller in scale and scope than some described below. The more ambitious overseas projects have been driven by (a) strategy for all-of-government workflow and records management (b) culture differences (e.g. Koreans want to do everything ‘immediately’ and regularly use online tools in daily life8) (c) government commitment to help fuel a national IT industry.

Successful projects with similar goals

The NZ shared workspace has a lot in common with the communities of practice project in Canada, and the Australian Federal and Victorian Government intranets. These began as small projects or expanding pilots, becoming successful vehicles for content and services for the country’s public service. Shared workspace and these overseas projects aim to achieve the same range of benefits. The Australian Federal and Victorian Government intranets have been gradually building up sharing of important resources, and are now branching out to supporting workgroups split across several agencies.

Leveraging the Internet

Like some of the cases presented here, the NZ shared workspace will not require/rely on a private government TCP/IP network. Rather it leverages existing technologies (web and email connections, authentication technologies like digital certificates) for a much reduced entry-cost.

Table 5. Comparing Shared workspace Features with Other Jurisdictions Country/State

Features Supporting IT industry

NZ Shared workspace Australia (Commonwealth) Australia (Victoria) Compra website Canada Canada – RDIMS Korea

Improve security

Workflow and electronic records management

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Info Sharing and best practice Yes Yes Yes Yes

Carrier

Internet Private network Internet Internet

Yes

Unknown private network

8

International Forum on Public Sector Reform: a collection of country reports: May 23-25 2002. International Forum on Public Sector Reform under the auspices of the OECD. p.18.

31

Malaysia U.K. Government Secure Intranet U.K. IDEA website U.S. Law Enforcement Online Australia

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

private network Private network Yes Yes

Internet unknown

Victorian Government Intranet: started 1997 • Aims: publishing relevant content to many departments, and supporting interagency discussion spaces. • The carrier service is VicOne (the Victorian Government ISP) Common wealth Intranet (Fedlink): started 1998 • Aims: secure communication and better information sharing between agencies and ministers, and hosting common business applications, to reduce transaction costs and duplication. • The carrier service is a government private network.

Canada

Com-pra Website (Communities of Practice): started 2002 • Aims: seeding online communities of practice for knowledge retention and better access to expertise within the public sector. Only registered members can see content in the ‘Com-pra’ website or receive Com-pra emails. • The carrier is the internet. Reference: http://www.compra.ca/ev.php Records/Document/Information Management System(RDIMS): start date unknown • Aims: better access to information and encouraging uptake of electronic record keeping at the federal level. It has 35,000 seats across 33 agencies, of a Canadian system for document/records management software. More seats are planned. • The carrier is not known. Reference: http://www.cio-dpi.gc.ca/im-gi/imday-2002-jourgi/info/rdims-sgddi/page01_e.asp Sept 2002

Korea

Inner and Inter Departmental Business and Knowledge Management • Aims: to implement efficient workflow and meetings in government offices to let civil servants concentrate on more productive work. This is being enabled by an electronic document system (introduced to all ministries in 1998) and a custom developed Knowledge Management System for sharing know-how, experience and personal knowledge. • The carrier is a high-speed network connecting intranets of 3 government complexes, local and provincial governments (from September of 2000). Reference: http://www.korea.net/kwnews/pub_focus/content.asp?cate=01&serial_no=513

32

Malaysia

Generic Office Environment (GOE): • Aims: to deliver a ‘paperless office’ and centrally managed computing to get better decision making through efficient information management. GOE will gradually encompass more agencies, starting with the Prime Ministers Office. Three main integrated modules will be Information Management, Communication Management, and Collaboration Management. • The carrier service is EG*net: a virtual private network between agencies and external networks outside the Government domain. EG*net is projected to link about 4,000 Government offices Reference: http://www.msc.com.my/mdc/flagships/eg.asp

United Kingdom

UK Government Secure Intranet (GSI): started 1998 • Aims: improve the uptake and use of IT in government, provide a single firewall service for government agencies, allow secure services to be tailored to agency needs, and act as the backbone for secure exchange between agencies and citizens. Content includes databases, static information and discussion forums. • The carrier service is the GSI (for In Confidence) and xGSI (for Sensitive up to Confidential). Improvement and Development agency website (IDeA): started 2002 • Aims: transform how local government performs and leads their communities by providing a space for sharing best practice, staff development information, discussion forums, and (in future) joined up electronic services. • The carrier service is the internet.

United States

From December 2002, a project have been underway to allow Law Enforcement agencies to share content on their Intranets, with each other. •

Aims: Law Enforcement Online (LEO) will help law enforcement and federal officials across the country to collaborate on investigations and share unclassified information and analysis. LEO will be providing users with secure email, online chat rooms, bulletin boards and similar tools.

•

The carrier service is unknown

Reference : Info sharing gains momentum Diane Frank, Federal Computing Weekly January 27 2003

33

Appendix 3. Technology Trends Introduction

Technology is moving fast. This section focuses on three major trends relevant to the NZ government over the next few years. The source for this information is the Gartner Conference, November 2002.

What are the trends NZ government is likely to see?

Three Major Trends

What will enable these trends?

•

Collaboration – shared information, applications and infrastructure between agencies and across the public/private boundary to improve service delivery and policy development.

•

Standardisation – consolidation and maturity of international technology and data standards.

•

‘Always on society’ - mobility: access from anywhere, anytime for almost everybody for almost any purpose.

These trends means that the following will become more common; •

enterprise IS and business architecture aimed at keeping IT costs down across the enterprise through increasing standardization

•

application service provision models

•

high levels of bandwidth will be cheap and ubiquitous in the corporate environment

•

new inter-agency and public/private systems, managed as joint resources

•

re-useable component architecture o web services (software components that can be used to significantly reduce development costs) o Extensible Markup Language (XML), Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) and Universal Description Discovery and Integration (UDDI) – the infrastructure to support web services

Global IT Industry Trends

•

mobility for knowledge workers (access to corporate systems using sophisticated mobile computing devices)

•

convergence of competing technology standards.

Two trends will continue to drive change in the IT industry itself •

increasing consolidation of Information Systems suppliers

•

Moore’s law – massive increases in processing speed and power.

34

Appendix 4. Resources Used Documents, Conferences, and Contacts

Gartner Conference Brisbane Australia October 2002 International Forum on Public Sector Reform: a collection of country reports: May 23-25 2002. International Forum on Public Sector Reform under the auspices of the OECD Lessons from Online Collaboration between NZ Government Agencies E-government Unit, October 2002 Overview Letter to EXG from State Services Commissioner 16 October 02. Security in the Government Sector (SIGS): NZ Interdepartmental Committee on Security (26-June 2002) http://security.govt.nz/sigs/index.html Shared Policy Workspace Project Report Phase 3. E-government Unit, SSC. April 2001

Statement of Government Expectations of the State Sector March 2001 State Sector Standards Board http://www.ssc.govt.nz/government-expectations Thomas McKegney, Director Public Sector Communities of Practice (Canada) http://www.compra.ca/ev.php Whole of government Intranets: IT strategies and a new direction for public sector management Masters thesis by Ros Coote, March 1999

35