bullet1   Class

bullet2 Introduction

  •   Digital Leadership
     

    Professor: Jerry Mechling, 124 Mt. Auburn St., Suite 195; 617-495-3036,
    jerry_mechling@harvard.edu

    Class Hours: Tues. and Thurs., 8:40 - 10:00 a.m., Weiner Auditorium

    Office Hours: Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. and Wednesday at 4:00 p.m. (by appointment)

    Course Assistant: Michael Johnson, L-211A; 617-495-9455,
    michael_johnson@harvard.edu





     
    • Introduction
       
      As a 21st century leader, what must you know about the uses of digital information and technologies? When should these issues be delegated to specialists? When, in contrast, would that represent a serious abdication of responsibilities? Offers readings, cases, interaction with leading-edge practitioners, classroom and net-based discussions, and a term project to address an issue of professional and personal interest. Addresses issues such as: making the case for technology investments (broadband and wireless networks); redesigning workflow and services (for web access and cross-boundary integration); implementing technology-enabled change (among single or multiple institutions). Explores conflicts between privacy and security, intellectual property and open access, developed versus developing economies, etc. Offered since 1983, works best with a diversity of perspectives in the classroom — technology novices as well as those with substantial technology experience. Recently revised to reflect work of the Harvard Policy Group on Network-Enabled Services and Government and the U.S. "eGovernment Act of 2002."



       
    •   Jerry Mechling
      » See document: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/stratcom/jmhome/jmhome.htm
       
  •   9/11 Introduction: Case
     
    a. What technologies has Cisco used and how do they add value? What's the big deal about IP nets?

    b. What important things did Cisco do right in managing and using technology? What, if anything, did they fail to do or do wrong?

    c. What are the most important lessons from Cisco? What, if anything, would be needed to translate those lessons to fit public or non-profit environments you are familiar with?

    d. What would you need to know to perform well on "Cisco-like" challenges? How much of this do you already know? What do you hope to learn in this course?




     
  • Question     9.16 Do Frames Work?
     
    a. What are the major "bodies of knowledge" that must come together in making good judgments about IT-related issues?

    b. How do you "learn" this stuff?





     
    •   Glossary
        IT

      (Information Technology) Processing information by computer. The latest title for the information processing industry. There have been several before it: electronic data processing (EDP), management information systems (MIS) and information systems (IS). IT as an umbrella term for information processing became popular in the 1990s. The term may embrace or exclude the telecom industry, depending on whom you talk to.

      Digital

      Traditionally, digital means the use of numbers and the term comes from digit, or finger. Today, digital is synonymous with computer.

      Digital Means Original

      The 0s and 1s of digital data mean more than than just on and off. They mean perfect copying. When information, music, voice and video are turned into binary digital form, they can be electronically manipulated, preserved and regenerated perfectly at high speed. The millionth copy of a computer file is exactly the same as the original. While this continually drives the software and content publishers crazy protecting their copyrights, it is nevertheless a major advantage of digital processing.

      Analog

      A representation of an object that resembles the original. Analog devices monitor conditions, such as movement, temperature and sound, and convert them into analogous electronic or mechanical patterns. For example, an analog watch represents the planet's rotation with the rotating hands on the watch face. Telephones turn voice vibrations into electrical vibrations of the same shape. Analog implies a continuous signal in contrast with digital, which breaks everything into numbers. Video cameras scan their viewing area a line at a time and convert the infinitely varying intensities of light into analogous electrical signals.



      Advantages and Disadvantages
      Of Analog Recording
      Audio and video has been analog since the start of magnetic recording. While the industry goes increasingly digital, analog is still widely used in both commercial and home environments (audio cassettes, VHS tapes, commercial video, radio and TV broadcasting).

      The ability to capture the subtle nature of the real world is the single advantage of analog techniques. It takes ever increasing digital capacities and bandwidth to duplicate the infinite granularity of analog. However, once captured, analog equipment, no matter how modern, cannot copy signals perfectly. Third and fourth generations of analog audio and video recordings show marked deterioration.

      By recording in digital from the beginning, or by converting from analog to digital at an early point, audio and video data can be preserved indefinitely and copied over and over without deterioration. Analog implies infinite gradations of signal, while digital implies preservation of original material.




       
    • Everyone has a framework
       
    •   Canada


      » See document: http://www.cio-dpi.gc.ca/emf-cag/ppw-slp/ppw-slp01_e.asp
       
    •   Australia


      » See document: http://www.dcita.gov.au/Article/0,,0_1-2_11-4_104751,00.html
       
    •   KSG
      » See document: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/digitalcenter/
       
    • US Government's Framework
      » See document: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d026.pdf
       
    •   Even Arizona Has One
      They couldn't resist.


       
    •   If you're too lazy, these guys will make one for you
      » See document: http://www-1.ibm.com/industries/government/doc/content/solution/262258109.html
       
  •   9/18 Org Learning: Case
     
    a. What were the major choices made by Judy Pinke? What were the major options she faced at those points and what were the roads "not taken"?

    b. What, if anything, makes organizational learning about IT different from other organizational learning?

    CASE:

    A bold plan to introduce “marketplace dynamics” into Minnesota state government builds on a transformation of the state’s computer services. Coincident with the establishment of a new information services agency-the InterTechnologies Group-state Commissioner of Administration Sandra Hale and “Intertech” director Judy Pinke undertake the process of changing the way the information agency views other state departments. Where once Intertech’s predecessor had seen “users,” Hale and Pinke want employees to see “customers.” Change in the types and use of computer technologies are part of Hale’s ambitious plan to “reinvent” state government. Their efforts lead toward the establishment of an artificial intelligence component of state government, the Minnesota Knowledge Systems Center, designed to capture and preserve the special expertise of the 30,000 employees of Minnesota state government. Among the products to be created is a “solution factory” designed t o capture experience and make it permanently available.


    What is Organizational Learning?
    Argyris (1977) defines organizational learning as the process of "detection and correction of errors." In his view organizations learn through individuals acting as agents for them: "The individuals' learning activities, in turn, are facilitated or inhibited by an ecological system of factors that may be called an organizational learning system" (p. 117).

    Huber (1991) considers four constructs as integrally linked to organizational learning: knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation, and organizational memory. He clarifies that learning need not be conscious or intentional. Further, learning does not always increase the learner's effectiveness, or even potential effectiveness. Moreover, learning need not result in observable changes in behavior. Taking a behavioral perspective, Huber (1991) notes: An entity learns if, through its processing of information, the range of its potential behaviors is changed.

    Weick (1991) argues that the defining property of learning is the combination of same stimulus and different responses, however it is rare in organizations meaning either organizations don't learn or that organizations learn but in nontraditional ways. He further notes: "Perhaps organizations are not built to learn. Instead, they are patterns of means-ends relations deliberately designed to make the same routine response to different stimuli, a pattern which is antithetical to learning in the traditional sense" (p. 119). Or else, he argues, Organizational Learning perhaps involves a different kind of learning than has been described in the past: "the process within the organization by which knowledge about action-outcome relationships and the effect of the environment on these relationships is developed" (Duncan & Weiss 1979). In his view, "a more radical approach would take the position that individual learning occurs when people give a different response to the same stimulus, but Organizational Learning occurs when groups of people give the same response to different stimuli."

    What is a Learning Organization?

    Senge (1990) defines the Learning Organization as the organization "in which you cannot not learn because learning is so insinuated into the fabric of life." Also, he defines Learning Organization as "a group of people continually enhancing their capacity to create what they want to create." I would define Learning Organization as an "Organization with an ingrained philosophy for anticipating, reacting and responding to change, complexity and uncertainty." The concept of Learning Organization is increasingly relevant given the increasing complexity and uncertainty of the organizational environment. As Senge (1990) remarks: "The rate at which organizations learn may become the only sustainable source of competitive advantage."

    McGill et al. (1992) define the Learning Organization as "a company that can respond to new information by altering the very "programming" by which information is processed and evaluated."

    Organizational Learning vs. Learning Organization?

    Ang & Joseph (1996) contrast Organizational Learning and Learning Organization in terms of process versus structure.
    McGill et al. (1992) do not distinguish between Learning Organization and Organizational Learning. They define Organizational Learning as the ability of an organization to gain insight and understanding from experience through experimentation, observation, analysis, and a willingness to examine both successes and failures.

    What is Adaptive Learning vs. Generative Learning?

    The current view of organizations is based on adaptive learning, which is about coping. Senge (1990) notes that increasing adaptiveness is only the first stage; companies need to focus on Generative Learning or "double-loop learning" (Argyris 1977). Generative learning emphasizes continuous experimentation and feedback in an ongoing examination of the very way organizations go about defining and solving problems. In Senge's (1990) view, Generative Learning is about creating - it requires "systemic thinking," "shared vision," "personal mastery," "team learning," and "creative tension" [between the vision and the current reality]. [Do Japanese companies accomplish the same thing with "strategic" and "interpretive" equivocality"?] Generative learning, unlike adaptive learning, requires new ways of looking at the world.

    In contrast, Adaptive Learning or single-loop learning focuses on solving problems in the present without examining the appropriateness of current learning behaviors. Adaptive organizations focus on incremental improvements, often based upon the past track record of success. Essentially, they don't question the fundamental assumptions underlying the existing ways of doing work. The essential difference is between being adaptive and having adaptability.

    To maintain adaptability, organizations need to operate themselves as "experimenting" or "self-designing" organizations, i.e., should maintain themselves in a state of frequent, nearly-continuous change in structures, processes, domains, goals, etc., even in the face of apparently optimal adaption (Nystrom et al. 1976; Hedberg et al. 1976; Starbuck 1983). Hedberg et al. (1977) argue that operating in this mode is efficacious, perhaps even required, for survival in fast changing and unpredictable environments. They reason that probable and desirable consequences of an ongoing state of experimentation are that organizations learn about a variety of design features and remain flexible.

    What's the Managers' Role in the Learning Organization?

    Senge (1990) argues that the leader's role in the Learning Organization is that of a designer, teacher, and steward who can build shared vision and challenge prevailing mental models. He/she is responsible for building organizations where people are continually expanding their capabilities to shape their future -- that is, leaders are responsible for learning.

    What's the Relationship between Strategy and Organizational Learning?

    Or, as Mintzberg (1987) says: the key is not getting the right strategy but fostering strategic thinking. Or as Shell has leveraged the concept of Learning Organization in its credo "planning as learning" (de Geus 1988). Faced with dramatic changes and unpredictability in the world oil markets, Shell's planners realized a shift of their basic task: "We no longer saw our task as producing a documented view of the future business environment five or ten years ahead. Our real target was the microcosm (the 'mental model') of our decision makers." They reconceptualized their basic task as fostering learning rather than devising plans and engaged the managers in ferreting out the implications of possible scenarios. This conditioned the managers to be mentally prepared for the uncertainties in the task environment. Thus, they institutionalized the learning process at Shell.

    The key ingredient of the Learning Organization is in how organizations process their managerial experiences. Learning Organizations/Managers learn from their experiences rather than being bound by their past experiences. In Generative Learning Organizations, the ability of an organization/manager is not measured by what it knows (that is the product of learning), bur rather by how it learns -- the process of learning. Management practices encourage, recognize, and reward: openness, systemic thinking, creativity, a sense of efficacy, and empathy.

    What is the Role of Information Systems in the Learning Organization?

    Although, Huber (1991) explicitly specifies the role of IS in the Learning Organization as primarily serving Organizational Memory, in my view, IS can serve the other three processes (Knowledge Acquisition, Information Distribution, and Information Interpretation) as well. One instance of use of IS in Knowledge Acquisition is that of Market Research and Competitive Intelligence Systems. At the level of planning, scenario planning tools can be used for generating the possible futures. Similarly, use of Groupware tools, Intranets, E-mail, and Bulletin Boards can facilitate the processes of Information Distribution and Information Interpretation. The archives of these communications can provide the elements of the Organizational Memory. Organizational Memory needs to be continuously updated and refreshed. The IT basis of OM suggested by Huber (1991) lies at the basis of organizational rigidity when it becomes "hi-tech hide bound" (Kakola 1995) and is unable to continuously adapt its "theory of the business" (Drucker).

    Does IT Impose Any Constraints on Organizational Learning?

    Huber (1991) notes that "it might be reasonable to conclude that more learning has occurred when more and more varied interpretations have been developed, because such development changes the range of the organization's potential behaviors..." (p. 102). However, most extant information systems focus on the convergence of interpretation and are not geared for multiple interpretations (Argyris 1977). Mason & Mitroff (1973), in their seminal article, had noted that the Lockean and Leibnitzian characteristic of the dominant MIS model as its limiting characteristics. These designs are based on the convergence of interpretations. In contrast, Kantian and Hegelian inquiry systems (Churchman 1971) are needed for facilitating multiple interpretations. These systems also underlie the notion of "unlearning" (Hedberg 1981) which implies discarding of "obsolete and misleading knowledge." While Kantian inquirer offers complementary interpretations, the Hegelian inquirer offers a "deadly enemy" contradictory interpretation. The dialectic of convergent and divergent inquiry facilitates the surfacing of hidden assumptions.

    Argyris (1977) has argued that the "massive technology of MIS, quality control systems, and audits of quality control systems is designed for single loop learning." Essentially, he asserts that the problem of using IT is in its reinforcement of the prevailing [rigid] structures (cf: Orlikowski 1991). He attributes the overarching command-and-control structures for the "gaps of knowledge" that top managers design to manage effectively: "Another set of attitudes usually developed is that lower level managers and employees can be trusted only to the extent that they can be monitored" (p. 117). He argues that the problems related to MIS implementation are more related to organizational factors than to the underlying technology.

    Argyris (1977) re-examines the debate around the implementation crisis of MIS in light of the theory of Organizational Learning (the detection and correction of error). His analysis suggests that many of the recommendations to overcome the difficulties may be inadequate and, in some cases, counterproductive.

    Argyris (1977) suggests that there are "deeper" reasons behind the implementation gap of MIS, especially when the technology was used to deal with the more complex and ill-structured problems faced by the organization. He suggests that the MIS need to be viewed as a part of a more general problem of Organizational Learning. He avers that an organization may be said to learn to the extent that it identifies and corrects error. This requirement, in turn, implies that learning also requires the capacity to know when it is unable to identify and correct errors.

    He argues that the overwhelming amount of learning done in an organization is single loop because the "underlying program is not questioned": it is designed to identify and correct errors so that the job gets done and the action remains within stated policy guidelines. "The massive technology of MIS, quality control systems, and audits of the quality control systems is designed for single loop learning" (p. 113). The trouble arises when the technology is not effective and when the underlying objectives and policies must be questioned. [Compare with IT reinforcing the existing controls (Orlikowski 1991); Also the discontinuous change may pose this need.]

    He states: "Most organizations, often without realizing it, create systems of learning that suppress double loop inquiry and make it very difficult for even well designed information system to be effective" (p. 114).




     
  •   9/23 Tech Capabilities: Dave Mcqueeny
    Biography: Dave McQueeney - VP, Intellectual Property and Asset Commmercialization IBM Corp.



    David McQueeney was born in Boston, Ma., in 1958, received his Ph.D. in solid-state physics from Cornell University in 1988, and he joined IBM Research the same year. During his tenure in IBM Research, he held a number of technical and management positions, including vice president of technical strategy and worldwide operations in 1996/97. After serving as general manager of Global Solutions, Government Industry, Dr. McQueeney returned to IBM Research at the beginning of 1999 as vice president of communication technology, in addition to which he now also succeeds Karl Kümmerle as director of IBM's Zurich Research Laboratory. "Dave McQueeney's experience in a wide range of hardware and software technology, combined with extensive experience with IBM customers, will ensure that the Zurich lab maintains and expands its vital role at IBM Research," said Paul Horn, senior vice president, IBM Research.


    Dave McQueeney leads the emerging business team at IBM Research. Bringing research innovations more quickly to the marketplace, and bringing marketplace forces closer to our researchers, the emerging business team is exploring several new approaches to further extend the impact of IBM's research investment on IBM's customers and partners..


    Since joining IBM in 1988, Dave has held other significant positions in IBM Research, including director of the IBM Zurich Research Laboratory, vice president of communication technology, and vice president of technical strategy and worldwide operations.


    As general manager of global solutions in IBM's government industry team, Dave led a team of technical and subject-matter experts offering a portfolio of integrated solutions to governments around the world, and was also responsible for the IBM Global Services system integration team dedicated to the US Federal Government.


    Even at IBM, a company with $88 billion in sales, good ideas fall through the cracks. IBM last year brought Dave McQueeney, who had headed its Zurich Laboratory, back to Yorktown Heights, N.Y., to run the Emerging Business Organization, which has about 30 staffers. Says McQueeney, "Customers see technology and say, 'How can I get that?' When we say it's not ready for production, that frustrates them."


    "We want customer influence to get the right research agenda and offer back to customers direct access to that research," said Dave McQueeney, vice president of technology assets at IGS, in Somers, N.Y. By teaming up technology innovators with business innovators under IGS' new Institute for Business Value, IGS has discovered a "virtuous circle" of innovation, McQueeney said.



     
    •   Glossary
      » See document: http://www.techweb.com/encyclopedia/
       
    • Hacker Barbie

      Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 09:50:39 -0400 From: "Dave McQueeney" (863-7632) <{HYPERLINK "mailto:mcq@yktvmv.vnet.ibm.com"} mcq@yktvmv.vnet.ibm.com > To:  Subject: Note from GROKLIB at YKTVMH FYA - ------------------------------- Referenced Note --------------------------- (LA, California)


      Mattel announces their new line of Barbie products, the "Hacker Barbie." These new dolls will be released next month. The aim of these dolls is to revert the stereotype that women are numerophobic, computer-illiterate, and academically challenged.


      This new line of Barbie dolls comes equipped with Barbie's very own xterminal and UNIX documentation as well as ORA's "In a Nutshell" series. The Barbie is robed in a dirty button-up shirt and a pair of worn-out jeans with Casio all-purpose watches and thick glasses that can set ants on fire. Pocket protectors and HP calculators optional. The new Barbie has the incredible ability to stare at the screen without blinking her eyes and to go without eating or drinking for 12 hours straight. Her vocabulary mainly consists of technical terms such as "IP address," "TCP/IP," "kernel," "NP-complete," and "Alpha AXP's."


      "We are very excited about this product," said John Olson, Marketing Executive, "and we hope that the Hacker Barbie will offset the damage incurred by the mathophobic Barbie." A year ago, Mattel released Barbie dolls that say, "Math is hard," with condescending companions Ken. The Hacker Barbie's Ken is an incompetent consultant who frequently asks Barbie for help.


      The leading feminists are equally excited about this new line of Barbie dolls. Naomi Wolf says, "I believe that these new dolls will finally terminate the notion that women are inherently inferior when it comes to mathematics and the sciences. However, I feel that Ken's hierarchical superiority would simply reinforce the patriarchy and oppress the masses." Mattel made no comment.


      Parents, however, are worried that they would become technologically behind by comparison to the children when the Hacker Barbie comes out. "My daughter Jenny plays with the prototype Hacker Barbie over yonder for two days," says Mrs. Mary Carlson of Oxford, Mississippi, "and as y'all know, she now pays my credit card bill. Ain't got no idea how she duz it, but she surely duz it. I jus don't wanna be looked upon as a dumb mama." Mattel will be offering free training courses for those who purchase the Hacker Barbie.


      The future Hacker Barbie will include several variations to deal with the complex aspects of Barbie. "Hacker Barbie Goes to Jail" will teach computer ethics to youngsters, while "BARB1E R1TES L1KE B1FF!!!" will serve as an introduction to expository writing.



       
    • IBM Global Technology Outlook
      » See document: http://www.naval-industrypartners.com/2003/presentations/Aug6/415-515/Codella_Res%20Ovrvw%20ONR%2020030806.pdf
       
    • Dave's Technology Outlook
      » See document: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/step/Deconstructing_McQueeney_pdf.pdf
       
  •   9/25 X-Org Learning: Case
     
    a. What was "the essence" of TradeNet as a proposal? What was "the essence" of TradeNet as a proposal? What benefits were to be generated by what activities?

    b. If someone were to give Singapore free fax machines as the "TradeNet" technology, the technology cost would presumably drop. Would that be a good deal?

    c. Why not do something bigger, like "Trade and Travel Net" – handling communications for people coming into Singapore as well as for things? Why not do something smaller, like computerization of the customs transactions only, leaving bank and other transactions for some other initiative? Why draw the boundary on the project where it was drawn?




     
    •   Standards


      Def:

       

      Standards is the most important issue in the computer field. As an unregulated industry, we have wound up with thousands of data formats and languages, but few standards that are universally used. This subject is as heated as politics and religion to vendors and industry planners. In order to truly understand this industry, it is essential to understand the categories for which standards are created.


      No matter how much the industry talks about compatibility, new formats and languages appear routinely. The standards makers are always trying to cast a standard in concrete, while the innovators are trying to create a new one. Even when standards are created, they are violated as soon as one vendor adds a proprietary extension.


      The Future

      After 40 some years of computing, we've managed to create thousands of languages, formats and interfaces in this business. While many become bona fide standards endorsed by recognized standards organizations such as ANSI and the IEEE, some of the most widely used are de facto standards. Intel and Microsoft standards are the most obvious examples.


      While the Internet is helping immensely, it will by no means solve all issues. As we forge ahead with new technologies, there is some point where we can no longer cling to the old designs for compatibility. At that time, the new has to break from the past, as the previous infrastructure only holds us back. It's no different than constructing a new building on top of a weak foundation. It seems to be the way of things




      » See document: http://www.techweb.com/encyclopedia/
       
    • Trade Net Overview
      Project goal


      In January 1988, the Singapore government and a private computer services company launched Tradenet, a computer network designed to manage licensing and the analysis of government statistics in an Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) system. The primary objective of the initiative was to reduce the processing time of goods entering and leaving Singapore, thus making the country more competitive in the world economy.


      Project description Tradenet initially included a pilot group of 50 companies, including traders, customs agents and the Trade Development Board (TDB). Tradenet's main function is to enable a trader to make an electronic declaration of imports and exports directly from his or her computer. The declaration is transmitted, using EDI techniques, to the TDB, which issues the appropriate approvals within 15 minutes, after routing details to various other government departments, depending on the nature of the shipment. On receipt of the EDI-facilitated approval, the trader prints a copy


      End user benefits of Tradenet include 20 to 30 percent productivity improvements and cost reductions by as much as 50 percent. Traders no longer have to make personal trips to obtain approvals; repeat trips to resolve errors or disputes now hardly ever occur, which has enabled them to reduce their labor force.


      Storage of goods awaiting clearance is no longer necessary. Goods may now go straight to the consignee from the cargo vessel. This is a particularly important benefit to Singapore, where space is at an absolute premium. The flow of goods has been further expedited by the Port of Singapore Authority's own port, container and real time vessel management system. EDI preclearance, combined with these "trade center management" efficiencies, are estimated by the government to be worth $700 million. In 1994 this was worth more than 1 percent of Singapore's GDP and about 0.4 percent of total external trade. Singapore Network Services, the company that launched Tradenet, reported that it broke even in 1991, its third year of operation, on a technology investment of S$3 million.


      Lessons learned: Tradenet's success has been due to a combination of factors not easily found outside Singapore. The technology and business skills infrastructure, and the general level of education in Sinagpore, are all conducive to the success of a technology initiative. Also, the Singapore government has successfully promulgated its national vision among its citizens. The type of uncritical acceptance of government initiatives which is the norm in Singapore is most unusual elsewhere. Nevertheless, this case clearly demonstrates the advantages of employing a readily available technology to help boost international trade.



      » See document: http://www.tradenet.gov.sg/trdnet/index_home.jsp
       
    • Singapore Standards
      2.2 Information Standards


      2.2.1 Electronic Data Interchange Standards International trade, transportation and communications are key sectors in Singapore's economy. The NCB is implementing a nationwide trade information system called TradeNet which will allow both government agencies and the trading community to interchange trade documents and information electronically. The main objective of TradeNet is to reduce the cost and turnaround time for the preparation, transmission and processing of documents and information among members of the trading community and government authorities. A central issue in the implementation of TradeNet is the use of an EDI or Electronic Data Interchange standard. EDI will provide the transfer of structured administrative, commercial and trade data directly between computers by electronic means. It replaces paper-based communications by structured electronic messages between computers. There are 2 main streams of international EDI standards. First, there is the United Nations / Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) standard widely used in Europe and the Far East. Second, there is the US ANSI standard used in North America. In 1986, a new initiative to marry these two incompatible standards was undertaken by a UN working group UN / Joint EDI (UN/JEDI). A new set of standards are being drafted, mainly based on the UN recommendations, and are collectively known as EDIFACT which stands for EDI for Administration, Commerce & Trade. Singapore's TradeNet project will adopt the EDIFACT set of standards.


      2.2.2 Data Administration Standards In the context of Singapore's Civil Service Computerisation Programme, the benefits of data sharing are numerous. They include the reduction in duplicated data collection, reduction in unnecessary form filling, greater convenience to the public, and improved data quality through consistency and accuracy. The greatest impact on the simplification and reduction of government forms will result from the integration of computer systems of different government departments and the provision of on-line data sharing services. Data Administration as a function within the Government Service was formally introduced in 1983 resulting from a collaborative study between NCB and other government departments. As a result, three data management committees were formed, each focusing on one category of shared data, namely People, Land and Establishments. Eventually, three computerised hub databases would be formed to serve as the central repositories of commonly accessed people, land and establishment data for sharing with external government agencies. The Data Administration function would be implemented in two phases: 1) to standardise code structure and data definition to facilitate data interchange, 2) to activate data sharing between each of the three hub databases and the Ministries requiring use of common data and to implement remaining data administration functions. So far, the computerised people hub database has become operational and has enjoyed extensive data sharing thorough tape transfers. We are now in the process of implementing data sharing through on-line facilities. 2.3 Information Systems Standards Since the formation of the NCB in 1981, attention was placed on the issue of standards. System development methodologies like the Information System Plan (ISP) and Structured Analysis & Logical Design (SALD) were adopted and used by all Ministries in the Civil Service Computerisation Programme managed by the NCB. Two additional standards, on Security and Application Methodology, were important milestones in NCB's Standards implementation.


      2.3.1 IS Security Standards The NCB Security standards Manual was published in 1983 to provide a common set of formal security standards for all government data processing installations to follow. In order to assure that the standards are sufficiently robust and up to international requirements, the Manual was reviewed by SRI International. The result was very favourable and the Manual was confirmed to be technically correct and consistent with industry practices. All government installations were requested to implement the standards over a period of one year. Training courses and consultancy were provided by NCB in tailoring the standards for their daily procedures.


      2.3.2 Application Development Methodology The NCB Application Development Methodology standard was developed with the assistance of two US consultants. It was decided to adopt an evolving methodology rather than search for a 'perfect' methodology. There was therefore a need for a good methodology maintenance procedure which was incorporated into the methodology. In this way, problems could be evaluated and solutions generated and included. A training programme and implementation plan to install the standard Methodology in the Civil Service Computerisation Programme is now in progress. Standard methodologies will also be developed for each stage of the Information System Life, namely an Information System Planning Methodology, an Applications Selection Methodology, and an Operations Methodology.



       
  • Education
    » See document: http://www.education.mcgill.ca/olit/leadership/presentation/sld001.htm
     

bullet2 Service & Organizational

  • 8. 10/7 Tech-Enabled Innovation [Case: Civil War Shoulder Arms]
     
  • 9. 10/9 Project Management and Implementation [Case: Ramsey County]
     
  • 10. 10/14 Budget Analysis and Funding for IT [Case: A State Government Portal]
     
  • 11. 10/16 In-Class Exercise: Identifying Strategic Opportunities
     
  • 12. 10/21 In-Class Exercise: Implementing Strategic Opportunities
     
  • 13. 10/23 Workshop: The Leadership Agenda for 2004 and Beyond . . .
     

bullet2 Governance & X-Org

  • 14. 10/28 The Leadership Agenda for 2004 [Lecture/discussion]
     
  • 15. 10/30 Interagency Cooperation – 1 [Case: business.gov]
     
    • 10/30 5-page Memo Due (based on in-class exercises of 10/16 & 10/21)
       
  • 16. 11/4 Interagency Cooperation – 2 [Case: EBT – from Innovation to Standard]
     
  • 17. 11/6 Privacy and Security – 1 [Case: Social Security on the Web]
     
  • 18. 11/11 Privacy and Security – 2 [Case: CapWIN and first responders]
     
  • 19. 11/13 Economic Development – 1 [Case: La Grange Free Internet]
     
    • 11/13 Term Project Proposal Due (for guidance, but not graded)
       
  • 20. 11/18 Economic Development – 2 [Case: Oklahoma Visions]
     
  • 21. 11/20 Equity and Community [Case: Connecting Canadians]
     
  • 24. 12/4 The Future [lecture/discussion]
     
  • 25. 12/9 Student Presentations – 4 presentations, based on student "proposal" memos
     
  • 26. 12/11 Course summary
     
    • 1/1/04 Happy New Year!!!
       
    • 1/19 Term Paper Due! ! ! ! !