Who could not be against lock-in for government ICT systems?

Register or Login to like
Register or Login to like
Open Data Policy


The European Commission (EC) recently published an important report, officially a Communication: Against lock-in: building open ICT systems using standardsThe Communication introduces and explains the need for the accompanying: Guide for procurement of standards-based ICT—Elements of Good Practice, which was released at the same time.

The documents, announced in a press release on June 25, are designed to educate public administrations and encourage their use of standards-based ICT procurement, which, in the words of the communication, "will enable more interoperability, innovation and competition, lower costs (by more than 1 billion Euros per year), and improve interaction with citizens." The Commission’s activities are an effort to fulfill a key part (Action 23) of the Digital Agenda, the EC’s long-term planning strategy designed "to help digital technologies, including the internet, to deliver sustainable economic growth..."

Great! Go forth and prosper! Who could argue with this? If matters were only that easy.

As I reported previously, policy makers throughout Europe and beyond are putting in place all manner of laws, regulations, and guidance designed to lay the ground work for public-sector adoption and private-sector growth of open standards and, by extension, open source software. Despite these commendable efforts, it turns out that in practice, not everyone, it would seem, is against lock-in.

All too often, when it comes to implementing these policies, procurement officers are retreating to what they’ve long been comfortable with—proprietary solutions—for a variety of reasons. As the against lock-in Communication points out, these reasons include, you guessed it, the cost of over coming lock-in.

That is, 40% of procuring authorities in a survey cited by the Communication said that changing their existing brand of ICT solution would be too costly because it would imply changing many other systems that somehow use the data of the system that they would like to change. While this is, of course, little more than an admission of the problem, others in the same survey point to other impediments such as a lack of expertise to decide which standards are relevant (50% of those surveyed).  

To overcome this, the Commission’s Guide provides not only advice on developing an ICT strategy and assessing standards, but also advice on long-term budgetary planning in overcoming higher upfront costs when trying to remove lock-in situations. Recognizing that these documents will be little more than dust collectors if they are not brought to the attention of and actually used by public administrations, the Commission, as outlined in the Communication, proposes to actively engage appropriate constituencies throughout the European Union.

The Communication explains that "in order to facilitate sharing of best practice, the European Commission will support this initiative by organising meetings with relevant stakeholders (public authorities, ICT supply industry, standards organisations and civil society), supported by a public best practice website." Based on these meetings, the Commission will also report on the outcome of this process, tracking progress being made in the use of standards in procurement and identifying what other steps can be taken to promote their use.

So, now can we go forth and prosper? Not quite yet.

We, as the "ICT supply industry, standards organizations, and civil society" (and any other category you might fit into) need to applaud the EC’s initiative and engage in their education efforts. Organizations such as Open Forum Europe and Free Software Foundation Europe have put out  supportive statements (OFE here and FSFE here) commending the Commission's action.

They have taken a leading role to promote the Commission’s good work. Real change takes time, commitment, and persistence to convince those who are charged with implementing these policies that doing so is not only in the best long-term interests of the citizens that they serve, but, frankly, is well within their reach. 

Paul Brownell is EMEA (Europe, Middle East, Africa) Public Policy Director for Red Hat. While currently located in Europe, he previously led Dell’s Federal Government Affairs team in Washington, DC. He also represented the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) and the American Electronics Association (AeA) before the US government.


Please suggest any MEPs ammendments on this proposal by European Commission. It's the way we can help open source further. Right now I'm working at the European Parliament so thrust me, it's simple to change things:

1. Find a few MEP email addresses.
2. Write a mail. Be ready to answers questions and ask the MEPs to ask if they have something to ask.
3. Remember to give exact suggestions how the text should go and what should be altered (like diff output). Remember to also tell the MEP why these editing suggestions are good. Otherwise, nothing naturally happens.

PS. The reasons to use open source is already in the document. It just needs to be cited. The suggested procedure just isn't radical enough.

@Tom this particular initiative will likely not get picked up by the EP. Anyway I'm not sure how this would help, what needs work is implementing the recommendations instead of yet another top-level political report, as well intentioned as it might be.

I think education is key. Educating for example the procurement officers in open source and open standards. To give them an unbiased view on options and benefits of open software and standards.

EC is on the right track with those meetings and best practices. It bridges the laws and policies towards implementations.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.