Sharing of Data across Government Agencies - Report Example

SHARING OF DATA ACROSS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES Affiliation This paper documents the present of data sharing practice across government agencies, describing how the public sector deals with the issue of data ownership and sharing. The report evaluates the policies, which facilitate data sharing and improving the quality of services for its citizens. In this report, data encompasses the digital, verbal and video forms of communication. The analysis is based on secondary information obtained from other research findings, government and business websites as well as relevant journals. The author also reviews literature on data sharing practices across government entities as well as the measures to be undertaken in curbing the potential risks involved in data sharing. The conclusion presents the findings of this review alongside the police issues in relation to data sharing across government entities. Considerations in policy are in relation to the philosophy on the nature of data in the public sector, the role and responsibilities of the public sector in availing data to other parties. Introduction From a conceptual perspective, data can be viewed as the lowest level of abstraction from where knowledge and information are derived. Information is regarded as the lifeblood of a productive economy as well as a robust democracy (Office of the Australian Government, 2013, 2). Owing to these aspects, many societies and governments are increasing appreciating the relevancy of accessible information in the public sector in sustaining good governance as well as stimulating economic growth that is knowledge driven. This aspect has altered the manner by which many governments have begun managing, valuing, sharing and utilizing information, both inside and outside their boundaries. This chance have been supported by upgrading existing structures, policies, and practices aimed at managing and producing public sector information or adopting new ones (Zheng et al, 2009, 11). Governments are not exempted in the modern global tendency of generating a substantial amount of data and datasets. Across the public agencies, a massive quantity of data is collected in the process of providing public services. These services may include, managing national health services, welfare payments, issuance of driving licenses and passports and so on. While social and economic activities have long revolved around utilization of data, the volume, variety and velocity of data is increasingly being used across many economic sectors. Further, the important economic and social value of such data portrays a shift towards a socio economic mode that is data driven. In this model, data is considered as a crucial resource for establishing a significant competitive advantage as well as in driving sustainable development and growth as and innovation (OECD, 2012b, 2). Nonetheless, data sharing has remained to be uncharted territory, much more untapped potential could be garnered if government data is shared across agencies. This can only be effective if clear boundaries and criteria are established such as protection of privacy as well as overcoming all restrictions to the use and access of authorized data such as financial, legal and technological aspects(Campbell and Clarridge BR, 2008, 67). Why Share Data across Government Agencies A study done by Slee (2009), noted that majority of public agencies in U.S were taking an “open access “strategy in sharing data that they collect. He went on to observe that information is gathered, utilized and disseminated in order to achieve particular goals. These goals may be about improving public safety, reducing congestions, improving transportation systems, improving the quality of environment, saving energy, improving economic vitality, and productivity. In essence, the public agencies ought to orient their services to the public or in other words the common audience. They may not be as efficiency in reaching the niche audience and may not have the necessary tools and resources in operating the multiple delivery mechanism to both niche and broad audiences (Yiu, 2011, 4). These factors have necessitated the agencies to base their data on an open door policy as an attempt of enabling and encouraging a diversity of pathways for information to reach the public. The agencies may also leverage the data by availing it to other agencies as part of enlisting their cooperation and support in realizing a public course. It is considered good management to use public resources wisely. By sharing data with other agencies, cost recovery forms can be easily negotiated. Many agencies would find it advantageous in having reciprocal flow across the agencies (Bristol, 2010, 67). Many public entities produce and collect a wide range and various types of data in performing their tasks. The massive quantity of the data collected by these government agencies makes this data crucial as an effective resource for increasing public transparency (Biden, 2008, 3). Sharing of data across government agencies may be helpful in making the public better understand government undertakings and all its activities. Data sharing can make it easy for stakeholders to hold the government accountable for positive results or wrongdoing. This is especially true as a substantial amount of such data are increasingly becoming accessible and can be employed in combination with other information from various sources such as proprietary information. Alongside increasing government transparency as well as creating public awareness on government activities and programs, sharing of data across agencies can also assist in generating insights concerning improving government performance. Such increased transparence can offer a foundation for public involvement and the provision of the value added and innovative services. Further, openness is finally, expected to enhance decision-making process by not only the government, but also individuals. Specifically, government agencies and the public are expected to easily access the government data making informed decisions as well as improving the quality of their lives. Benefits of Sharing Government Data across Agencies As the quantity of data that is availed in the present day information economy increases on a regular basis (Landsbergen and Wolken, 2011, 7), government agencies are increasingly trying to be as much transparent as they can with regard to the performance and processes. Publishing relevant data and sharing it with other agencies has been found to be one of the effective ways of achieving this objective. Government data, which is availed in machine readable and linked databases, is an effective resource for instigating changes in creation of value in terms of political, social and economic aspects. At a macro level, data sharing offers a scope for novel ways of undertaking government business, allocating resources and making decisions. This is for improving the overall effectiveness of government activities and operations. These efforts may include, but not limited to accelerating efforts of reducing error and fraud, penetrating into the tax gaps and so on. Data sharing across agencies may also enable an efficient and effective delivery of innovative, smarter and more individualized public services, while at the same time improving the quality of relations between the government and users. Data sharing and open government data can equally facilitate increased transparency and strengthen the aspect of accountability. Data sharing will also enable governments to gain with regard to legitimacy on the part of the civil society and citizens (Reichman, 2011, 67). Data sharing will also facilitate a wider public and social engagement in designing responses in accordance to the public needs. These may include co-production of service, and co-development through newly developed apps. This also allows sourcing of knowledge and information from more diverse sources such as crowd sourcing. Innovative service delivery is being established from “mashing up” sets of data, which are derived from various sources and by various parties. In general, data sharing across agencies have the potential of improving the quality of life for the citizens (Vogeli, 2007, 45). In addition, data sharing across agencies may stimulate competition in the market place, for example in the provision of the public sector services. There is a popular belief that innovators from outside the government are given the opportunity to developing modular services that are more responsive and geared towards the needs of users in comparison to those that are developed in house by the government (Savage and Vickers, 2009, 34). When government agencies share data, access to data per se may not provide a competitive advantage to organizations that harbor exclusive data access agreements. Competitive advantage comes about through offering innovative, value added services on top of that data. A profit incentive may assist in driving innovative and experimentation. It is being expected that the best ideas to be improved and emulated occur when no agency has no monopoly on data. Case Studies The social and economic case for data sharing across government agencies are being established with increasing solid evidence from both local and national governments. Examples can be derived from Australia, United Kingdom and many cities in U.S such as San Francisco. However, potential value creation is also anticipated in social and political terms. This part presents a case study on the three countries on the existing frameworks of data sharing between the countries. Australia In ensuring that government agencies maximally utilizes the opportunities for the data sharing engagement and collaboration, systems and processes in delivering seamless and public centric services as well as promoting integration and re-use, the Australian government has defined through the Australian Government Framework of Interoperability. This framework identifies and stipulates the standards, principles and methodologies that are aimed at supporting the agencies in the process of delivering seamless and integrated services. The framework covers and presents guides, technical aspects, policies and processes that underpin government services. The Australian Government Framework of Interoperability offers the foundation for information sharing in all levels and agencies of the Austrian government. This framework also includes the National Government information sharing strategy (Australian Government Information Management Office, 2009, 2) which stipulates the best policies, practices, instruments and devices that makes such data available to all the agencies. This AGFI is structured into three hierarchal levels a) business, which deals with commercial, legal, and political concerns, b) information, which describes information as well as processing elements that relay business meaning, and c) Technical, which basically proposes standards of technology. These levels support one another in processing and delivery of government services. The Australian information interoperability framework defines information level as the management of information which is generated or held by the government as a state strategic asset. This frameworks also defines a plan for information sharing that includes enablers or critical actors in IS, and successful realization of information interoperability. Other plans include a) establishment of agency collaborations with other stakeholders in sharing information b), utilizing ‘a create once and use many’ strategy with information sources that are deemed authoritative as well as a clear definition of ownership, and accountability programs. C) The plan also includes adoption of common standards and languages to business and government processes. D) The plan also stipulates proper governance plans, compliance regimes, roles, responsibilities, and success measures as well as the best practice models. E) Finally, the plan also stipulates the measures in developing and utilizing instruments that facilitates the transfer of reliable information and data across various agencies with regard to the best practice guidelines, memoranda of understanding and information sharing protocols (Pardo, and Cresswell, 2004, 8). The technical level of the Australian Government Interoperability framework on the other hand, constitutes of the technical interoperability framework. It stipulates the kind of language, standards and models that facilitate interoperability between. And among agencies. This framework divides the technical domain into a sequence of topics as a means of categorizing the standards as well as recognizing linkages to the service and network layers. It catalogues both proprietary and open standards with preference given to the latter. Among these categories include security, interconnection, and exchange of data, discovery and presentation (The Markle Foundation 2006, 5). United Kingdom The UKs e-government Interoperability Framework is defined to explain the government’s specification, and policies that are aimed at achieving coherence and interoperability in the utilization of ICT systems across the government agencies. Some of the principles adopted in this framework include incorporation of the XML as the basic standard for data management and integration, internet alignment, as well as incorporation of the internet browser as the basic interface. These framework also defines policy frameworks that cover various issues such as confidentiality, security, delivery among other issues. The e-GIF is subdivided in two layers (a) the actual framework which covers policy statements that are of high level, technical management, and policies, compliance and implementation regimes and (b) the e-GIF registry consisting of the government metadata standards. Other features include the government standard catalogue, the technical standards catalogue and the XML schemas. The first layer may be similar to the information level of the Australian AGIF and the technical level, the UKs e-GIF has no equivalent to the business process level. The second layer constitutes of concrete standards in processing and dealing with e-government data (CESG, 2010, 7); The technical policies of this framework can be equated with those of Australia except of the fact that it constitutes general standards with the particular ones left to the consistently updated TSC document. These standards are categorized into interconnections that include TSL/SSL, S/MIME, DNS, FTP, and WSDL. Data integration consists of XSL Transformation, XML Schema, and Content Management Metadata. Additionally, it also covers the aspects in the e-GIF and the instruments required in its implementation are established, applied and maintained. The framework also defines the priorities in the production of XML Schemas, which also includes the GovTalk websites (Cabinet office , 2010, 45) that offers support for the entire initiative and incorporates management processes for the government to consult and make decisions. United States The present American government has spearheaded an heightened campaign for transparency in government operations within the nation and has been very aggressive on using various media and agencies for the same purpose. For instance, there are special Face Book pages designed specifically for white house for the president’s fans to interact and communicate with him plus other government officials. Government information can also be passed through this website, which can then be accessed by various agencies. The website contains bills, updates and even new government bills. New statements, information and data are occasionally on government pages by the white house. Also in social media and the internet, citizens can now access live streams and can now post their comments on the day-to-day happenings, specific information or their general feelings (Thomson, 2013, 23). The National Information Exchange Model was specifically designed to establish, and support and dissemination of enterprise wide standards of information sharing and processes across the whole of public safety, justice, disaster and emergency management, all branches and levels of enterprise management, and disaster management. The framework is designed to identify and stipulate the requirements of information sharing, to establish standards that support information sharing as well as offer technical assistance and tools in the discovery, development, dissemination and re-use of information. The U.S envisions the National Information Exchange Model to be the standard of choice for information exchange across government agencies. The information Exchange Model includes exchange processes, formats, tools and methodologies, which are aimed at improving homeland security and public safety. NIEM is a representation of a partnership between the U.S department of homeland security and the department of justice. It has also engaged other agencies on board including immigration, intelligence, emergency management, infrastructure development and protection, international trade and many more (NPMO, 2007, 4). Measures to be taken by Authorities in Ensuring that Data Sharing Across Agencies is A Secure Practice and Does Not Damage Citizenship Despite all the benefits associated with data sharing across government agencies, such practices are also poised to bring a number of risks and the potential of damaging citizenship if effective measures are not undertaken to prevent the same. The strategic challenges involved in cross agency sharing data may be similar to other domains: measuring utility objectives with risks associated with privacy for data providers and data users (GPIQWG, 2010, 2). While it is acknowledged that data sharing across agencies is deemed to generate a substantial number of benefits, there is the risk of uncertainty, and the privacy utility risks, which such sharing may yield to normative presumptions. If privacy is violated especially in the case of data accrued from citizens, then this is bound to make these citizens lose confidence to these agencies and therefore, damaging citizenship. In order to streamline such risks, government and responsible authorities should design effective measures that are aimed at protecting individual privacy during the process of data transfer. In this perspective, there should be designed standard and widespread procedures for data exchange network. These governments and relevant authorities that have not deviced strategies for data and information sharing by either enacting or amending the existing legislation should incorporate these aspects in the policies. Going by the past indication, legislation on communication aspects will need to be updated to reflect the evolving needs in the present perspective. In general, authorized disclosure of public data and other classified intelligence is seen to be doing a significant damage to security and confidence of citizens. This is usually the case when such data are disclosed to other government organs or published on the internet. In another spectrum, if the information and data is not availed to relevant government bodies that need them to undertake their jobs, it may lead to a wastage or underuse of collected data and resources. These conflicting concerns necessitate a difficult and careful balancing. Conclusion The case by case study of Australia, United Kingdom, and United states of America have seen that the countries have incorporated official framework for data sharing practices across their agencies. In conclusion, it is necessary that government data is relevant, easily usable and re-usable and well accessible by all stakeholders. It is crucial for government agencies to share data for an enhanced collaboration and resource utilization. This will spur a transformation in the public sector organizational culture towards transparency, openness and accountability. It will as well as foster collaboration and improved public involvement. Nonetheless, data sharing has remained to be uncharted territory, much more untapped potential could be garnered if the government data is shared across agencies. This can only be effective if clear boundaries and criteria are established such as protection of privacy as well as overcoming all restrictions to the use and access of authorized data. The strategic challenges involved in cross agency sharing of data may be similar to other domains: measuring utility objectives with risks associated with privacy for data providers and data users. While it is acknowledged that data sharing across agencies is deemed to generate a substantial number of benefits, there is the risk of uncertainty, and the privacy utility risks which such sharing may yield to normative presumptions. If privacy is violated especially in the case of data accrued from citizens, the is bound to make these citizens lose confidence to these agencies and therefore, damaging citizenship. In order to streamline such risks, government, and responsible authorities should design effective measures that are aimed at protecting individual privacy during data sharing. In this perspective, there should be designed standard and widespread procedures for data exchange network. Governments and relevant authorities that have not devised strategies for data and information sharing by either enacting or amending the existing legislation to incorporate these aspects should do so. Going by the past indication, legislation on communication aspects will need to be updated to reflect the evolving needs in the present perspective. Bibliography Australian Government Information Management Office. 2009, ‘National Government Information Sharing Strategy - Unlocking Government Assets to Benefit the Broader Community’. Retrieved March 20th 2014, from Department of Finance and Deregulation: http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/national-government-information-sharing- strategy/docs/ngiss.pdf Bristol,P 2010, ‘Open Data Economy’ Copengami consulting Vol 23 Biden,J 2008, ‘Technology’, Available htpp/ bidenjoe.com issues. Campbell E.G, Clarridge B.R, Gokhale M, 2002, ‘Data Withholding in Government Genetics’. JAMA 287 (4): 473–80 CESG , 2010, ‘The National Technical Authority for Information Assurance’. HMG IA Maturity Model. Retrieved March 20, 2014, from CESG : http://www.cesg.gov.uk/products_services/iacs/iamm/index.shtml Cabinet Office. 2010, ‘Gov Talk’. Retrieved March 18 2014, from Gov Talk: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/govtalk.aspx Global Privacy and Information Quality Working Group (GPIQWG). 2010.’Privacy and Information Quality’. Retrieved March 15, 2014, from Global Justice: http://www.it.ojp.gov/default.aspx?area=globalJustice&page=1151 Landsbergen J., D., & Wolken J. G. 2011. ‘Realizing the Promise: Government Information Systems and the Fourth Generation of Information Technology’. Public Administration Review , 61, 206-220. NIEM. 2009, . ‘NIEM Newsletter’. Retrieved March 16, 2014, from National Information Exchange Model: http://www.niem.gov/newsletter200908-2.php NIEM Program Management Office - NPMO. 2007, ‘NIEM Concepts of Operations’. Retrieved Mar 27 2014, from National Information Exchange Model: http://www.niem.gov/files/NIEM_Concept_of_Operations.pdf OASIS. 2002, ‘OASIS Web Services Security (WSS).’ Retrieved March 20, 2014, from OASIS Advancing Open Standards for the Global Information Society: http://www.oasis- open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=wss OECD e-Government Studies. 2013,, ‘The e-Government Imperative. OECD Publishing. Pardo, T. A., Cresswell, A. M., 2004, ‘Modeling the Social & Technical Processes of Interorganizational Information Integration’. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004 (pp. 1-8). IEEE Reichman O.J., Jones M.B., Schildhauer M.P. 2011. ‘Challenges and Opportunities of Open Data in Ecology’. Science 331 (6018): 703–705 Slee, L, 2009, ‘Open Data Movement Redux, Tribes and Contradictions’ Available from http:/whimsley.typepad.com Thomson, G 2013, ‘Government Agencies That Use Social Media’, Available from http://socialnetworking.lovetoknow.com/Government_Agencies_That_Use_Social_Media The Markle Foundation. 2006, ‘ A Model Contract for Health Information Exchange. Retrieved March 21, 2014 from Connecting for Health Common Framework http://www.connectingforhealth.org/commonframework/docs/M2_ModelContract.pdf Vogeli C, Yucel R, Bendavid E, 2006, ‘Data withholding: Results of a national Survey’ . Acad Med 81 (2): 128–36. Yiu, 2011, ‘The big data opportunity’, Available from http/ resource.org principles.htm Zheng, L., Yang, T.-M., Pardo, T. A., & Jiang, Y. 2009. ‘Understanding the “Boundary” in Information Sharing and Integration’. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2009 (p. CD). IEEE. Read More