~kanarip

I was at a round table session a few weeks ago, where consultants and advisors to local governments in the Netherlands (there's around 400 of them, and then some) discussed "Nederland Open in Verbinding", an initiative by state-secretary Frank Heemskerk with the Ministry of Economic Affairs to get government agencies of all kinds to realize the value of using Open Standards, and inherently (but not primarily) appreciate the value of Open Source software (ergo Free Software, because the rest is Crippleware).

It was the first time for me to talk on such a level, very non-technical, hypothetical and on the policy side of things. Normally, I work on design, development, implementation, administration, innovation, what-have-you, but all from the technical perspective.

Let's finally burn down the list of notes I've taken from that session.

Like within any other organisation, the main factor that influenced the atmosphere during our discussion was money. Not value. No sir! Cold hard cash, of course.

Apparently, or so I was told, government agencies wonder what the TCO on a thing such as OpenOffice.org would look like.

While I'm sure there's plenty of people out there that can whip up a comparison sheet from the top of their heads (and so I told them), that's not the issue I take offense with.

The actual issue I do take offense with is that while asking for a TCO on OpenOffice.org, it seemed that none asking for such a TCO analysis had ever done the exact same thing for either alternative product; most prominently Microsoft Office '97/2000/2003, or even a pending migration to either Microsoft Office 2007 or 2010. If you don't know what the costs were, why are you asking for comparison to what the costs might be should you use the product at zero licensing price? The next big money burning factor was considered to be migration costs.

Going down the list of examples that crossed the table; The next issue was migration off of, say, Microsoft Office (regardless what version), to OpenOffice.org. This one made me laught out loud, since such migrations are part of every single Microsoft Office release you upgrade to, with -in the case of Microsoft Office at least- the added danger of actually 1) being forced to upgrade, and 2) losing data in ways that cause you to never be able to read it again.

I emphasized that regardless of the piece of software used (you write your own if you will), the most important thing was the use of Open Standards, and every single governments agency's choice to either "use or explain". "Use Open Standards or explain why you can't or won't", is what the federal government initiative is trying to tell the other government bodies.

Either way, the choice to use Open Standards or Open Source Software is up to each individual government body. While there is no actual enforcement of the "use or explain" guidelines, the motivation to make a well-founded decision based on facts is moot. The way this is going down now merely creates awareness about the existence of an alternative technology, whether a piece of software or an open standard, you could use. The well-foundedness of the decision is quickly annihilated using false rumors and assumptions, though, and there's noone out there to tell them about the facts.

Moreover, and this is where I was truly shocked, the overall consensus seemed to be that Open Standards amongst themselves are difficult to implement and be compatible. For one, someone said, there's more then one version of the Open Document Format. This poses a problem, since Microsoft Office 2007 SP2 only implements ODF 1.1 (and so will Microsoft Office 2010 from what I can see in different preview builds), and so maybe could not deal with ODF 1.2. Not realizing that this is actually a Microsoft Office problem, I wonder if this is how it is going down;

Customer: Yeah, so, give us your offering.

SupplierA: Sure. Here's costs, they're easy. Remember that when you pay less, you get less, huh? There's also benefits, but only for Microsoft Office, primarily because we make it so extremely easy for you to get back at us and give us more of your money. In return, we'll only implement the one true version of this Open Standard, because you know multiple versions of an Open Standard are just going to confuse you, right? So, well, here's the contract, sign at the bottom please.

SupplierB: Our version of the product works wonderfully well with Open Standards, it is free of charge and you only start paying us when our phone rings. You can sign this contract, or look around for a better value proposition. On top of that, we are compatible with all versions of Open Standards and you'll never notice a thing. No transition, no migration, no hassle. If you're dissatisfied, there's no clause stopping you from getting what you get from us somewhere else.

Customer: So, SupplierB, are you saying I can take your product and use it at a zero price license? That all my problems go away? How much trouble am I going to be in and what solving those problems going to cost me? That I can just upgrade the software without a defined project involving migrations and consumer education? That I can just leave and go to your competitor? You must be freaking kidding me. SupplierA, you have a pen?

Long story short, the consultants and advisors to government bodies and other government agencies and organisations are in a position to make sure a conscious choice is being made, by matter of policy. They are in a position to emphasize the true facts and false rumors, and create some incentive to at least consider a particular implementation over another, despite the initial cost -if any more significant, in favour of the long term value. Because that's what this is about finally. Money. The tax payer's money, no less.