Sustainable Public Financial Management

Enterprise Software Success Myth #7

FreeBalance is a medium-sized Independent Software Vendor (ISV) with considerable success competing against very large Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) vendors. We are sharing 16 lessons learned by bucking conventional wisdom to encourage industry innovation and creativity.

Conventional View

Enterprise Software companies introduce new features with every new release through an interesting ceremony: gathering analysts, customers, partners and music stars at a large event. Saturate the market with press releases and hyperbole. Claim each and every new feature presented is “innovation”. And, go so far as to define integration among acquired products as innovation.

Symptom

Enterprise Software customers are reluctant to upgrade to the newer versions because of the introduction of complexity or changes in the user interface that users have become familiar with.

Emerging Trends

The Enterprise Software market is undergoing significant change where new “features” often reduces perceived value by users, as pointed out by Alan Cooper , features often get in the way of usability.

• Focus on user experience design especially since the success of Apple in consumer devices through ” design thinking”Focus on UX.
• As described by Eric Kimberling, many ERP customersdon’t want to constantly change their operations to adapt to functionality. To add insult to injury, most organizations don’t upgrade because it delivers any sort of tangible ROI. Instead, they do it because they have to and often have no other choice if they want to continue to have annual maintenance and support.
• A survey from an ERP user group found the average upgrade time frame is between 6 to 12 months.
• We’ve seen the elimination of feature noise in popular products such as in Microsoft Office
• As Clayton Christiensen has identified the “Innovator’s Dilemma” where incumbent vendors are reluctant to implement disruptive innovation that disrupts the business model.

FreeBalance Approach

Feature bloat in software – bloatware is a scourge – it makes software less financially sustainable by customers: harder to learn and remember features and increases the required technology footprint. Our “features” approach includes:

• Software designed with no client/server layer to reduce the technology footprint.
• Focus on features designed for government with no private sector features.
• Change the product roadmap based on customer needs at the FreeBalance International Steering Committee and the Government of Canada FreeBalance Cluster.
• No forced upgrades and the support for multiple software versions.

A year-end look at the “big picture” on technology-driven transformation of government

Doug Hadden, VP Products

Technology transforms the nature of government. From the phonetic alphabet through Web 2.0. From ‘yellow journalism‘ to Wikileaks. Transcending short-term news-worthy fads.

It’s an era of seemingly different and overhyped stories about government.  So many technologies over such long periods that we fail to notice the transformation.  Or the pattern of technology-induced transformation.

(For those of you unfamiliar with this notion of technology changing the nature of government, consult the work of Harold Innis, who described how the medium used for writing determined the nature of ancient empires, and Marshall McLuhan, who described the effects of technology on society.)

2010 exposed three interrelated government transformation trends:

1. Change of the government to citizen power relationship though increasing mobile, Internet and social networking usage
2. Global re-alignment, known as the “new normal” enabled through improved automated governance tools and ICT for Development (ICT4D)
3. Devolution of the nation state partly as a consequence of social networking and DIY content 

1. Government – Citizen power relationship

Key concepts:  privacy, transparency, data-based journalism, governance, surveillance

Key technologies:  Government 2.0, mobile, social media, encryption

Key stories:

• Wikileaks releases US government secret information
• Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook becomes Time person of the Year
• Perennial Internet transparency and privacy debates
• Research in Motion and encryption in India, and the UAE
• Bloggers take on governments in the Middle East
• Use of mobile technology to monitor elections in Sudan
• Impact of social media on the 2010 US Mid-Term elections
• Little Brother is Watching: Government 2.0 and Transparency

As the Las Vegas Sun reported, 2010 was a very digital year: “Ecuador’s president announced a state of emergency because of civil unrest via a tweet… People were engaged through social media, connecting to politicians, charities and causes. The American Red Cross raised nearly $33 million for the earthquake relief effort in Haiti via text messaging.”

Will Social Networking Transform Government?

What this means

1. Citizens can band together for social change or monitoring governments using untethered mobile technology leveraging existing civil society networks or self-organizing through social networking. Citizens can track even opaque governments meaning that transparency becomes the only way to present the government view: the emperor has no clothes.
2. Surveillance technology has become affordable and is starting to bridge a different digital divide. The gap between government and citizen surveillance capabilities will continue to narrow especially as citizens gain asymmetrical advantages. This will create more focus on performance in government. Long-term prediction: the debate over government size and cost will transition to the value of government. Dogma and opinion will be replaced by data and facts.
3. Technology generates more concerns over balancing privacy, surveillance, security and transparency. Should anonymity be promoted to encourage freedom of expression or should radical transparency, following the Facebook ethos, be used to encourage thoughtful debate? Is Julian Assange a hero for transparency or a criminal?
4. Slow migration from the “command and control” efficiencies from the analog world to improved efficiencies and effectiveness of the network model. Government organizations will continue to adopt Government 2.0 technology to improve internal processes and engage external citizens.

2.  Global Re-Alignment of the “New Normal”

Key concepts: technology leapfrog, governance risk & compliance, financial crisis, currency wars, aid effectiveness, ICT4D, globalization, competitiveness

Key technologies: mobile, aid management, government resource planning, transparency portals, government 2.0, government performance management

Key stories:

• Explosion of social networking in Africa
• Investment in technology clusters, particularly in the European Union
• Increasing impact of BRIC and emerging countries in international organization governance
• Recognition of the impact of ICT for Development
• Technology leapfrog in developing countries
• Increased focus on technology for transparency in developing countries
• Transparency and the “new normal” driving public financial management reform in developing countries
• Emerging economies driving global growth
• Push for aid effectiveness through aid transparency
• Government 2.0 as driver for economic innovation
• Currency wars as countries attempt to pump domestic growth
• World Bank opens up development information

Governance Matters

What are the incentives for government transformation? Globalization. Competition. Good governance. Transparency and accountability have become a competitive value. It’s part of the Global Competitiveness Report. Governance  and ease of business indicators are published by the World Bank. Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index is highly publicized. The Millennium Challenge Corporation uses indicators to track effectiveness at meeting the Millennium Development Goals.

What this means

1. International organizations will be further re-aligned to reflect the growth in developing countries. (And, the ability for business to rapidly support the global market will be a competitive advantage.)
2. Governments will continue to focus on technology incubation to improve economies.  At the same time, governments will increasingly release government information to encourage economic activity as described by Tim O’Reilly as “government as platform”.  The impact of releasing government collected data to economic development cannot be understated. O’Reilly has pointed out the impact of GPS as an incubator for private sector innovation. There will be a gradual move away from traditional manufacturing incubation in developed countries.
3. Governments will become more transparent. There will be a higher adoption of budget plans, budget execution, civil service spending, civil service recruitment and procurement portals. Governments will leverage more transparency and accountability to become more efficient and effective. This will improve stability.
4. Technology will begin to bridge the information gap between producer and speculator. The farmer in the field will have the same commodity price information that the trader has.
5. There will be increased use of using country systems by donors in order to improve aid effectiveness. The pressure for transparency will increase on donors and citizens demand better results.
6. Government performance management will become a competitive advantage. The ability to achieve desired results, not just spend money on programs, will become a key element in political debate. This will transcend the dogmatic cleavages we see in many countries.
7. Information systems used by government will change to something that works rather than what vendors say works.  Governments will increasingly recognize where government-specific solutions should be used.

3. Evolution of the Nation State

Key concepts:  devolution, sovereignty, global village, corporate social responsibility, zombieconomy, old media

Key technologies:  Web 2.0, international public sector accounting standards, IPSAS, XBRL

Key stories:

• Eurozone crisis, yet Estonia joins Eurozone
• Croatia close to EU Accession
• Tea party impact on US Midterm elections
• Support of XBRL by governments like around the world
• Rise of the networked non-profit
• Trends in decentralization continue
• Kosovo declares independence
• Increasing importance of sustainability to consumer buying decisions
• Backlash to bonuses in the financial sector and to high CEO pay
• Maturing of Corporate Social Responsibility
• IPSASpalooza at the ICGFM Winter Conference

How Far Will Government Transform?

What this means

1. Continued evolution of the nation state

Marshall McLuhan predicted a global village created through an always present electronic age.

The printing press enabled mass production of books and newspapers in national languages. Languages were standardized. This technology led to the creation of the nation state. Radio, a “hot media”, enabled radical nationalism. Digital technology enables self-organizing. It enables political devolution and decentralization. It also provides the ability to manage at the supranational level. This supports the economies of scale for freer trade and regional organizations. Despite the current Eurozone crisis, countries continue to move towards EU accession and adoption of the Euro.

This global village with DIY organization will change the nature of government and the nation state. It’s still early days. Perhaps government become a competitive provider of services in the physical and virtual worlds as envisioned in the science fiction classic Snow Crash.

2.       More rapid impact on business and non-profit

The impact on the for-profit and non-profit world is more apparent. Non-profit NGOs with hierarchical structures are getting dis-intermediated. Networked non-profits and methods for direct donation from individuals to recipients are rises. Meanwhile, the concept that “the business of business is business” has been wildly refuted.  Business has come to recognize the need to have sustainable customers to have a sustainable business. Business also has become to understand the impact of practices on society. (Kind of a corollary to the impact that government has on business.)  New business models that focus on sustainability and real value, rather than what Umair Haque calls the “zombieconomy”.

Red Herrings

These represent a few elements of discourse that can distract us from what is really going on.

1. Outsourcing. Outsourcing could be a seen as an expression of the centre-periphery model in operation. Yet, effective use of outsourcing has been shown to have economic advantages in the short term to developed countries. In the long run, outsourcing increases stability in developing countries, raises living standards and, ultimately, will provide a more equitable environment. Salaries will increase in developing countries.
2. Globalization radicals. There is some validity that developed countries have exploited trade negotiations. Technology and transportation has created a global environment. The cat is out of the bag.
3. Tablets. Tablet, eReader, netbook and smart phone wars are unimportant in the big picture. These technologies reduce costs, reduce the digital divide and make citizens more agile. (In some ways, the real takeaway is that usability can dramatically improve adoption.)
4. Cable News. The increasing sensationalism of cable news is indicative of the loss of television impact on citizens. It’s the last desperate moves of an industry in decline.
5. Cloud Computing. Cloud computing is about deployment, agility and does not appear to have any material impact except as an enabler of citizen surveillance and Government 2.0.
6. Government will never Change. Lack of apparent Government 2.0 uptake and prevailing view that government culture  will never change suffers from a very short term
7. CSR Backlash. This backlash to CSR with the notion that it reduces profit or a scam are criticisms of the early days of a broad trend.
8. Donors and Country Systems. Donors will transition from thinking country systems are, as Richard Allen calls “courageous”, to realizing that this will reduce high transaction costs and encourage capacity building and anti-corruption. Also, many of the country systems have better use of public financial management good practices than donor systems.

This is section 3.3.1 of a series of blog entries creating a Government IFMIS Technology Evaluation Guide. This includes information to assist in evaluating IFMIS options and the technology requirements for FreeBalance IFMIS implementations. These series will be combined with feedback to produce a comprehensive Technology Evaluation Guide to be published on our web site.

Comprehensively functional software fails when not usable or intuitive. Government Resource Planning (GRP) software has become more comprehensive in scope. Many government organizations seek out the most GRP features available. Yet, this can provide so-called “feature bloat” that makes it difficult for users.

Usability is an important requirement for FreeBalance software because the applications are often used by people with limited computer and financial skills. There is recognition that usability in enterprise class software needs to be improved.

Governments have unique usability needs. There is often significant movement in civil services meaning that training programs for complex software can be unsustainable. Information Technology and government financial management capacity can differ widely among government organizations in any country. Some government agencies are small where internal product support for complex software is not sustainable.

Featuritis

Enterprise-class software vendors have been fighting the “feature wars”. Software with the most features has usually won. This has created software with far too many unneeded features, often referred to as “featuritis”

The battle for features begins when a new software category is created. The features in software typically do not meet the full requirements of the customer. More can be added over time. Customers who use software are able to consume more and more features.

Eventually software features exceed the ability for the customer to consume. Additional features make the software more difficult to use. Customers begin to object to paying for additional features that are not used or being forced to upgrade. Each new feature begins to have a lower value to the customer.

Designed for the Purpose in Mind

Software is becoming more complex where users are expected to figure out functions. The new wave in design is moving to user-centric design. In user-centric design, software is developed based on user goals rather than on abstract functions. We believe that this approach should also extend to the domain. Software designed specifically for Government Resource Planning (GRP) is more likely to be usable by public servants than software designed for the banking sector.

GRP differs from generic financial management applications. GRP covers the entire budget cycle, supports commitment accounting and provides modules appropriate to government. The budget cycle workflow is implicit in GRP, so financial functions follow standard government practices. And, all modules, including human resources, assets and procurement, are integrated with the budget.

Many organizations recognize that leading software suites were not designed with government in mind. There is an expectation that software screens need to be adapted in order to support the government context. This is true for generic software, but is often not necessary for GRP.

Parameter settings in the FreeBalance Accountability Suite support screen and field adjustment. Fields can be set a mandatory and optional. Additional fields and custom domains can be added to support the unique needs of the government organization.

Language and Terminology

GRP software must adapt to the local language and must support existing government terminology. Civil servants should not be expected to operate systems in unfamiliar languages. And, civil servants should not be expected to use unfamiliar terminology.

Terminology can be a barrier to effective use of software. For example, in government financial management, an approved purchase order commits funds. The term used for this type of commitment differs: commitment, hard commitment, obligation, or encumbrance.

FreeBalance software is multi-lingual. The software facilitates translation. All terms, labels and help items are provided in a file. Translated terms are created in a spreadsheet and uploaded. Terminology can be adjusted through parameters at any time.

Multi-lingual design requires a simplification in screen design. The number of characters required for a label or a field differs among languages. The FreeBalance Accountability Suite provides a simplified data entry screen that adapts easily to multiple languages.

Software applications and software tools

Microsoft Windows is the standard user interface for client/server applications. The Windows interface metaphor is used by most operating systems This set expectations for users by setting conventions. Users become familiar with the conventions and are better able to use additional software.

• Conventions are often mistaken for usability. The standard convention of presenting menus from ‘file’ through ‘help’ is replicated in browser interfaces.

• Applications must conform tightly to OS conventions in order to achieve certifications.

• Changes to the conventions generate significant user problems.

The problem with Microsoft Windows conventions is that these were designed with the notion of “tool” in mind rather than “application”. A user of Microsoft Word or Excel opens the software with a blank slate. The Word document could be a memo, report, table or letter. The user selects various functions to achieve goals. Sometimes, the user can leverage a template or a wizard to overcome the fact that Word is oriented for usage as a tool. Of course, it is impossible for Microsoft to predict all of the potential uses of Word.

Users of FreeBalance software have predictable goals that follow established processes. For example, creating a requisition or approving expense vouchers must follow an established workflow. So, many of the Windows conventions are not relevant.

The FreeBalance Accountability Suite is web-based. The Suite provides application modules rather than generic tools. Therefore, the user interface is and, should not be bound, to Windows conventions. Windows conventions limit usability.

Goal Orientation

Most enterprise applications expect that users are familiar with the functions necessary to complete a task. Users are required to navigate menus in order to achieve goals. This functional design approach makes it difficult for users to determine which set of functions are needed to complete a task. For example, managers will need to approve purchase requisitions. Managers should not be expected to use the same menu functions to approve requisitions as to create requisitions.

Many users enter a function in enterprise software only to endure multiple input screens. The user can become confused about where they are in any process. Users are often unaware of the steps required to complete any function.

The FreeBalance Accountability Suite user interface is adapting to this user goal approach. The first release respects the conventions of Version 6 with the addition of goal-based functions. The navigation of menus is being adapted to focus on goals rather than functions.

Help and E-Learning

Government Resource Planning software can be complex. Generic help screens are often insufficient to help users. The workflow and business rule parameters are adjustable in the FreeBalance Accountability Platform. The parameters in use and the screen presentation can be different from the generic documentation. User manuals may not reflect the configuration in use by the government.

The approach of generic help and printed/PDF user manuals makes it difficult to find relevant help information. This can be compounded when there are additional training and internal procedure manuals. On-line knowledge bases are an additional medium used for software support. Users struggle with this collection of information.

FreeBalance has developed a new approach. The help and user manual documentation in the FreeBalance Accountability Suite is included in a single content management system. This approach enables governments to add custom documentation, attachments and embed e-learning. The on-line knowledge base is connected to the content system. Users find help in one place. That help is fully adaptable.

Simplifying Data Input and Reducing Errors

Data entry in Government Resource Planning can be complex. The Chart of Accounts used by governments tends to be more complex than used by companies. Data input complexity leads to errors. Like almost all Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) software, the FreeBalance Accountability Suite supports validation on data entry. Unlike most COTS applications, the validation rules can be adapted without code customization. The FreeBalance Accountability Suite supports Valid Code Combinations and Offsets to simplify data input and reduce errors.

Valid Code Combination functionality allows authorized users to setup a range or a variety of ranges of combination of codes to be used by the users. Anything outside the range configured by the authorized user would be blocked or rejected by the system thus enhancing usability and reducing user error. For example, users could be restricted to entering data from a project to a single fund or a single organization.

Offsetting entries and specific account restrictions can be defined at the financial coding block level.  These offsets can be designed for specified users based on profile and functional security permissions. For example, a user who enters a purchase order for supplies will be provided with the proper offset entry as a default.

Web 2.0 Metaphors

Enterprise software has complex features and functions. Customers have come to accept that there is a price to learn and maintain this software, it has become the “cost of doing business”. Yet Web 2.0 software, like Facebook, Wikipedia and Drupal, is every bit as complex, yet much easier to use. Web 2.0 has created new web-based interface metaphors and design that makes it easier to use.

Financial software tends to be designed using the form metaphor for data input and the form and report metaphor for data output. This, again, limits usability.

The FreeBalance Accountability Suite includes some Web 2.0 methods for user interaction. Release 7 focuses on functional completeness. Subsequent releases will include more social collaboration features.

Government of Canada entering the Second Generation of Public Financial Management Automation

Tweeting, meeting, talking, walking, speaking, blogging – above all – listening. A busy week at the Financial Management Institute (FMI) Professional Development Week in Gatineau, Quebec.  Presentations: product roadmap, technical deep drives, performance management and Government 2.0, the value proposition of ERP in government. Eight strategic customer meetings.  Five days of conference presentations. A Canada Export Achievement Award. What did we learn? Public Financial Management (PFM) automation is transitioning the second generation in the Government of Canada.

Here are the transition signs:

• Government Resource Planning (GRP): from integrating software systems to integral software approaches
• Government Performance Management: from compliance to impact
• E-Government: from structural to social (Government 2.0)

From Integration to Integral

(Automating the entire Budget Cycle)

We’ve spoken about this transition to the second generation of PFM automation. Software applications were developed to support operational government requirements. These applications became a collection of automation silos. Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) applications entered the government market. Some were government specific like the FreeBalance Accountability Suite. Some were generic applications customized for government. As we described in our presentation, the Business Case for ERP in Government, integration has become a transitional theme: integrate the silos. Vendors have promoted the notion of single enterprise software suite across government. Why? Easier to integrate. What is really happening in PFM in Canada?

• Mission-critical applications are difficult to satisfy with generic software because of the board range of government mandates and lines of business
• Cost to integrate within generic software suites and to custom-developed applications remains difficult because of proprietary monolithic approaches
• Automation gaps are revealing as government organizations think outside the confines of traditional enterprise software categories

This second generation of PFM automation in Canada is characterized by:

• Extending application categories such as government accounting or human resources to comprehensive process automation
• Breaking the distinction between applications focused on so-called “structured” and “unstructured” data
• Recognizing what can be standardized in government and what cannot, while on the road to shared services
• Integrating budget management across all automated tools

This integral approach is holistic. Government organizations at the federal and provincial levels are pushing the limits of traditional software approaches. Financial managers focus on needs and objectives. They recognize that integration points alone do not provide effective management insight – especially when application components were not designed with budgets in mind. We found creative thinkers over the past week and a half looking for intuitive solutions. Financial managers recognize that PFM automation is much more than a collection of features or integrated features. PFM automation needs the right set of intuitive features that span transactions, documents and collaboration.

From Compliance to Impact

(Government Performance Management)

Government performance management was an important theme at the FMI Professional Development week. As we have written before, governments have moved beyond budget compliance – ensuring that money is spent according to the budget. Governments are focusing on improving results. The Canadian federal government Treasury Board Secretariat has developed numerous standards for performance management. Standards for “value for money” that aligned to risk. Performance management made easy – high business case scrutiny when risks are high. Appropriate measurements when risk is low.

From Structural to Social

(from E-Government to Government 2.0)

The Canadian public service is subject to demographic change. The millennial generation has entered the public service with advanced information technology expectations. The previous generation of PFM automation requires users to navigate through multiple tools to accomplish work. Through complex software generating visual noise. Public servants struggling through complex software rather than improving results.

Automating the structural “business process” represents the end of the first generation of PFM automation. The Canadian public service is beginning to understand the positive impact of Government 2.0.  There are skeptics whose experience with the first generation of PFM automation across the “boom, bust and echo” believes that the culture of government will never change. Yet, the focus of the Professional Development Week was “leadership.” Leadership for change. Leadership at every level of the public service.

We’ve identified six technology and five functional trends in this second generation of PFM. Three of these were important themes at FMI and customer discussions.

This is section 3.1.6 of a series of blog entries creating a Government IFMIS Technology Evaluation Guide. This includes information to assist in evaluating IFMIS options and the technology requirements for FreeBalance IFMIS implementations. These series will be combined with feedback to produce a comprehensive Technology Evaluation Guide to be published on our web site

This entry summarizes a number of previous posts about Government 2.0 including:

• Proposed Framework for Understanding Government 2.0
• How to Implement Government 2.0
• Government 2.0 Panel Discussion
• Governments Can Be Hip 2.0
• Will Government 2.0 achieve the promise of E-Government?
• Financial Software Must Provide Social Networking Functionality
• How will Government 2.0 transform government?

From E-Government to Government 2.0

E-government was the future. E-Gov was going to transform government. Improve citizen services. Integrate with “life events”. There have been many successful e-government initiatives. Yet government has not yet “transformed”.

Phase 1: Broadcast.  Citizens and businesses have access to information in a more efficient and effective manner than traditional mechanisms. Most governments provide information via the web.

Phase 2: Interact. In the second phase of e-government, businesses and citizens are able to interact with the government. They are able to start a transaction or.  This second phase improves efficiency because businesses and citizens are able to start transactions such as filling out government forms on-line.  Most governments provide interaction capabilities.

Phase 3: Transact. The third phase of e-government supports complete transactions. Citizens and businesses are able to fill out forms, request and pay for services. These “front-office” transactions integrate with “back-office” systems in governments to improve citizen and business services. Some governments support comprehensive transactions.

Phase 4: Transform. The fourth phase of e-government assumed that government services would be magically transformed. The nature of government would change. The relationship between governments and citizens would achieve a new level. But, this did not happen. There was no miracle. There has been some change in government, but not fulfilling the promise of e-government.

Government 2.0 is the logical extension of e-government. Government 2.0 can fulfill the promise of e-government. Many e-government initiatives exposed technology problems. Many governments were unable to integrate the front and back offices.

Phase 4: Single Point. Many experts foresaw the problem of the “single point of contact”. Any life event such as the birth of a child or the creation of a business can require interacting with many government entities across multiple levels. The need to support interaction for these life events is a critical stage. We believe that is the “missing link” to enable government transformation

Phase 5: Internal Collaboration. It is very difficult to transform government to interact and collaborate with citizens and businesses if the government does not collaborate internally. Governments need to collaborate across organizational boundaries. Traditional collaboration tools have not been as successful as Web 2.0 collaboration. We believe that governments need to leverage social networking tools for internal collaboration. This is a relatively low risk. Improving internal collaboration enables governments to move to the next phase.

Phase 6: Transform. Government organizations leveraging social networking for internal collaboration are able to extend externally. Government leaders will understand the power of collaboration and the benefits of exposing data based on the experience of internal collaboration.

Understanding Government 2.0 Effects

Our view is that Government 2.0 represents the technology continuum of e-government. We also see the linkage between Government 2.0 and government back-office technology.

We see government application categories as:

• Internal: internal by governments
• External: external to government with government involvement
• Structural: follow government structure and mandate
• Social: enable collaboration

This framework identifies three classes of applications:

• Back-office: operational budget, financial and civil service management-transaction management
• E-Government: exposing government information and transactions
• Government 2.0: social networking whether exclusively internal or collaborating externally

Relevant Government Trends

There are numerous trends in government that have technology implications. These implications can be mapped against the Government 2.0 framework:

• Collaboration: Use of Web 2.0 tools and metaphors is improving internal government efficiency and moving to external collaboration
• Transparency: Exposing more government information to citizens and businesses is moving from the structural to the social domain
• Accountability: More information from back-office systems is being presented to citizens. That information is being mashed up and analyzed and providing a feedback loop to government
• Performance: Internal social networking and feedback from citizens, businesses and civil society are improving government performance

FreeBalance and Government 2.0

The FreeBalance Accountability Suite was designed with Government 2.0 as core. The underlying architecture is designed to integrate transactions with content and collaboration – to extend the internal structural back-office to enable internal and external social networking. And, the rich application user interface has been designed for simplicity.

The introduction of the new version of the Apple operating system, Snow Leopard, has generated controversy:  bloated software, usability and environmental sustainability.

The Snow Leopard Controversy

A Wall Street Journal review points out that Snow Leopard has few new features: ‘Apple has made it clear the new OS wouldn’t sport new eye-popping features, but would instead be focused on what it calls “refinements” and “fine-tuning.”’ A Wired Magazine review concludes that Snow Leopard provides “minor improvements.” But, a Forbes Magazine review concludes that Snow Leopard is “a remarkable act of discipline that has broken a decades-long trend toward ever more bloated operating system software.”

All reviews point out that Snow Leopard uses far less disk space and operates much faster than the previous version. Most conclude that this is somehow unimportant relative to potential new features.

Do features represent value?

Alan Cooper explains why so many technical products fail in his book, The Inmates are Running the Asylum. Features often get in the way of usability. Many new technology products have succeeded by having less features and better usability than incumbent products.

Harvard University professor Clay Christensen has shown that the ability to consume new product features rises slower than vendors’ ability to add features. New features are perceived to have low value. Customers resist upgrading to new versions of software because the costs (time and licenses) exceed value.

Enterprise software has reached this “tipping point”. Customers do not want to upgrade to new versions of operating systems or ERP software. The irony is that “maintenance” is representing higher portions of enterprise software revenue. Forcing customers to upgrade to new versions of software reduces vendor support costs. And, many enterprise software vendors are increasing maintenance prices.

Feature bloat and usability

Feature proliferation makes software less usable. Enterprise software bloat has been identified as a usability problem for more than a decade. An analysis by ASA Research in 2005 addressed the concern of “bloated, over-priced, complex ERP solutions.”

Feature bloat is of particular concern in the public sector and in emerging countries. There is more staff movement in the public sector than the private sector. Many emerging countries have limited human capacity. Complex software with feature bloat is the “cost of doing business” in the private sector and a burden in the public sector. Any improvement in usability by removing unneeded features can improve productivity and reduce training costs for all users.

Feature bloat and environmental sustainability

Every new feature and every new database table consumes computing resources. Computing technology has become more efficient but more widespread. This has generated concern that ICT4D, Information and Computer Technology for Development, may be environmentally unsustainable. Many emerging countries do not have reliable or clean sources of energy. Computing technology may be contributing to climate change.

Some computer and network device manufacturers have begun to reduce product power footprints.  Software manufacturers need to follow Apple’s lead to reduce bloat.

A new software version, and more features. Our computer screens are buried in the rubble of features. New features, complex features. Features you will never use, features you will never know how to use. Making the software harder to use.

Users are overwhelmed with ‘featureitis’. Software that once was easy to use has become difficult. . Software once easy to use now boggles the mind, and those few features that might have been useful are drowned in the din of “feature noise.”

There was a time in financial software when new features were valuable and welcomed. But fast forward to today, and users are understandably reluctant to upgrade to new versions—after all, no one appreciates unnecessary complexity. Alan Cooper, in his book, The Inmates are Running the Asylum, explains why software engineers are keen to include so many features in new software releases. Clayton Christensen in Seeing What’s Next explains how the addition of these new features leads to diminishing returns. And, because software is often designed to accommodate many industries and many types of users with many objectives, software is consequently packed with many burdensome and unnecessary capabilities.

Usability and TLAs

Technology companies tried to overcome this dilemma by introducing the concept of ‘usability’, but in doing so they ended up making software that was ‘usable’ rather than ‘easy to use’. Vendor usability labs test various methods to mitigate the feature noise—employing ‘wizards’ to assist in a particular task or by hiding functions that are not often used. But the software remains complex and presents a steep learning curve.

Meanwhile, the industry has become enamoured with the use of Three Letter Acronyms (TLAs) to complicate software. Vendors talk about SOA, CRM, SLA, PPM and CPM. Vendors do not talk about capacity building and sustainability—they all talk about TCO – “Total Cost of Ownership.”

Tools and Applications

The window-style user interface of Microsoft, Apple and UNIX vendors is the dominant metaphor for software today. These interfaces, while effective for software tools, are less effective for software applications. A software tool (like a spreadsheet application) can achieve many tasks. The user requires functions to be arranged in logical sets: ‘file’ functions are located in one place, ‘formatting’ in another. The software engineer, who cannot accurately predict how the tool will be used, is thus tasked with providing a reasonable and logical functional design.

A software application like IFMIS, however, is considerably different. It is not a general tool. There is an established workflow, and user objectives are predictable: requesting a requisition, approving a purchase order, receiving goods, performing bank reconciliations, and the like. A design focused on a logical presentation of functions can in this case be confusing. The user is performing a task and the software should understand this, just like good airline reservations software which communicates the process to the user without presenting the visual noise of unnecessary embellishments.

Meeting Goals

Software should be designed to meet user goals and should be simple to use for the task at hand. Perhaps new software should take a cue from the Philips Corporation, which is attempting to make electronics simple, or from Apple, which greatly contributed to the simplicity of a new generation of portable digital multimedia players.

We at FreeBalance believe it’s time to bring the ‘simple’ back to software. It’s straightforward: software that is easy to use is also easy to sustain. Software that is simple can be useful for capacity building, and software that understands the users’ goals can implement much faster, enabling governments to more rapidly accrue benefits and achieve its goals of modernization.