Archive for April, 2009

Technology Trends: Open Source

Wednesday, April 29th, 2009

This is section 3.1.2 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.

Risk or Opportunity?

Should governments adopt open source software? Critics of open source are quick to point out faults, risks and long-term costs. Advocates of open source point out acquisition cost and flexibility advantages.

Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is effective in many circumstances. The results are clear:

  • The proposed acquisition of Sun Microsystems by Oracle Corporation was driven by the open source Java and MySQL products.
  • Governments around the world have mandated the use of open source software.
  • Open source software has proven effective in military applications.

Where should open source be considered?

There are advantages for open source and commercial software. A clear pattern has emerged. Open source software should be considered for middleware – databases, application servers, operating systems etc. Many open source products are category leaders like Apache, Java, and Eclipse.

Open source software can be more difficult to integrate than commercial equivalents. But open source provides more flexibility including access to source code.

Many open source products come at a cost to get advanced features or customer support. Those costs tend to be less expense that the fully commercial equivalent.

Open Source financial applications

Open source software has not been proven effective for financial applications. Some vendors are extending base functionality but there remains a lot of work to create robust and effective open source financial applications for government.

Companies that specialize in specific markets, such as public financial management, are able to leverage robust middleware to create robust applications. Government customers have the choice of implementing these solutions on commercial or open source platforms. And, the cost avoided by the vendor results in a lower cost to the government.

Why discuss open source software for public financial management?

Acquiring software to support line ministries or sub-national governments can be expensive. Most software licensing has been designed based on the economics in developed countries. Fair and effective pricing is required for emerging country governments. Open source provides a vehicle to make implementation and maintenance prices sustainable by the government.

We may find effective government financial management software in the open source community in the future.  Governments need to evaluate implementation and support needs. Commercial and open source vendors need to provide affordable options for this.

FreeBalance and open source

FreeBalance provides Commercial Off-the-Shelf software (COTS) that is built using open source components. These applications are deployed on Java Enterprise Edition. Customers are able to leverage open source operating systems, databases, application and web servers.

The cost for FreeBalance software in emerging countries is calculated based on value and the economic context of the country.  This model is designed for government affordability because it uses metrics that are typically not used in software costs.

Trends in Public Financial Management: Sequencing and Modernization

Friday, April 24th, 2009

This is section 3.2.1 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.

Experts in Public Financial Management agree – there are no PFM “best practices”. There are good practices.  If there is an exception, it is sequencing and modernization.  Phasing in technology and processes to support reform and modernization is almost universally accepted as the most effective approach.

Technology Follows Reform

All governments are modernizing and reforming public financial management. There is no perfect “end state” because governments focus on continuous improvements.

ifmiscontext

  • Government objectives change
  • Governments reform and modernize to support these changing objectives
  • Improvements to public financial management are a result of modernization
  • An Integrated Financial Management Information System (IFMIS) is used to facilitate PFM modernization
  • Technology including software tools,  middleware, networking and computing hardware supports the IFMIS software

Computer technology is important as an enabler of reform. Technology is not modernization. And, technology can often prevent effective modernization. This constant change is one of the reasons why systems  should be phased in over time.

IFMIS Implementation Success

Many governments implement new IFMIS software. IFMIS software provided for government typically includes many modules and can roll out to many ministries and sub-national entities.  The “big bang” approach is considered risky because of high complexity.

The benefits of the phased approach, as described in our PFM Knowledge Sharing blog series includes:

  • Reduced complexity increases opportunities for success
  • Quick wins generates more acceptance and reduces resistance
  • Experiences in phased implementations results in insights about future phases
  • Focused on what is core to the government generates benefits quickly
  • Sequenced implementation can be phased with training and capacity building

Sequencing Blueprint

IFMIS sequencing depends on the country context. The implementation phases should follow the government objectives and economic needs. For example,   governments with a large civil service that represents a significant amount of budget expenditures and country employment may need Civil Service Management functions in the first phase.

View more presentations from icgfmconference.

IFMIS sequencing depends on the country context. The implementation phases should follow the government objectives and economic needs. For example, governments with a large civil service that represents a significant amount of budget expenditures and country employment may need Civil Service Management functions in a first phase.

The World Bank Treasury Diagnostic Toolkit is an excellent tool to benchmark sequencing and country requirements. This toolkit was designed based on analysis in Eastern Europe and Central Asia but can be applied to many countries around the world.

Software Implications

 

 

progactivation

There are three main dimensions of sequencing:

  • Modules: Reflects components that can be added over time.
  • Modernization: Reflects changes in configuration to support modernization such as moving to accrual accounting.
  • Decentralization: Reflects the roll-out to ministries and sub-national governments.

IFMIS software needs to support progressive activation. Modules need to be added and configurations changed in an easy manner. Governments require the software to modernize at the correct pace. Implementations can begin with core features and adapt over time.

Decentralizing the IFMIS implementation requires the support of different configurations to support capacity. For example, a sub-national government may need to run on a cash basis of accounting while the national government runs on modified accrual.

Warnings about Sequencing

Some observers believe that sequencing and “quick wins” is “consultant speak”. The notion of quick wins appeals to many governments. This appeal can be exploited by consultants and software vendors.

Governments should be wary of solutions that promise quick wins but have no sustained progressive activation. And, many vendors propose very large phases that resemble medium “bangs”.  This approach is often risky.