Arnaud’s Open blog

Opinions on open source and standards

Interoperability vs Homogeneity

The leaked updated document of the European Interoperability Framework (EIF) is generating a lot of noise and for good reason. It is taking back what could be considered one of the most advanced features of the previous document: its insistence on the use of open standards.

In particular, the new document contains the following puzzling piece instead:

interoperability can also be obtained without openness, for example via homogeneity of the ICT systems, which implies that all partners use, or agree to use, the same solution to implement a European Public Service.

I don’t know about you but, to me this statement simply makes no sense. And I wonder to whom it could truly make sense.

Indeed, interoperability is defined in wikipedia as “a property referring to the ability of diverse systems and organizations to work together”.  That seems about right to me.

So, how could “homogeneity” possibly qualify has a way of obtaining “interoperability”? Aren’t “homogeneity” and “diverse” opposing each other?

Saying that “interoperability can be obtained […] via homogeneity” is equivalent to saying that diverse systems and organizations can work together via homogeneity. Or in other words that diversity can be dealt with via homogeneity. This doesn’t make sense, does it?

The only way to make sense of this is obviously to read it as saying that one can actually avoid the need for interoperability by adopting an homogeneous system or solution. That is true actually. And that’s something many organizations have tried before. But everybody has learned by now that this is a losing proposition. It just doesn’t work.

It may work on a short term basis, but in the long term in never does. Because the world is fundamentally heterogeneous. And resistance in this domain is futile. One way or another the heterogeneous aspect of nature will eventually kick in. Some of the most common sources of heterogeneity in IT simply comes from mergers and acquisitions, which happen all the time.

Furthermore, isn’t the whole point of the European Interoperability Framework about enabling heterogeneity? Isn’t it all about providing choice? So, why would the EU endorse the notion of having everybody select one specific solution or system? Isn’t that in total contradiction with its very goal?

Why would the EU promote the use of one specific system or solution that would bind governments and their constituents to a specific vendor rather than allowing diversity and choice? I seriously wonder.

And one has to wonder who has to gain from such an idea… For sure anyone who has a monopoly or quasi-monopoly would love that. Do you know anyone?

I seriously hope the EU realizes how misguided this move was and takes it back.

Especially because this flies in the face of the current trend in favor of open standards and open source that has recently made Europe so interesting in the field of standards. This is what has led several other countries such as Japan to reach out to Europe to discuss standards related policy issues. It’d be a shame to kill that momentum.

Advertisements

November 10, 2009 - Posted by | open, standards

6 Comments »

  1. […] Le Hors from IBM (Europe) wrote about the subject as follows: The leaked updated document of the European Interoperability Framework (EIF) is […]

    Pingback by IBM and Open Forum Europe Address European Interoperability Framework (EIF) Fiasco | Boycott Novell | November 11, 2009 | Reply

  2. […] Arnaud Le Hors’ “Interoperability vs Homogeneity” […]

    Pingback by OFE objects to EIF 2.0 | Blog | Bob Sutor | November 11, 2009 | Reply

  3. “Saying that “interoperability can be obtained […] via homogeneity” is equivalent to saying that diverse systems and organizations can work together via homogeneity. Or in other words that diversity can be dealt with via homogeneity. This doesn’t make sense, does it?”

    It does. You need to read between the lines. It claims back the administrative freedom to impose mandatory IT solutions, mind that European Public Services is a centralist concept.

    “Why would the EU promote the use of one specific system or solution that would bind governments and their constituents to a specific vendor rather than allowing diversity and choice? I seriously wonder.”

    Indeed, that seems to be the objection that would naturally be raised but…

    “And one has to wonder who has to gain from such an idea… For sure anyone who has a monopoly or quasi-monopoly would love that. Do you know anyone?”

    …that conclusion is actually wrong.

    Comment by A. Rebentisch | November 14, 2009 | Reply

    • You say “that conclusion is actually wrong” without explaining why you think so. Would you care to explain?

      Comment by Arnaud Le Hors | November 22, 2009 | Reply

  4. The M&A argument is interesting.

    Mergers and acquisitions happen as a consequences of businesses competing. And ‘the public interest’ requires that businesses shuold compete. Ask your IBM Lotus Notes salesman and your Microsoft Office salesman what they think the respective businesses are doing, and what they should do.

    Not very likely that IBM and Microsoft will merge; nor that one will acquire the other. Competition is our mutual destiny.

    What does the President of the USA use, and how much of a feather in the cap of the relevant salesman would it be if he switched ?

    Competition is alive and well, in the Land of the Free as well as in the lands of the Kings and Queens.

    I bet it’s very similar in China. Would anyone from there care to say ?

    Comment by Chris Ward | November 22, 2009 | Reply

  5. The things which drive governments vary over time.

    For example, the products that we now know as ‘Microsoft Office’ and ‘IBM Lotus SmartSuite’ were driven to stardom and profitability on the back of the “Americans with Disabilities Act”; there was US Federal money available in the 1980’s for office productivity software which was usable by humans with specified disabilities.

    Of course, Microsoft Office is still trying to fly profitably, whereas IBM Lotus SmartSuite has pretty much landed, has already carried almost all of the fare-paying passengers that it will ever carry.

    But it’s a statement that ‘interoperability through open standards’ hasn’t always been uppermost in the minds of governments.

    Comment by Chris Ward | December 27, 2009 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: