Massachusetts officials criticise OpenDocument decision

Massachusetts state officials have criticised a decision to adopt OpenDocument as a standard, casting doubt over a closely watched initiative.

Marc Pacheco, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight, on Monday held a hearing to probe into the process that led to a mandate to make OpenDocument the standard document format for all commonwealth agencies in the executive branch as of 2007.

The policy, finalised in September, was developed by the Information Technology Division, which is part of Massachusetts' Office of Administration and Finance.

The IT Division said OpenDocument-based products will improve interoperability between systems and ensure long-term archiving of official documents. The specification is developed at standards group OASIS (Organisation for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards).

There are commercial products that support or will support OpenDocument, including Sun Microsystems StarOffice, IBM's Workplace and the open-source product OpenOffice.

But the IT Division's policy effectively shuts out Microsoft Office because the dominant supplier of productivity software does not support OpenDocument at this point.

During the hearing, Pacheco voiced a number of concerns regarding the IT Division's decision. He called into question the IT Division's authority in setting policy, saying the IT Division acted "unilaterally," and he expressed concern over the cost of walking away from Microsoft Office. He also contended that OpenDocument does not sufficiently address the needs of people with disabilities.

During questioning, the IT Division's chief information officer, Peter Quinn, and General Counsel Linda Hamel defended the decision, arguing that the move to OpenDocument would be in the commonwealth's best interest. Quinn said a standard, "open" format, rather than Microsoft's "proprietary XML" format, will ensure that electronic documents can be read hundreds of years from now.

Pacheco then called on Alan Cote, the state's supervisor of public records, as a witness. Secretary of State William Galvin has responsibility for public records.

Cote sharply criticised the IT Department's decision, urging that its policy be rejected. He warned that a decision to go ahead with OpenDocument as a standard could result in the loss of electronic records.

"The rigid policy, such as the initiative before you that excludes any vendor or any process and relies on questionable, untested and unreliable practices or tools, does not suit the commonwealth well," Cote said in prepared remarks. "It may very well result in many electronic records being lost of destroyed."

Cote added that the company's records management system renders what format a document is saved in as moot.

In earlier comments, the IT Division counsel Hamel said the organisation has become the de facto archivist of electronic records for executive agencies, keeping track of data such as payroll.

"The problem of how to solve (records management) has fallen into the lap of the IT Division and the secretary of finance and administration," Hamel said.

One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Cote's harsh rebuke of the policy reflected a turf war between Secretary of State Galvin and the Secretary of Administration and Finance Thomas Trimarco. With the rise of electronic archives over traditional records, "(Galvin's) power is being eroded," the official said.

Pacheco said Cote's remarks echo the concerns of many other high-ranking state politicians.

"It verified what I've been hearing and my concerns, quite frankly," Pacheco said, adding that the IT Division has not operated in a "collaborative" fashion with other state agencies involved in setting IT policy.

He said he feared that the current situation has become a "stalemate" between the executive branch and legislature over how to set IT policy for the state.

Pacheco called on Quinn and Hamel to do a more thorough cost/benefit analysis and to submit a written analysis to explain the legal basis for the IT Division's policy.

Quinn said OpenDocument-based products do need to be improved to address people with disabilities. He noted that IBM and Sun in the coming weeks intend to launch an effort within OASIS to improve the standard in regards to accessibility.

Advertisement

Talkback 4 comments

    This heralds the start of the FUD campaign .... Jiim -- 02/11/05 (in reply to #120122695)

    Microsoft have started the fight back ... no doubt by "briefing" politicians seeking re-election!

    Go as hard as you like Steve!

    MS Office does not support XML Olavi Petri -- 02/11/05

    The question is one of formats and not vendors or applications.

    Current versions of MS Office will have to be discarded regardless of whether OpenDocument rolled out or not. The current versions MS Office support neither the MS new XML format that opponents are pushing in Massachusetts nor OpenDocument. That first part seems to be left out of the article and the debate in general.

    MS choice not to support OpenDocument is purely voluntary. MS could choose to support Massachusetts' decisions and keep a major client happy. However, currently, the strategy appears to be to try to pressure the client into a disadvantageous agreement. Some say with the help of the media, even.

    Of note, MS has been a member of the OASIS technical committee developing OpenDocument. It's had several years of lead time to get ready for OpenDocument. Maybe that's not enough. But if so, then may be it *is* appropriate to change the debate from one of formats to one of applications and vendors.

    Along those same lines, the new version of MS Office promises such radical changes to the user interface that large amounts of retraining will certainly be called for. At that point it is valid to ask whether it would not be the same up front cost to go with a different supplier's product, especially if it is cheaper in the long term.

    Business Decision?? John -- 02/11/05

    I think the interesting part of the whole process. This seems to be an IT lead decision that has not been a party to any business or cost based impact analysis. This just seems to be IT being IT because it can be. Provide a dollars and cents rationale and business users will probably understand and seethe value, otherwise it just looks like job justification.

    ODF Gary Hardinge -- 03/11/05

    Secretary Kriss made it quite clear that although costings need to be made, costings were not central to the decision to adopt ODF. Regaining sovereignty over the State's electronic documents was worth paying extra for. He also made the point, however, that he expected significant cost savings from ODF, compared to Office 12 ($5m vs $50m).

    My view is that the .doc 'dam' will burst somewhere, someplace, in the not too distant future. The proponents of ODF may not have done their homework on disabled employees, and they may not have done their numbers to the satisfaction of the auditors, but the inevitable will happen, and MS had better get used to the idea.

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • Suzanne Tindal Love me, tender
    Considering how expensive and drawn-out tender processes can be to solve problems that might be very immediate, it's little wonder that the Victorian Police IT department tried to work the tender exemptions system.
  • Array 2009 funding drought rolls on
    For Australian start-ups looking for venture capital, 2009 was a very bad year. 2010 may be no better.
  • Array Can not-so-smart meters help the NBN?
    It was interesting to witness Conroy's recent enthusiasm to spruik the NBN's role in supporting the Smart Grid, Smart City initiative. What a pity that Conroy hadn't yet seen the damning report from the Victorian auditor-general about that state's smart-meter roll-out.
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured