Criticism and scepticism. Experts with care apprehended the concept of uniform IT architecture of state agencies
According to the plan of the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications and Scientific Research Institute Voskhod, in 2020 in Russia there has to be the chief state IT architect who will be engaged in unification of techniques and instruments of creation of the state digital platforms and IT systems. The first discussion of the concept assuming development of uniform IT architecture and appointment of the architect showed that it will be difficult to implement these ideas in practice.
Content |
Main article: Electronic Government of the Russian Federation
Term birth
The term Uniform technology architecture of information systems of executive authorities (ETA IC OIV Russian Federation) with still not too clear even for specialists sense appeared after the meeting of the Government commission on digital development, use of information technologies which took place#.D0.93.D0.BB.D0.B0.D0.B2.D0.B0_.D0.9C.D0.B8.D0.BD.D1.86.D0.B8.D1.84.D1.80.D1.8B_.D0.9D.D0.BE.D1.81.D0.BA.D0.BE.D0.B2_.D0.BF.D1.80.D0.B5.D0.B4.D0.BB.D0.BE.D0.B6.D0.B8.D0.BB_.D0.9C.D0.B5.D0.B4.D0.B2.D0.B5.D0.B4.D0.B5.D0.B2.D1.83_.D0.BF.D0.BB.D0.B0.D0.BD_.D1.80.D0.B5.D1.84.D0.BE.D1.80.D0.BC_.D0.B4.D0.BB.D1.8F_.D1.86.D0.B8.D1.84.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.B2.D0.BE.D0.B3.D0.BE_.D0.BF.D1.80.D0.BE.D1.80.D1.8B.D0.B2.D0.B0 at the end of May, 2019 for improvement of quality of life and conditions of conducting business activity. Then at Pravkomissiya's meeting the head of the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications Konstantin Noskov said:
 | Powers on regulation of turnover of data and audit of the created information systems for the purpose of ensuring architectural and technology unity are necessary for us. It is necessary to review the principles of development of the system of applications, having created a uniform federal development environment which both regions, and municipalities will also be able to use. It is necessary to have an opportunity to approve basic requirements to digital services |  |
| | In many countries – leaders of digital transformation the specialized organizations – competence centers are created. Widely known example of the Singapore organization which is called GovTech. We observe the same in the Russian leading regions. In Moscow, in the Moscow region there are also organizations which are engaged in ensuring development of systems of the electronic government. These organizations provide as development and monitoring of standards of technology architecture gosinformsisty, and direct development and operation of platforms of the digital state. We have these functions now completely on outsourcing. For dynamic advance changes according to the best practices, including world are necessary | |
A number of the instructions which had a direct bearing on the part of a speech of the minister quoted above was entered in the minutes of the commission:
3. To provide to the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation together with the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation in accordance with the established procedure to the Government of the Russian Federation projects of the regulatory legal acts providing:
a) development and support of uniform technology architecture of information systems of federal executive authorities and also development of the uniform principles of formation of architecture of information systems of territorial subjects of the Russian Federation and local government authorities;
...
c) development and support of a development environment of the application software of information systems with a possibility of its use by state bodies of executive power and local government authorities;
Term – on September 2, 2019.
...
6. To provide to the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation together with the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation offers with the draft of necessary decisions of the Government of the Russian Federation by determination of competence center (with the corresponding organizational equipment and determination of key performance indicators for 2020-2024), responsible for implementation of the following tasks:
- development and support of uniform technology architecture of information systems of federal executive authorities;
- development of the uniform principles of formation of architecture of information systems of territorial subjects of the Russian Federation and local government authorities;
- creation, development and operation of federal components of infrastructure of the electronic government;
- development and support of a development environment of the application software of information systems with a possibility of its use by state bodies of executive power and local government authorities.
Term – on November 1, 2019.
After publication at first of the shorthand report of a meeting, and then and instructions from Pravkomissiya's protocol, the question of Competence Center which could become "the Russian GovTech" became the main issue which occupied experts in the state IT and profile journalists. From the published materials it was unclear – whether some new organization will be created (and if is, then in what form and with what status) or functions of Competence Center it will be equipped some of the existing structures.
The intrigue held on not for long. In the middle of July, 2019 Andrey Badalov who is officially confirmed to the post of the director by Federal State Budgetary Institution Scientific Research Institute Voskhod in the first policy statement for media told:
| | I consider important based on scientific research institute to create competence center on development and support of uniform technology architecture of information systems of executive authorities of the Russian Federation. For this purpose the enterprise has all opportunities | |
It became clear to the specialists monitoring a subject of uniform technology architecture that the issue with Competence Center on ETA is almost resolved – such public statements without approval of the management of the higher ministry are not made.
The publication on the regulation.gov.ru portal of the draft resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation (software) on making changes connected with ETA in two main NPA directly related to a subject of the state informatization – software 365 and software 676 became on August 14, 2019 indirect confirmation that Voskhod will deal with issues ETA. In spite of the fact that materials were published by the authorized employee of the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications, in properties of files – the text of the software project and the explanatory note to it – data of staff of Scientific Research Institute Voskhod who, most likely, and prepared these documents remained.
In the software project there was mentioning nonexistent now, but, apparently, planned to development (or already developed) the regulating document - requirements to uniform technology architecture of the state information systems, their interrelations and also other objects in the field of information technologies. These requirements are supposed to be approved as the solution of body also nonexistent now - Federal architectural council at the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation.
Representation and expert discussion of the concept of ETA
Literally in couple of days after the publication of the project of changes in software 365 and software 676 (and in obvious communication with this publication and also with control terms from Pravkomissiya's protocol), on August 16, 2019, in the Russian Government Analytical Centre expert discussion with the announced theme "Concept of Creation and Functioning of Uniform Technology Architecture InformSystem of Executive Authorities" took place.
At a meeting there were representatives of the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications, Scientific Research Institute Voskhod, Accounts Chamber, a number of a federal executive authority (Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Labor), DIT of Moscow, Sberbank of Russia, telecom operators (Rostelecom, MTS), the IT companies. Discussion of the Concept was broadcast on the Internet, however, complete record of all two-hour action is available only according to the direct reference now – from the section of Analytical center on YouTube this record was removed, having left instead of it a short roller with 'cutting' of quotes lasting 4 minutes.
What is meant by ETA in the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications and Scientific Research Institute Voskhod
The director of the department of development of architecture and coordination of informatization of the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications Vasily Slyshkin opened a meeting:
| | Today a question which we would like to discuss whether the Uniform technology architecture is necessary that we in it understand what roles it will cause, what rules, standards. And, probably, for the first time we will discuss those offers which were prepared by our colleagues from Scientific Research Institute Voskhod in the dug-out format. | |
Despite desire of the representative of the ministry to give to the events the nature of conceptual and expert discussion of expediency of creation of ETA, but not directive finishing already taken place solutions, all further course of a discussion rather obviously showed that all key decisions are already made by the ministry, and discussion is necessary only for accomplishment of certain formalities.
Running on chronology of events a little forward, it should be noted, as the message of the press service of Analytical center published in a couple of hours after the action also did not leave doubts in interpretation of the events – the heading of the press release said "The chief state IT architect will appear in 2020".
The main report (rather short on time, compact on volume and not entered sufficient clarity to a question of what is supposed to be created under the name "uniform technology architecture") was made by the associate director of Scientific Research Institute Voskhod on innovations Andrey Hlyzov.
The determination of ETA presented in the report:
ETA IC OIV Russian Federation is a set of the architectural requirements, rules and the unified information and technology architectural concepts used by specialized organization structures of executive authorities of the Russian Federation, the methods and tools of their work which are best providing achievement of goals of digitalization of the state in the following fields and spheres (layers) of creation, development and application of the state digital platforms, information systems (GIS) and state information resources (SIR):
- business architecture;
- architecture of applications;
- information architecture;
- integration architecture;
- technical architecture.
According to Hlyzov, this determination is based on well-known to IT architects a framework of TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework) to which it is added, owing to its importance for the state informatization, a layer of integration architecture.
Of the further slides accompanying Andrey Hlyzov's report (see below) there was a feeling that the main efforts of developers of the concept of ETA were spent for study of an organizational and bureaucratic management structure of ETA (what as a result would not be meant by it), but not on attempt to answer questions what real benefit application of ETA in the state informatization can bring and how to achieve implementation of useful capacity of ETA if it there after all is available.
One of experts to whom TAdviser talked, suggested that absolutely not casually the report on subject ETA was made by the deputy director of Voskhod Andrey Hlyzov, itself relatively recently (in February, 2019) come there to work, and before more than 20 years worked in Sberbank, including, and on a post of the chief IT architect of Sberbank (2014-2018). According to the expert, Hlyzov can be positioned on still not approved, but actively discussed position of the chief state IT architect now.
It is possible to study the text of the concept according to this link, and it is possible to download the presentation here.
"We decide what hurts us, or we treat healthy bodies?"
Discussion of the report was not such with calm at all - pastoral as it is presented in the press release of ATs (to enough tell that will not mention in release any of experts, structurally and in detail criticizing shortcomings of the provided concept – and, first of all, for lack of IT and architectural reality).
The general spirit of a discussion was set by the famous Russian expert in open data Ivan Begtin who is as of 2019 the employee of Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation acted as the first after Andrey Hlyzov:
| | The first – why the IT architect? Why, for example, not Council of CIO, not Council of CDTO which at us is in parallel created? Why we unexpectedly put a new entity and this entity we lift in some structured hierarchy? We have no normal Councils of CIO in the country at all levels, there is no state CIO, but we unexpectedly create hierarchy from IT architects and unexpectedly we take out them into the forefront. We are sure that it is the most important problem? | |
| | The second question - on the described model with approval of architecture, acceptance on systems. I, frankly speaking, would believe in it only in one case - if I saw the current scheme from decision-making before signing of the contract and acceptance on balance of an information system and as it will change with the advent of federal IT and architectural council, and, respectively, with activity of the IT architect. According to the current description, what I see more likely increases this process. Then it is necessary to reduce in some other places – for example, sharply to simplify IT purchases, IT contracting. If not to make it, then at us it is added conditionally months-one and a half-two, and it is accident for implementation of systems. | |
| | And the third question, maybe, most important - I do not know any country of the world where it is. Did you for certain conduct a research - 5-6 examples are possible? It is desirable the countries comparable with Russia. | |
Vasily Slyshkin and Andrey Hlyzov's arguments in protection of the idea of ETA came down to absence problems in FOIVAKH IT strategy and system projects, to "scrappy automation", to the fact that with it something should be done. Among examples of successful application of architectural frameworks the Ministry of Defence and the U.S. Treasury, NATO, Great Britain, India were called.
It is interesting that Andrey Hlyzov considers a successful example (and moreover – the existing standard) descriptions of IT architecture at the state level the so-called "Federal enterprise architecture" (FEAF – Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework) developed in the USA since the beginning of the 2000th years and in the same years the FTP "Electronic Russia 2002-2010", rather popular in the circle of the consultants-contractors, who were repeatedly making attempts to move the ideas of FEAF to the Russian soil. It is widely known that in the USA experience of development of FEAF is recognized unsuccessful, and all activities on this subject are stopped more than six years ago.
Ivan Begtin, in turn, insisted that all necessary control levers of IT at the federal level and so are available at the disposal of the regulator:
| | All situation arose because all approval of plans of informatization by the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications was the formal phenomenon. For all this time the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications had enough tools to impose and adjust architecture of executive authorities. And that it did not use it, well we will write off for the previous structure. Well, suppose, that just new<состав> was not in time. Let's assume, there will be federal IT and architectural council, IT architects in FOIVAKH will appear. Approval of plans of informatization by the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications from this point, after approval of IT architecture in federal council, will disappear as the phenomenon or will still remain? We will have two mechanisms of informative and formally financial control or after all there will be one? In this model it should remain only one. It should be approval of IT architecture, and money is just one of stages there. | |
| | All of us advance the idea of data-driven decisions - the solutions based on data. Let's be fair - now what you described in the presentation, this some wishful thinking because digits, you, at least, in the presentation had no calculation, analytics, - Begtin added. - You have an informatization coordination FSIS, you, in principle, know - as as. Materials are placed there, and the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications has a full access there. Though, in 2015 Oleg Pak promised how I remember that it will be a public system. Give for a start you: "and" - you will open it, - all assertions which you make, support with links to those materials, access to which at you is. Whether there was at least one research with indication of specifically - where it is non-optimal where what can be used? In general, as far as we have a motley current IT architecture what needs to be changed? In my opinion, key is a problem of IT purchases, in general all process of budgeting, including approval of the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications. Here on top to a bottom - from planning (even from planning at the level of government decrees or order of the President) and before setting on balance. The architecture, in my opinion, is an important point, but not key. We decide what hurts us, or we treat healthy bodies? | |
Urged to be more realistic when planning "the bright IT and architectural future" colleagues from the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications and Voskhod Pavel Konotopov from Analytical center "Forum":
| | We have a specific architectural framework which we can recommend someone from architects somewhere in 2020? I have such bad feeling that there is no architectural framework that the choice of an architectural framework, including, is the process connected with understanding of competences of that with whom it is supposed to work and solve problems of architectural design. And if there is an understanding of the process when this framework appears and as process of its determination, the choice will proceed - that would be desirable really rather transparent procedure. Because for today even introduction of an additional layer - integration - assumes that TOGAF should be, let us assume, complemented with about two hundred fifty pages is a minimum. And on this block probably these pages are absent at the moment, and it still should be isolated from other layers … Therefore to me it seems that at the current stage when we begin with powerful accords as the institutional model of approval of architecture will look, probably, it would be worth making these accords more silent, and to select the silent system direction on formation of this methodology if it is original, or the loud direction at the choice and justification of the choice of that methodological frame which will be accepted for work | |
The actions plan which is attached to the document according to Konotopov, "is not realistic completely":
| | Development of a framework of FEAF 2.0 took five years in the presence of the first version. DoDAF framework if it am not mistaken, developed in general since 1985. So if to look at all forka in these methodologies and on all flights connected with their implementation it turns out that it is process long …
In general, intention good, correct, relevant and so on. But would cost it is realistic to look at these things and to put in the plan | |
Vadim Vankov from the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation also spoke about need of review of "road map" on ETA:
| | You have the last point, actually, development of offers on mechanisms of assessment of results of implementation of this mechanism, is provided for April 1 even 2021. I would suggest to move it in the beginning to answer the question "Why All This Becomes and as the Effectiveness of This Action Is Estimated". As a concern or the recommendation I here that I will tell - very much it would be desirable that this architectural council from restrictive body which something prohibits and something through itself passes, would turn into body methodical and helping authorities to fight against scrappy automation. The danger is in that it was not one more mechanism for authorities which in addition requires approval. At me raises questions as far as experts who will be in this competence center will be ready to penetrate into parts of business processes of authorities. One more question - what degree of depth into which this competence center wants to get. I have a huge number of information systems which do not belong directly to state services, but treat powers … As far as in general it is necessary that someone outside said to me how it is correct - on the left or to go to the right. | |
About need to be "is closer to the guilty earth" already at the end of discussion Konstantin Bulanov from the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation spoke:
| | Our colleagues from Sberbank, here they are good fellows – sounded that they to understanding of this model went 9 years. And we have an average time of life of the official who can make something at the position, two - at most three years. And he only tries to understand year where it got that he can make here for this period taking into account that it has an attempt only one the next year because we live in a year cycle. And quite right the colleague from Sberbank told that all their architecture promotes achievement of strategic objectives. And we have a planning horizon with you how many? Here someone from here attendees can from FOIVOV tell that it is in FOIVE nine years, it builds some there long-term strategy and under it brings architecture to achieve these goals? | |
| | Alas, colleagues, we live with you in the poruchenchesky world - today we build one strategy, we put some architectural concepts as we see which will be really correct, useful in a year, through two there, - Bulanov continued. - There is an import substitution and all our strategy turns by 180 degrees, and the architecture does not correspond. There pass two years, there is a state cloud which cardinally changes strategy. Where to disappear with this architecture?! Perhaps, first of all, before turning to architectural questions at the level of FOIVOV, after all to resolve issues with strategic objectives? Here 90 percent of all questions - what we will do within operational activity? Nobody asks questions - as I will change strategy, and, proceeding from it all my far-reaching plans will change? Perhaps, really we will decide on strategy all together - as well as where we will run, and we will deal already with architecture issues after that which to us will help to achieve strategic objectives? | |
"What is created in regions - you do not know from the word "absolutely""
On behalf of regional IT heads Andrey Borodin who was earlier directing IT department of KhMAO, then working as the deputy minister of IT and a state administration of the Moscow region, and nowadays - the deputy director of IT department of Moscow spoke:
| | I want to tell that here you at the federal level more or less know a landscape of federal agencies, but that is created in regions, you do not know at all - from the word "absolutely". And when you will begin to lower the principles of formation of architecture of information systems on subjects, there is a big-big risk that you just stop work there. I have a big request – be very accurate, very consecutive and, to some extent, are even merciful to subjects. I do not speak only about Moscow - Moscow to you and will so be knocked if something is not so. I will dare to express opinion of most of subjects. | |
Andrey Hlyzov took an interest whether Moscow is going to appoint the chief IT architect. The answer to this question was given by Irina Sirenko in 2013-2018 working as the associate director of capital IT department:
| | In Moscow the chief architect was appointed at the beginning of two-thousand years, and there was council of the chief architects, and the scheme did not fly up. In Moscow only one approach flew up - it is approach of centralization, coordination, execution and money in one authority. This approach gave the chance to Moscow to develop to that level which is. The approach problem with the chief architect was that different authorities owned budgets, different authorities created these or those information systems, and they not always listened that was told by the chief architect. With respect thereto, at first deliveries of the equipment were centralized, then the 52nd law of Moscow on informatization and information technologies where functions of authorized body were registered was adopted, communication was centralized then. And it just helped Moscow to reach that level which is | |
What's next?
In the completing part of discussion Ivan Begtin formulated the vision of that, "as everything will be":
| | You will create federal architectural IT council. You will face that at us more than 800 FGISOV (the exact number is unknown because the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications does not give access to an informatization coordination FSIS). Instantly you will face that federal IT and architectural council should sit continuously. Then about 6-7-8 subcouncils for the industries will immediately be created. After that you will face that the IT architects sitting there who will be appointed from FOIVOV have no time. It is not leader model, it is, actually, next dam for the movement of financial resources. And with regions you will just choke | |
According to Begtin, federal IT and architectural council will be useful really in the presence of the one and only KPI - development of uniform architecture. When it appears, then it is already possible to approve all other architecture with FOIVAMI.
In the discussion final Vasily Slyshkin summarized:
| | Development of architecture should have evolutionary character. Approach should not be prohibitive, should be referral, regulating only certain central elements of a system. The industry specifics should be considered, autonomous powers of those architects who are responsible for the industry segments or for the regional segment should be selected. Also important aspect is that we have rather wide acquired international and domestic experience. The question of architecture is not a question of throwing here and there, and the question is more, probably, than strategic management. | |
Interlocutors of TAdviser incline to opinion that despite the criticism which sounded during discussion of the concept of ETA in Analytical center, the logic of bureaucratic implementation of already made high-level decisions will lead to the fact that all actions designated in Pravkomissiya's protocol will take place. Rather sharp remark of Vasily Slyshkin said in response to another critical speech of the expert became indirect confirmation that "expert discussion" was a formal action:
| | There is such method in innovations - describe negatively to make positively. Thanks a lot for your contribution to our concept! | |
The clause from the official about "our concept" is very symptomatic. Therefore it is possible to consider almost predetermined such sequence of events:
- the state informatizations legalizing concept ETA and entering it into practice will be accepted the NPA;
- it will be announced creation of Competence Center on ETA;
- formation of Federal architectural council will begin (most likely, not under such loud name, and it is simpler – something like "Council for IT architecture at Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications Russia");
- development of those "requirements to uniform technology architecture of the state information systems" will begin.
TAdviser will watch succession of events and to regularly cover them in the publications.
| The site content is translated by machine translation software powered by PROMT. The machine-translated articles are not always perfect and may contain errors in vocabulary, syntax or grammar. Read original article If you find inaccuracies or errors in the results of machine translation, please write to editor@tadviser.ru. We will make every effort to correct them as soon as possible. |