1 Executive Summary

1.1 Terms of Reference

1.1.1 This project was tasked with developing business-level policy, architecture and reference schema for an electronic Directory to facilitate generic e-government applications in the core public service agencies.

1.2 Summary of Recommendations

1.2.1 There should be a single S.E.E. Directory for use by S.E.E. member agencies in generic e-government applications. This Directory should act as the definitive reference point for information about people, organisations, services and other objects of interest.

1.2.2 S.E.E. member agencies should be required to contribute to the S.E.E. Directory a minimum standard set of data relating to their organisation and personnel.

1.2.3 A distinction should be maintained in the S.E.E. Directory between the identity of a person and the role(s), which he/she may fill from time to time, irrespective of the organisation within which the role is carried out.

1.2.4 The S.E.E. Directory should be controlled by the S.E.E. Steering Group which exercises overall stewardship.

1.2.5 There should be 'multiple points of administration' of the S.E.E. Directory. By this is meant that contributing agencies should accept responsibility for the content and integrity of the data provided by them for incorporation into the S.E.E. Directory.

1.2.6 The S.E.E. Directory must respect the autonomy of S.E.E. member agencies and should not operate in such a way as to disadvantage or favour one agency over another.

1.2.7 The S.E.E. Directory must so far as possible be technology- and vendor-neutral.

1.3 Policies

1.3.1 The recommendations are based on three core policies:

1. Single Directory

2. A Single Point of Governance

3. Multiple Points of Administration

These are briefly explained below, and in more detail in section 5.

1.3.2 There should be a single authoritative S.E.E. Directory for all S.E.E. member agencies, which presents a logical whole, consolidating the contributions of all subscribing agencies (physically, it may exist in a number of copies in different locations, although any decisions in this area are outside the scope of this document - see section 5.2). It should be implemented according to the reference schema that defines common data for all S.E.E. member agencies.

1.3.3 There should be a single governing body (Point of Governance) which will oversee the management of all matters relating to the Directory. The governing body will exercise overall stewardship of the Directory and will monitor usage of the Directory to ensure compliance with policy and operational rules.

1.3.4 Responsibility for the content, accuracy and integrity of the information in the Directory will lie with the 'subscribing agencies', in line with the requirements specified by the Directory's governing body, thus forming Multiple Points of Administration.

1.4 Architecture

1.4.1 There are two fundamental architectural approaches that could be adopted for the S.E.E. Directory, and that were evaluated in this project. These are referred to in this paper as the distributed and centralised options:

1.4.1.1 In the distributed option, the single logical directory has no physical existence but is derived from a composite view of the top-level directories of all subscribing agencies. This has the advantage of supporting agency autonomy and resilience, but suffers from a number of drawbacks, particularly complexity and difficulty of maintaining synchronisation.

1.4.1.2 In the centralised option, a single separate directory is implemented. The contents of this directory are supplied and updated by subscribing agencies under rules set by the directory's governing body. This has the benefits of simplicity, ease of understanding, controllability and integrity of data with few disadvantages.

1.4.2 This paper recommends the centralised option for the S.E.E. Directory.

1.5 Benefits and Risks

1.5.1 It is envisaged that the S.E.E. Directory will provide a number of benefits to government. These include the following:

1.5.1.1 By providing a single reference point for the integration of services within and across agencies, it will contribute significantly to the e-government strategy. It will particularly support the objective of integration and efficiency.

1.5.1.2 It is recognised as the foundation for most of the S.E.E. initiatives, whose successful introduction is dependent on the prior implementation of a directory service. These include S.E.E. PKI, Mail and Shared Workspace. (Note that, while outside the strict scope of this document, the e-government Portal, Metadata and GUIDE projects will also be dependent on the availability of a Directory).

1.5.1.3 It will facilitate the provision of a range of integrated services, such as an email address book covering all S.E.E. member agencies, which is always up to date, as well as more advanced services such as a cross-agency meeting scheduler.

1.5.1.4 It will provide a consistent source of accurate data across S.E.E. member agencies and contribute to the elimination of 'information silos' in individual agencies by reducing duplication in data collection and maintenance.

1.5.1.5 It will form the basis for potential extension outside the S.E.E. member agencies (subject to need being established under other e-government projects).

1.5.2 Risks are seen in the following areas:

1.5.2.1 It is dependent on co-operation from all S.E.E. member agencies, particularly in keeping their data up to date. If this is not achieved then the benefits will be correspondingly reduced.

1.5.2.2 As a key element in the national information infrastructure, it will be exposed to a wide range of threats. If these are not fully identified and mitigation strategies implemented, the integrity of the data in the directory could be compromised. This would potentially have far-reaching consequences.

1.5.2.3 Individuals may have privacy concerns if information about them is held in a central directory.