|
| 1 | +## Title |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +InnerSource and Collaboration in Public Administrations |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +## Problem |
| 6 | + |
| 7 | +A public administration organization is struggling with siloed development practices and |
| 8 | +inefficient resource utilization. Many projects are developed independently, leading to |
| 9 | +redundant efforts, inconsistent quality, and difficulties in maintaining and upgrading systems. |
| 10 | + |
| 11 | +The problem to solve is how to foster a more collaborative and efficient development ecosystem |
| 12 | +within the public administration and between this and its suppliers. |
| 13 | +The aim is to promote code sharing, reuse, and knowledge transfer to reduce costs, improve quality, |
| 14 | +and accelerate development. |
| 15 | + |
| 16 | +## Context |
| 17 | + |
| 18 | +Public administrations are typically slow making decisions, but when a decision is made, this stays |
| 19 | +for longer time. Decisions are conservative as they have to serve citizens, and they usually base most |
| 20 | +of the develoment effort in outsourced partners. |
| 21 | + |
| 22 | +The proposed context is the relationship between a public administration, all its suppliers, and the |
| 23 | +process to build a trusted collaboration environment. There are not official channels to accelerate |
| 24 | +certain developments while the backlog keeps growing over time, even when suppliers are willing to |
| 25 | +advance in some of those tasks. |
| 26 | + |
| 27 | +## Forces |
| 28 | + |
| 29 | +* Siloed Development: Teams often work in isolation, unaware of each other's work or potential |
| 30 | +synergies. This leads to redundant efforts, inconsistent code quality, and difficulties in maintaining |
| 31 | +and upgrading systems. |
| 32 | +* Lack of Standardization: There's a lack of standardized development practices, tools, and |
| 33 | +methodologies across teams. This results in inconsistent code quality, increased maintenance costs, |
| 34 | +and difficulties in onboarding new team members. |
| 35 | +* Limited Code Sharing: Code sharing is often restricted due to concerns about intellectual property, |
| 36 | +security, and organizational silos. This limits the potential for collaboration and knowledge sharing. |
| 37 | +* Bureaucratic Hurdles: Complex approval processes, bureaucratic red tape, and rigid organizational |
| 38 | +structures hinder innovation and slow down development cycles. |
| 39 | +* Insufficient Incentives: There's a lack of incentives to encourage developers to contribute to shared |
| 40 | +projects and collaborate with others. |
| 41 | +* Cultural Resistance to Change: Some individuals may resist changes to traditional development practices |
| 42 | +and may be hesitant to adopt new approaches like InnerSource. |
| 43 | + |
| 44 | + |
| 45 | +## Solutions |
| 46 | + |
| 47 | +To address these challenges, the organization may explore the adoption of InnerSource practices. |
| 48 | + |
| 49 | +Key elements of the proposed InnerSource approach include: |
| 50 | + |
| 51 | +* Shared Repositories: Establishing a central repository for code, documentation, and other artifacts. |
| 52 | +* Collaborative Development: Encouraging collaboration between teams and suppliers. |
| 53 | +* Transparent Processes: Implementing transparent processes for code review, testing, and deployment. |
| 54 | +* Incentives: Providing incentives to motivate developers to contribute to shared projects. |
| 55 | +* Clear Roles and Responsibilities: Defining roles and responsibilities for different stakeholders, |
| 56 | +such as project owners, developers, and reviewers. |
| 57 | +* Overcoming Legal and Organizational Hurdles: Addressing legal and organizational challenges, such |
| 58 | +as intellectual property rights and procurement regulations. |
| 59 | + |
| 60 | + |
| 61 | +## Resulting Context |
| 62 | + |
| 63 | +Suppliers would start working in a more collaborative way as the legal framework has evolved and allow |
| 64 | +them to work accordingly. At the same time, the centralized assets would help to have visibility on the |
| 65 | +next steps and given the existence of a public backlog, this would allow to accelerate certain areas |
| 66 | +of interest for the public administration and the several suppliers. |
| 67 | + |
| 68 | + |
| 69 | +## Authors |
| 70 | + |
| 71 | +Eva María Iglesias, Balidea |
| 72 | +Pablo Paz-Trelles, Xunta de Galicia |
| 73 | +Jesús Rey, Altia |
| 74 | +Javier, Altia |
| 75 | +Pablo Sanxiao, OSPO Xunta de Galicia |
| 76 | +Daniel Izquierdo, Bitergia |
| 77 | + |
0 commit comments