Information asset registries – a task too far?

1. Information asset registries – a task too far?

2. Introduction • Support the underlying premise • Paid for by taxation – should be available • What sort of PSI local authorities hold • Information asset registers • Issues affecting their availability • Why they are not enough 2

3. About Essex: • 1,300 square miles • 1.4 million people • 2nd largest English county authority • Gross expenditure over £1.5 bn • 300 miles of coastline • Some industrial/development zones: • Thames Gateway • Haven Gateway • Stansted/M11 corridor • A12/Great Eastern corridor • Some rural • Two tier authority – 12 Districts, 2 Unitaries, Fire, Health and Police 3

4. PSI in local authoritiesWhat can we provide? 4

5. Some examples: • Planning data and planning constraints • Waste sites, civic amenity sites • Highways information, street lights, road maintenance schemes, speed restrictions, speed cameras, public rights of way • School catchment areas, pupil numbers and forecasts, first languages • County terrier (our buildings and land) • Contract information, trading standards 5

6. Mixture of data sets and textual information • Landscape data – wildlife, SSSI, historic buildings and monuments, conservation areas, flood data, contaminated land data, minerals data – location, ownership, contracts, metrics, value • Poultry farm locations (bird flu) • Surveys, commissioned research • Strategic plans – minerals, waste, roads, tourism, education, social care 6

7. Asset registry issues: Scale • 39,000 staff • Over 400 networked sites • Over 200 servers (plus DMSs, shared filing systems, shared drives, personal drives, C drives …) • Systems audit – just under 500 identified so far (in 9 months …) plus unknown number of databases • Very costly to construct and maintain a complete register 7

8. Asset registry issues: Who owns the rights? • Many of our data sets (e.g. school catchment areas) are digitised to OS maps/location data • OS claim this is derived data … • Shared data – partnership working or local enhancements of government data • Different levels of government • Districts – rating (business and council tax) • Address data – failure of National Spatial Address Infrastructure project 8

9. Asset registry issues: Confusing legislation – what should be included? • General: • Not all our information included – exemptions to the regulations • Supply of Goods and Services • Educational publications and software for use by other authorities • What is the ‘public task’? • Specific areas: • For Trading Standards – the new Enterprise Act overrides FOI (and PSI?) in that it prevents them disclosing information obtained using their powers (although old Consumer Protection Act allowed it) 9

10. Asset registry issues: Personal data • We can’t supply personal data • But much of our data could be useful if depersonalised – trends etc • Library usage (loans and electronic resources) by age, ethnicity, geographic area • Service usage • Prosecutions • Cost, trust 10

11. Asset registry issues: Lack of information management/standards • Data quality often poor (names) • Version control poor • Lack of knowledge or agreement about standards and formats • Non-existent or poor metadata • Antipathy to metadata (the Google effect) • Lack of agreement around metadata standards • Elements • Encoding schemes • Subject vs category vs navigation vs file plans • (GCL, LGCL, IPSV, etc) • Cost (even if automate parts) 11

12. Asset registry issues: Aggregation issues • Multiply previous list by each country • Add language issues • Who provides/funds/manages the aggregation and portals? • Who agrees and implements the standards? 12

13. OPSI encouragement and guidance on asset registries will help but … • Essex was first local authority accredited under IFTS • As OPSI are now suggesting we worked on basis of building aspects of IAR into our FOI list of publications and aligning PSI policy & practice with approaches agreed for FOI & related access to information legislation 13

14. Despite this • We have been unable to persuade senior managers and politicians to authorise resources to: • Carry out an audit of data sets to augment our publications scheme • Or even update our publications scheme • Never mind further development (one stop online shop) 14

15. Sadly we are not unique • Previously illustrated some of the technical difficulties we face in constructing asset registries • But there is also a bigger picture to be considered … 15

16. The bigger picture: • Awareness of PSI requirements in local authorities (at any level) is very low and patchy • Even if aware - meeting the requirements is given a very low priority (pitted against high profile requirements such as waste and environment or rising public demand/concern in areas such as social care, education) 16

17. The bigger picture (2) • Very poor understanding of what sort of PSI might be capable of re-use • Lack of innovation, ideas and initiatives re: PSI • Concerns about access to information and social inclusion • Conflict between pressures to generate income and PSI • Amateur business models 17

18. The bigger picture (3) • Consequent difficulty in achieving resources (time, budget, staff) to meet the requirements • Which inhibits the development and implementation of the necessary tools, techniques and mechanisms e.g: • information management (inc data quality) • document management • asset registers • standards and interoperability • portals, search engines and finding mechanisms 18

19. In short • ‘Technical’ difficulties around asset registries • Significant costs • Low priority • We have not had one request under PSI Regulations since they came into force 19

20. Is it sensible to focus on trying to make the whole public sector create asset registries? • Central government agencies have the richest pickings • Focus on them? • Power of Information Recommendation 8. Web based channel to gather & assess requests for PSI. Use this to inform creation of targeted asset registry for lower levels of government? 20

21. Thank Youmary.rowatt@essexcc.gov.uk 21