Survey on Open Source Software in the Spanish Government (ESFA-AGE). 2011

Survey on Open Source Software in the Spanish Government (ESFA-AGE)

Survey on Open Source Software in the Spanish Government

(ESFA-AGE). 2011

Results.

National Observatory for Open Source Software (ONSFA).January 2012

CENATIC- National Competency Centre for the application of open source technologies


CENATIC is the National Competency Centre for the application of open source technologies, a Public Foundation promoted by the Ministry of Industry, Energy and Commerce and the Autonomous Government of Extremadura. In addition, the autonomous regions of Andalusia, Aragon, Asturias, Cantabria, Catalonia, Balearic Islands, Basque Country and Galicia and the company Telefónica serve on its Board of Trustees.

The aim of CENATIC is to promote knowledge and use of open source software in all areas of society, particularly in public administrations, companies, the technological sector supplying or using free technologies and development communities. Further information about CENATIC is available at http://www.cenatic.es

The National Observatory for Open Source Software (ONSFA) is the centre of excellence for the analysis and monitoring of free open source software in Spain. The Observatory is also a meeting point and a place for dialogue, where the most important agents in open source software can share knowledge and ideas. Further information about ONSFA is available at http://observatorio.cenatic.es/

Acknowledgements:We would like to express our appreciation for the invaluable collaboration of all the IT Department heads that have so kindly taken the time to respond to the ESFA-AGE 2011 survey. Without their help, the drafting of this report would not have been possible.

About CENATIC


1. Analysis and AssessmentOpen source software is unquestionably the spearhead for a broader model that prioritises and promotes a commitment to transparency, independence, collaboration and the rationalisation of resources. For years now, the public administrations have legislated in favour of this model, for example, by passing Law 56/2007, of 28 December, on Measures to Promote the Information Society, Royal Decree 4/2010, of 8 January, which regulates the National Interoperability Scheme in the field of e-Government or the recent Royal Decree 1495/2011, of 24 October, which implements Law 37/2007, of 16 November, on the reuse of public sector information in the state public sector.

Furthermore, the administration is also adopting open source software in its technological projects, as is reflected by the fact that nearly 90% of them use some type of open source software for their server environments and almost 80% use it on their desktop computers. However, these data must be considered in light of the volume represented by each of the above percentages, which correspond to 40 and 15%, respectively.

Consequently, while open source software is being applied in a wide variety of environments in the Administration, we are still far from generalised application, and even more so in the case of desktop systems. This difference may be explained by the fact that migration to open source software in the latter case is slower because of its complexity, since in practice there is still a dependence on private systems, the inertia of which is difficult to overcome.


One factor to bear in mind in this analysis of the adoption of technology is the life cycle of the systems developed by and/or for the administration, which based on established depreciation schedules (and in practice, due to the obsolescence of the technology) is approximately 5 years. These periods determine the software replacement cycles, as well as the option to adopt new (in this case, open source) solutions.

Furthermore, if we analyse how the Administrations acquire software, we find a wide range of possibilities, from the 68% of them that opt for applications from public repositories to the 27% that reuse open source solutions from other public administrations. Perhaps the most striking aspect is the difference between the latter figure and the percentage of administrations that directly generate open source software (46%), which demonstrates the need to continue to promote the reuse of open source software instead of creating customised versions. However, the technological legacy of the public administrations has not been created with its subsequent release and reuse in mind; for this reason, there are a series of legal and technical complications a posteriori that prevent other administrations from reusing the software. It is encouraging to note that almost half of the administrations begin new technological developments with the intention of releasing and/or reusing the software in the future, and that 24% of them have already released code or plan to do so.

When these applications and pre-existing ones are released, it will be possible for other administrations to reuse them, thus opting for a collaborative development model with positive results that go far beyond greater cost efficiency.


In any case, in spite of the difficulties and the road that lies ahead, this study clearly demonstrates the confidence the administrations have in the capacities and benefits of open source software, since over 50% of them use it to support critical applications. Furthermore, among the most important criteria guiding their software acquisition policies are the basic elements of performance, interoperability and ease of customisation, characteristics that are intrinsic to and traditionally form part of open source software. On the other hand, those surveyed recognise that the lack of professional experts in open source solutions and the lack of training in this regard represent an obstacle to adopting it in a more generalised manner.

Therefore, in conclusion, this study has shed light on two important situations. On one hand, the commitment of the public institutions to a model that is much more open and collaborative, circumventing the difficulties so that, little by little, the technological panorama is regenerated with open source solutions that most of them believe in. This commitment will make it possible, as these solutions are released, for other administrations to reuse them and collaborate as communities that enable a better evolution of the solutions. On the other hand, the study reveals the need to structure the ICT paradigm around open source software and train professionals so that they become the true architects of this change in model.

Therefore, in the immediate future, it will be necessary to undertake actions in both senses that make it possible to catalyse and channel the benefits of open source software to meet the needs of the public administrations: facilitating the process of releasing and reusing software and properly training professionals in the ICT sector so that they may contribute to building a good reserve of experts to carry out this task.


2. Main results


3. In terms of the volume of open source software deployed on the servers at organisations in the Spanish government (programs, operating systems and utilities, both in production and in testing or pre-production environments), approximately 40% is open source software. With regard to desktop software as a whole, open code solutions represent around 15%.

1. Most of the organisations belonging to the Spanish Government (AGE) use free and/or open source software (OSS) for both servers and desktop systems. More specifically, 9 out of 10 organisations have open code solutions deployed on their servers, while 8 out of 10 use open source desktop programs.

2. Analysing how they were acquired, we find that 68% have acquired the open source technologies they have implemented for free, accessing them from a software repository or forge; 46% have engaged in their own developments using open source solutions; 33% of the organisations have issued tenders for the acquisition of commercial open source software; and 27% report having reused open source solutions from another public administration.


4. Of the 40% of the open source software installed on servers, nearly 19% has been downloaded for free from a forge or repository, 12.6% has been developed in-house using open source solutions; approximately 5% is commercial open source software resulting from a public tender and 2.82% is reused open source software from another public administration. The open source desktop software available in the organisations has mainly (12%) been downloaded from a repository or forge.

5. More than half of the organisations in the Spanish government (55.4%) report that the open source software deployed on their servers provides support for critical applications.

6. The practice of releasing OSS solutions is not very widespread, given that 3 out of every 4 organisations have neither released solutions they have developed internally nor plan to do so in the short term, mainly because they have not considered doing so (70%), or they do not have a strategy for releasing them (31%). Around 18% of the organisations have released software and 6% plan to do so in the near future.

7. Meeting software expectations and performance requirements are, in the opinion of IT department managers, the main criteria shaping policies and practices for software acquisition. Important aspects include interoperability with other products, software guarantees, ease of customisation and migration, support and maintenance costs.


8. The shortage of personnel who are experts in open source solutions and the resulting need for training is considered to be the main barrier or aspect that complicates the adoption of open source software in the public administrations.

9. In the case of public tenders for software solutions, normally there are no departments or methodologies available to assess the quality of the software offered (79% of the organisations). In these tenders, it is also not customary to stipulate that the proposed solutions must consider the use of open source solutions (38%). Nevertheless, while not specifically requiring the solutions offered to be open source, 2 out of every 10 organisations take a favourable view of offers that consider open source solutions and 1 out of every 10 organisations clearly stipulate in the tenders that, as far as possible (taking into account the department's system architecture), software components must be open source.

10. In the opinion of the heads of the IT departments in collaborating organisations, the level of knowledge in the field of open source software on behalf of technicians in their departments is average (49% of the organisations) to poor (37%), with there being a general consensus about the need to improve knowledge about open source software among department personnel (86% of the organisations).


3. Methodology


4. Representativeness of the results


To establish the sampling frame, the organisations used were those that were identified in the General State Budgets for 2010. This sampling frame included the Spanish Government Ministries, as well as their corresponding Autonomous Organisations and State Agencies under the auspices of the Ministerial Departments of the Spanish Government.

Finally, the study focused on a population of 198 organisations (from 210 organisations, 12 were eliminated for having confirmed that they have no IT department), with a 95.5% confidence level (two sigmas) and P=Q (maximum uncertainty), with an error for the sample set of ±4.42%.

The following organisations participated:


5. Open Source Software on Servers

5.1 Use of OSS on Servers


(143 cases)

Figure 1. Total percentage of organisations that have deployed OSS on Servers

90.9

9.1

Percentage of organisations that have OSS

Percentage of organisations that do not have OSS


Percentage of open source software

Percentage of proprietary software

(143 cases)

A13. Of all the software that you have indicated you have deployed on the servers in your organisation, approximately what percentage is open source software and what percentage is proprietary software? We are referring to programs, operating systems and utilities, in both production and in testing or pre-production environments.

Figure 2. Total percentage of software deployed on servers by type (OSS or Proprietary)


% OSS developed by the organisation

% OSS reused from other Public Administrations

% OSS purchased commercially

% OSS downloaded for free

% Proprietary software

(143 cases)

Figure 3. Percentage of OSS used on servers by acquisition type

A14. And more specifically, indicate the percentage of software (volume of applications) that...


(143 cases)

% of the Public Administrations in which all the software deployed on servers is OSS (100%)

% of the Public Administrations in which most of the software deployed on servers is OSS (75-99%)

% of the Public Administrations in which between 50 and 74% of the software deployed on servers is OSS

% of the Public Administrations in which between 25 and 49% of the software deployed on servers is OSS

% of the Public Administrations in which less than 24% of the software deployed on servers is OSS

% of the Public Administrations that have no OSS deployed on servers

A13. Of all the software that you have indicated you have deployed on the servers in your organisation, approximately what percentage is open source software and what percentage is proprietary software? We are referring to programs, operating systems and utilities, in both production and in testing or pre-production environments.

Figure 4. Detailed percentages of OSS deployed on servers


(130 cases)

Percentage of organisations in which the OSS deployed on servers provides support for critical applications

Figure 5. Servers with OSS providing support for critical applications

A13B. Indicate whether any open source software that is deployed on servers in your organisation provides support for business applications that you consider to be critical (ERP, transactions, databases, human resource management, etc.).

Percentage of organisations in which the OSS deployed on servers does not provide support for critical applications


External support provided by a company

Internal support provided by department personnel

Combined support (external and internal)

No support

No response

(143 cases)

Figure 6. Type of server software support

A12. Who is primarily responsible for providing support for all servers in your organisation?


5.2 Details of the technology used on servers


Operating systems

Email servers

Database servers

Webmail systems

Directory service systems

Content management systems (CMS)

Application servers

Enterprise content management (ECM)

Customer relationship management (CRM)

Business process management (BPM)

(143 cases)

Figure 7. Server software technologies deployed


WINDOWS

LINUX

Other

(143 cases)

Figure 8. Operating systems used on servers

A1. Indicate what operating systems are used on the servers at your institution.


Windows Server 2003Linux (Red Hat)

Windows Server 2008Linux (Ubuntu)

SolarisLinux (Debian)Linux (Centos)

Linux (SuSE)HP-UX

Windows 2000 ServerWindows 2000 Advanced Server

AIXZ/OS

Scientific LinuxBSD (FreeBSD)

Windows NT ServerBSD (NetBSD)

Other

(143 cases)

Figure 9. Details of the operating systems used on servers

A1. Indicate what operating systems are used on the servers at your institution.


MS Exchange

External servers

Postfix

Sendmail

Lotus Domino

Qmail

Zimbra

Exim

Other

Unknown

(143 cases)

Figure 10. Email servers

A2. Indicate what email servers are used at your institution.


Microsoft Outlook Web Access

IMP/Horde Webmail

SquirrelMail

Lotus Domino

Zimbra

Deucalion

Roundcube

Novell NetMail WebAccess

Exchange

Oracle Webmail

Other

Unknown

None

(143 cases)

Figure 11. Webmail systems

A3. Indicate what webmail system your organisation uses.


MySQL

Microsoft SQL Server

Oracle

PostgreSQL

IBM DB2

Software AG

Ingres

Informix

Adabis

Other

Unknown

None

(143 cases)

Figure 12. Database servers

A4. Indicate what database servers your organisation uses.


DrupalJoomla

SharepointOpen CMS

AlfrescoLiferay

DocumentumMagnolia

Plone/ZopeCustom development

WordpressOwn

WebcontrolOracle

UcmOther

Unknown

None

(143 cases)

Figure 13. Content management systems

A5. Indicate what web content management system (CMS) your organisation uses.


Microsoft Active Directory

OpenLDAP

Oracle Internet Directory

Novell eDirectory

Other

Unknown

None

(143 cases)

Figure 14. Directory service systems

A6. Indicate what directory service systems your organisation uses.


ApacheTomcat

Oracle IAS

Jboss

BEA WebLogic

GlassFish

IBM WebSphere

Other

Unknown

None

(143 cases)

Figure 15. Application server systems

A7. Indicate what application servers your organisation uses.


AlfrescoSharepoint

DocumentumOpen CMSOpenText

Oracle UCMCustom development

AbsysInvesdocEversuite

IBM FileNetNuxeo

KnowledgetreeOther

Unknown

None

(143 cases)

Figure 16. Enterprise content management systems

A8. Indicate what enterprise content management systems (ECM) your organisation uses.


mySAP CRM

Navision

OpenCRM

PeopleSoft

Sugar CRM

Other

Unknown

None

(143 cases)

Figure 17. Customer relationship management systems

A9. Indicate what customer relationship management systems (CRM) your organisation uses.


MicroStrategy

JBPM

Bonita

Oracle BPM

Other

Unknown

None

(143 cases)

Figure 18. Business process management systems

A10. Indicate what business process management systems (BPM) your organisation uses.


Agenda/calendar server

Project management

Digital repository

Wiki

Groupware, collaborative software

Blog

Social network service

None of the above

(143 cases)

Figure 19. Collaborative software

A11. Indicate whether your organisation uses software in the following areas. If so, what is the name of the software?


5.3 Use of Desktop OSS


(143 cases)

Figure 20. Total percentage of organisations that have deployed desktop OSS

83.2

16.8

Percentage of organisations that have OSS

Percentage of organisations that do not have OSS


Percentage of open source software

Percentage of proprietary software

(143 cases)

Figure 21. Total percentage of desktop software by type (OSS and proprietary)

B4. Of all the desktop software that you have indicated you have in your organisation, approximately what percentage is open source desktop software and what percentage is proprietary software? We are referring to programs, operating systems and utilities that are being used.


% OSS developed by the organisation

% OSS reused from other Public Administrations

% OSS purchased commercially

% OSS downloaded for free

% Proprietary software

(143 cases)

Figure 22. OSS used on desktops, by acquisition type

B5. And more specifically, indicate the percentage of software (volume of applications) that...


(143 cases)

Figure 23. Detailed percentages of OSS deployed on desktops

% of the organisations in which all the software deployed on desktops is OSS (100%)

% of the organisations in which most of the software deployed on desktops is OSS (75-99%)

% of the organisations in which between 50 and 74% of the software deployed on desktops is OSS

% of the organisations in which between 25 and 49% of the software deployed on desktops is OSS

% of the organisations in which less than 24% of the software deployed on desktops is OSS

% of the organisations that have no OSS deployed on desktops

B4. Of all the desktop software that you have indicated you have in your organisation, approximately what percentage is open source desktop software and what percentage is proprietary software? We are referring to programs, operating systems and utilities that are being used.


External support provided by a company

Internal support provided by department personnel

Combined support (external and internal)

No support

No response

(143 cases)

Figure 24. Type of desktop software support

B3. Who is primarily responsible for providing support for all desktop software in your organisation?


5.4 Details of the technology used on desktops and cloud applications


WINDOWS

LINUX

Other

(143 cases)

MAC

Figure 25. Desktop operating systems

B1. Indicate what operating systems are used on computers at your institution.

100

42,7

33,6

7,7

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Windows XPWindows 7

Windows VistaLinux (Ubuntu)

Mac OS XMac OS

Linux (Debian)Linux (Red Hat)Windows 2000

Windows 98 or earlierLinux (SuSE)Windows NT

SolarisOpen Solaris

BSD (FreeBSD)Other

(143 cases)

Figure 26. Details of desktop operating systems

B1. Indicate what operating systems are used on computers at your institution.


Microsoft OfficeMicrosoft Internet Explorer

Microsoft Outlook / OutlookExpressMozilla / Firefox web browser

Google ChromeSkype (VoIP)

Thunderbird mail clientOpenOffice

SafariMessenger

GimpMac Mail

iWorkLibreOffice

EvolutionEkiga (VoIP)

NeoOfficeEmpathy

Others

(143 cases)

Figure 27. Desktop applications

B2. Indicate which of the following desktop applications are used at your organisation.


(143 cases)

Use CLOUD applications

Do not use CLOUD applications

Figure 28. Use of cloud applications

B2B. Are any cloud-based desktop applications used at your organisation?


5.5 Practices and policies related to software acquisition


Figure 29. Organisations that have developed OSS solutions

(143 cases)

Organisations that have developed server solutions with

OSS

Organisations that have developed desktop solutions

with OSS

4 6 . 9

1 4 . 7

0 % 2 0 % 4 0 % 6 0 % 8 0 % 1 0 0 %


Organisations that have developed OSS server solutions (67 cases)

Organisations that have released one or more solutions developed with OSS

Organisations that have not released solutions developed with OSS, but that intend to do so

Organisations that have not released solutions developed with OSS and do not intend to do so

Figure 30. Release of server solutions developed internally with OSS

A15. Focusing on server tools developed internally by your department using open source software, indicate whether any of these have been released or if you plan to release them for reuse.


Organisations that have developed OSS desktop solutions (20 cases) VERY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE

Organisations that have released one or more solutions developed with OSS

Organisations that have not released solutions developed with OSS, but intend to do so

Organisations that have not released solutions developed with OSS and do not intend to do so

Figure 31. Release of desktop solutions developed internally with OSS

B6. Focusing on the open source desktop applications for internal use that you have indicated as having been developed in your organisation, indicate whether any have been released or if you plan to release these applications for reuse.


Organisations that have developed OSS server solutions and that have not released them and do not plan to do so (51 cases)

VERY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE

Figure 32. Reasons for not releasing server solutions developed internally with OSS

Haven't considered it

No release strategy

Lack of knowledge of legal aspects and methodology.

Because it is very specific software

Other

No reason

A17. Indicate the reasons why internally-developed server software has not been released.

7 0 . 6

3 1 . 4

1 1 . 8

1 1 . 8

9 . 8

2 . 0

0 % 2 0 % 4 0 % 6 0 % 8 0 % 1 0 0 %


Organisations that have developed OSS desktop solutions and that have not released them and do not plan to do so (17 cases)

VERY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE

Figure 33. Reasons for not releasing desktop solutions developed internally with OSS

Haven't considered it

No release strategy

Lack of knowledge of legal aspects and methodology.

Security problems

Other

No reason

B8. Indicate the reasons why internally-developed desktop software has not been released.

5 2 . 9

2 9 . 4

5 . 9

5 . 9

1 1 . 8

5 . 9

0 % 2 0 % 4 0 % 6 0 % 8 0 % 1 0 0 %


Meets expectations

Software performance

Interoperability with other products

Guarantee

Migration cost

Ease of customisation

Support and maintenance cost

Total cost of ownership (TCO)

Updating cost

Prior personnel experience

Software previously used by the organisation

Preferences of technical personnel

Contractual obligations - licensing

Independence from suppliers

Because it is open source

Impact on local ICT

(1) Not at all important

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) Very important

(6) No opinion

Average

4.52

4.17

4.05

4.01

3.94

3.9

3.86

3.77

3.74

3.71

3.7

3.62

3.57

3.54

3.2

2.94

Deviation

0.63

0.96

0.93

0.96

0.92

1.03

0.97

1.02

1.02

0.96

1.01

1.07

1.05

1.23

1.13

1.09

Figure 34. Criteria that have an influence on software acquisition

C1. Of the following criteria that might influence the public acquisition of software, indicate the importance of each for your organisation (on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important).

(143 cases)

32.9

34.3

38.5

35.0

44.8

39.2

37.1

35.0

33.6

45.5

37.8

36.4

30.8

29.4

30.1

17.5

58.7

44.1

36.4

36.4

28.0

31.5

28.0

24.5

25.9

19.6

22.4

21.7

20.3

25.9

11.2

6.3

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Software performanceMeets expectations

Support and maintenance cost

Ease of customisation

Migration costGuarantee

Interoperability with other products

Independence from suppliers

Contractual obligations - licensing

Preferences of technical personnel

Software previously used by the organisation

Impact on local ICT

Because it is open source

Prior personnel experience

Updating cost

Total cost of ownership (TCO)

Critical aspects

Important aspects

Less important aspects

Interesting aspects

Figure 35. Ranking of criteria that have an influence on software acquisition


(1) Totally disagree

(5) Totally agree

No opinion

(143 cases)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Lack of expert personnel, training

Problems with migration from proprietary platforms

Lack of knowledge about solutions

Unfamiliarity with technical support companies

Interoperability problems with products

Specific software adaptations

No OSS solutions that meet their needs

Time investment to identify software

Related costs

Difficulty in calculating TCO

Quality guarantees not sufficient with OSS

Drafting of technical and legal terms and conditions

Legal aspects of OSS, including licenses

Average

3.59

3.48

3.4

3.37

3.35

3.07

3

2.93

2.92

2.56

2.5

2.44

2.33

Deviation

1.14

1.07

1.21

1.22

1.17

1.25

1.26

1.11

1.21

1.09

1.27

1.26

1.16

Figure 36. Barriers to open source software acquisition

C2. Below is a list of possible reasons that might make it more difficult for organisations like yours to adopt open source software. With your organisation in mind, indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each (on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means “I totally disagree” and 5 “I totally agree”).

35.0

28.7

28.7

30.8

29.4

27.3

18.9

20.3

18.9

14.7

12.6

11.2

9.1

22.4

18.9

20.3

19.6

16.8

11.9

14.0

7.7

11.9

2.8

8.4

7.0

5.6

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Most significant

barrier

Significant barriers

Less significant barriers

Specific software adaptations

There are no OSS solutions that meet our needs.

Time investment required to identify suitable software

Related costs (change management, training, etc.)

Lack of expert personnel, need for

training

Problems with migration from proprietary platforms

Lack of knowledge about solutions

Unfamiliarity with technical support companies

Interoperability problems with implemented products

Difficulty in calculating TCO

Quality guarantees not sufficient with OSS

Drafting of technical and legal terms and conditions

Legal aspects of OSS, including licenses

Irrelevant barriers

Figure 37. Ranking of barriers to open source software acquisition


(143 cases)

Figure 38. Existence of departments or methodologies to assess software quality

C3. With regard to the public acquisition of open source software, indicate whether you have a department or methodology to assess the quality and suitability of the software in terms of legal and technological requirements.

Has a quality control centre that verifies both the required features and the validity of the

licensing (compatibility among licenses used in the development)

Has no quality control centre, but has a methodology that requires suppliers to adopt

suitable licenses

Has no department or methodologies in this regard

Unknown


(143 cases)

All software components must be open source.

As much as possible (taking into account the architecture of the organisation's current systems),

the software components must be open source.

Unknown

Not a requirement, but open source software solutions are viewed favourably.

Figure 39. Requirements related to the public acquisition of software

C4. Indicate whether it is a requirement in public tenders for software.

No specifications in this regard; it is left up to the discretion of the tenderers.


5.6 OSS knowledge and training


(143 cases)

Basic level

Intermediate level

Expert level

Figure 40. Average level of OSS knowledge by personnel in the organisation

F1. How would you define the average level of knowledge in the area of open source software that personnel in your organisation have?


Personnel should improve their knowledge of OSS

Personnel do not need to improve their knowledge of OSS

(143 cases)

Figure 41. Need to improve knowledge of OSS by personnel in the organisation

F2. Do you think that the technical personnel in your organisation should improve their knowledge of open source software?


OSS training was provided in 2010

OSS training was not provided in 2010

(143 cases)

Figure 42. OSS training during 2010 in the IT department

G1. Did your organisation provide employee training in open source software during 2010?


(143 cases)

1-24%

25-49%

50-74%

75-99%

100%

Unknown

Average

32.65 %

Figure 43. Percentage of employees who received training in OSS

G2. What percentage of your employees received this training in open source software during 2010?


5.7 Trends and forecasts for technology adoption/migration


Server operating systemsContent management system

Desktop operating systemsDatabases

Office automation, productivity applicationsBrowsers

Application serversEnterprise content management (ECM)

Email clientWebmail

WikiMail servers

VoIPDirectory service system

GroupwareProject management

Agenda/calendar serversDigital repository

BlogBusiness process management (BPM)

Social network servicesCustomer relationship management (CRM)

(143 cases)

Figure 44. Organisations that anticipate adopting or replacing technologies, by type

E. Indicate whether your organisation is considering implementing any of the systems listed below, either to replace an obsolete system or as a new implementation.


Yes; the organisation will develop it with OSS for internal use.Yes; it will be reused from another public administration.

Yes; OSS will be acquired through a public tender.Yes; OSS will be downloaded for free from the Internet.

Yes; proprietary software will be acquired through a public tender.







(143 cases)

SERVER OPERATING SYSTEMS

CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

DESKTOP OPERATING SYSTEMS

Figure 45. Organisations that will replace or adopt new systems, by software type.

E. Indicate whether your organisation is considering implementing any of the systems listed below, either to replace an obsolete system or as a new implementation.


More information about these data:

Report “El software libre en los organismos públicos de ámbito estatal. 2011.” ["Open source software in public organisations of the Spanish government. 2011."] Available at: www.cenatic.es/dossier/panel-informe-age2011

Panel de Indicadores Administraciones Públicas del ONSFA. [Panel of Public Administration Indicators from the ONSFA.] Available at: www.cenatic.es/dossier/panel-indicadores-age2011

This work is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Spain license.

To see a copy of this license, please visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.es

http://www.cenatic.eshttp://observatorio.cenatic.eshttp://www.twitter.com/cenatichttp://www.facebook.com/cenatichttp://www.youtube.com/user/videoscenatichttp://identi.ca/cenatic.http://www.flickr.com/photos/cenatic

Authors:Ana Trejo Pulido (coordination)Manuel Domínguez DoradoPop Ramsamy

Published by: CENATIC. Av/ Clara Campoamor s/n. 06200 Almendralejo (Badajoz) December 2011. ISBN-13: 978-84-15927-07-5

Survey on Open Source Software in the Spanish Government (ESFA-AGE). 2011

Technology

Transcript of Survey on Open Source Software in the Spanish Government (ESFA-AGE). 2011