A National Information Framework
for Public Sector Information
and Open Data
APPSI DISCUSSION PAPER
October 2012
Foreword

This paper originated in a December 2010 discussion of APPSI members on the
parallels between a national physical infrastructure and a national information
infrastructure. The former has been embraced by Government, a standing
committee has been established and some investment has been made available to
pursue a strategic approach. While many positive developments have occurred in
the last two years in Government‟s policies and practices on Public Sector
Information (PSI), there has been no formal recognition yet that a parallel
information infrastructure is critical to how the UK operates.
APPSI has welcomed Government attention to information, including the Open Data
initiative, the creation of new bodies (such as the Data Strategy Board, the Open
Data User Group and the Open Data Institute) and the Open Data White Paper to
facilitate the availability and re-use of PSI.
Since its earliest discussions, however, APPSI members (and others) have argued
consistently that simply making large numbers of data sets available is unlikely to
maximise the utility of PSI in generating social and economic benefits. Such
availability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for success. We have argued
that other essential factors are important and that a more strategic approach is
necessary to leverage the value of Open Data. We refer to this strategic
infrastructure as the National Information Framework.
We have now concluded that the time is appropriate to promote and extend the
discussion and to expose our views to a community wider than the normal
government groups with whom we have mainly interacted. Our internal discussions
on this have been influenced by the many recent developments and others that will
no doubt occur (a revised EU Directive on PSI is in preparation). This APPSI
discussion paper then is a „living document‟ which we will continue to develop.
APPSI invites anyone involved or interested in the beneficial use of Public Sector
Information to comment on the ideas and proposals contained in this paper. The best
way to do this is by emailing comments to secretariat@appsi.gsi.gov.uk. We will
collate these comments, consider them, and review and re-publish our proposals as
we move, we hope, towards the development of a National Information Framework
to benefit the economy and society.
David Rhind
Chairman – Advisory Panel on Public Sector Information

The Advisory Panel on Public Sector Information is an independent UK-wide Non-Departmental Public Body of the Ministry
of Justice. APPSI advises Ministers and the Director of the Office of Public Sector Information (The National Archives) on
matters relating to Public Sector information re-use. Its members are drawn from the business and entrepreneurial, economic,
academic, ICT, legal and public sector communities, also including local government and health sector experience and
representing all three Devolved Administrations. Members have operated at senior level in numerous different organisations,
acquiring many years of relevant experience. Members give their time for free. More details of APPSI can be found on
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/appsi/default.htm.
Contents
Synopsis
1
Purpose of paper
1
Executive summary
1
Introduction
2
The National Information Framework
4
Issues that need addressing
6
The way forward
10
The NIF – What would success look like?
11
A National Information Framework for Public Sector
Information and Open Data
Authors: The Advisory Panel on Public Sector Information (APPSI)
Synopsis
1
This is an APPSI paper about a plan to transform the use of information in the UK to deliver
better personal, government and corporate decision-making and to support the growth
agenda. It embraces recent government initiatives on Open Data while arguing for a
structure – the National Information Framework - to be put in place to deliver real and lasting
benefits and to ensure that the considerable investments are directed strategically.
Purpose of paper:
2
The aim of this document is to encourage dialogue on the importance of information as a vital
element of the national infrastructure. It seeks to:
 summarise a collective APPSI vision of a National Information Framework (NIF);
 reflect discussions and inputs from APPSI members and others who have been
consulted, including government representatives;
 assess how consistent are the UK government‟s Open Data and related plans with
developing a strategic and contemporary NIF;
 provide a compelling and clear argument for the NIF that can be published and made
widely available;
 obtain views from the wider community about the merits and features of a NIF.
Executive Summary
3
In the recent past the UK government – and others – has sought to make much data that it
holds more readily available, and often at no cost to the user. This initiative has been
labelled „Open Data‟. It is intended to foster transparency (enabling citizens to hold our
governments1 to account) and to generate new activities based on exploitation of the data
using new technology (and hence to create business opportunities, new jobs and better
services for the public). This approach has much in common with the Public Sector
Information (PSI) agenda pursued by the European Union through a PSI Directive
subsequently transposed into national regulations. The UK government‟s Advisory Panel on
Public Sector Information has welcomed the Open Data initiative and recognised the
significant achievements to date.
1
We use the term „governments‟ to refer to the devolved administrations and local government as well as the UK government.
1
But APPSI believes long-term success cannot simply be founded on a process to make
4
available data for free re-use. Now is the time to become more strategic. Success
necessitates recognition that we need a contemporary National Information Framework (NIF)
which includes (at least) all key data sets to meet currently anticipated needs in
governments and other key sectors of the economy. The NIF also consists – crucially – of
policies, procedures, standards, directories, metadata, tools, user guidance, skill sets and
other foundation elements as well as information derived from the entire public sector – not
just central government – and possibly the private sector. We believe such a NIF would give
the UK a competitive advantage, as other countries are moving in the same direction.
5
This paper summarises APPSI‟s views on the NIF and why moving effectively to the next
level requires a holistic approach. It reviews how government‟s plans for Open Data relate to
this wider concept. It points out challenges that need to be addressed to achieve success.
6
The publication of a White Paper on Open Data2, and the creation of a Digital Strategy Board
(DSB) and related bodies, are welcomed and provide a good platform for development of the
NIF. We urge that, in addition to its specific role in Open Data procurement, the DSB should
be asked to give attention to the strategic setting of information, working with APPSI and
with other relevant bodies.
Introduction
7
Changing technology has enabled us to collect ever more data and, from it, generate
information. Indeed, according to the former Vice President for Information Management at
HP3, 90% of all information ever created has been collected in the last two years. Apparently
we are currently collecting of the order of 2.5 quintillion bytes of information per day4.
8
Of this, a substantial – and particularly valuable element - arises from data collected by
governments. APPSI‟s remit since 2003 has been to advise the UK government on how best
to exploit such Public Sector Information (PSI) through its widespread re-use. Accordingly,
APPSI has been actively engaged with the Open Data initiative since it was first developed.
9
The UK government has recognised that data and information derived from it are crucial
national assets. Speaking at the Open Government Partnership conference in Brazil in April
2012, Mr Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office Minister, said that, “Data is the new raw material
of the 21st century”. This raw material fuels economic growth, innovation, employment,
2
Open Data White Paper Unleashing the Potential, HM Government Cm 8353, June 2012
Data wars: unlocking the data gold mine. BBC Technology web site 13 April 2012
A quintillion bytes is an Exabyte 1 EB = 1000000000000000000 bytes or 1018 bytes or 1000000000 gigabytes. Historically, a
byte was the number of bits used to encode a single character of text in a computer.
3
4
2
cultural advancement as well as transparency and efficiency in public administration. To this
end, the government‟s Open Data initiative has already stimulated unrestricted availability of
several thousand data sets accessible to the public as well as businesses.
10
Much has changed in the last few years through evolution in the concepts of PSI and Open
Data. In particular, at least three key enablers of widening use of PSI have emerged. The
first and best known is the rapid development of new technologies; this enables new
applications for existing data, often benefiting individuals. It has enabled the democratisation
of data use (and also vastly enhanced mass collection, integration and dissemination – the
so-called „Big Data‟ which brings its own challenges).
11
The second enabler is the emerging growth of interest in „end to end‟ analyses. The scope
for such analyses is compromised if information is held in ways which amount to silos
through differences in classification, formatting or physical isolation. It is now, for instance,
widely accepted that assessment of risk from natural hazards requires some combination of
data on topography (sometimes submarine as well as terrestrial), climate/weather, land
cover, riverine networks, transport networks, population characteristics (recognising that
diurnal variations may be important, such as the orders of magnitude variation between night
and day headcount in areas like the City of London) and communication networks. To
analyse risk and implement mitigation or recovery plans, some of the information may be
needed in near real-time. Computer systems to integrate such data are now becoming
commonplace. But we still have problems coping with data of widely differing accuracy and
incorporating qualitative information in our analyses.
12
However, of equal importance is the third enabler: that
government has „got it‟. We welcome the very serious attention
the UK government has given in the last three years to aiding
transparency and fostering social and economic gain through
improving access to data and information of which it is custodian.
The Open Data plans announced by the Chancellor and the
White Paper are valuable in themselves but we see them as a
step in the journey toward a bigger vision of a National
Information Framework.
3
‘‘We welcome the
very serious attention
the UK government
has given in the last
three years to aiding
transparency and
fostering social and
economic gain
through improving
access to data and
information.’’
The National Information Framework
13
In autumn 2010, APPSI launched an extended discussion on how to
make the process of opening up data less ad hoc and more
strategic. At that time, the data sets that were readily available
reflected a legacy of limited user awareness, licensing constraints
‘‘our vision is
parallel in some
respects to the
National (physical)
Infrastructure Plan’’
and the varying willingness of government departments to expend
resources on „freeing up‟ data for use outside of their own immediate
domains. We argued that our vision is parallel in some respects to
the National (physical) Infrastructure Plan that is now supported by
HM Treasury and business. The box below summarises our views on
the NIF.
The Nature of the National Information Framework
The drive for transparency gave Open Data momentum. Increasingly, governments are using information as a way of
encouraging choice and accountability in service provision. But there is also an important understanding that information,
properly developed and disseminated, is the fuel of the (potentially massive) information economy.
Governments produce and require vast amounts of information. They use information to support policy development and
monitoring, effective service delivery and management of the functions of government at many levels and through many
types of entity. More specifically, information management within governments alone is critical to at least the range of
activities below:
 Financial and economic management
 Understanding public expectations
 Marketing and communications and engagement
 Procurement and supply chain management
 Economic development
 Emergency management
 Environmental management
 Community cohesion and safety
 Support to politicians, executives, managers, staff, shareholders, stakeholders, regulators in all decision-making
 Corporate/strategic planning, investment and budgeting
 Service planning and delivery
 Performance and resource management
 Providing accountability
Other (e.g. commercial or academic research) users of data held within governments greatly extend this range of
applications. Yet, unlike other key resources – e.g. finance, property, IT, HR, and procurement - information is seldom
managed in a coherent and integrated way. So there is great value in the development of a National Information
Framework (NIF) to cover strategies, competences, a role, organisational recognition, even a profession, in information
management.
In a holistic view, the NIF is data and relevant policies about its availability and accessibility, data catalogues, quality
statements, standards, statutes, licensing arrangements and attribution, guidance on safe use, e.g. on data linkage or
national security, examples of past use, research programmes, communications and advice, human capital development,
protocols for maintaining the NIF (e.g. for anticipating new needs and addressing the creation of the data without
excessive delays) and much else. In tractable terms, the NIF refers to a manageable initiative to create, make readily
available and publicise an entity and framework to promote availability and best practice in fostering re-use of public
sector information. It will be guided by existing legal, etc. frameworks but will be based on a strategic, prioritised view of
what is most important for driving public services and enhancing the economy.
All UK information is potentially in scope for the NIF. Realistically, we should initially focus on the information that
governments can manage or influence – and that which is the highest priority. But the data of interest is not all generated
in Whitehall departments, so the approach should reflect the federated nature of most national information assets and
therefore a success factor will be the involvement on a common footing of devolved administrations and key public facing
sectors, such as local government and health, which have the more direct interface with citizens. And further, to consider
near-government (e.g. transport, privatised utilities), non-government sources and blends of these.
4
14
The NIF is founded on a vital infrastructure5. As indicated, this includes policies, procedures,
standards and agreed vocabulary, directories, metadata, tools, skill sets, guidance and other
elements6 as well as information derived from the entire public sector – not just central
government – and possibly the private sector. Although it overlaps, it is not identical to Public
Sector Information for three reasons. The first is that it involves much more than data and
information. Second, not all PSI belongs in Open Data. Third, while substantial volumes of
key data sets and information drawn from the entire public sector is a necessary condition,
increasingly data collected by private sector agencies will also form part of the NIF (e.g.
commercial satellite information, transport data and demographic information).
In the globalisation of the information economy, the NIF is an entity of crucial and increasing
15
importance to all citizens of the UK - rather than simply of benefit in relation to central
government. As such it has a multiplicity of diverse users and many stakeholders.
16
Not all data and information are of equal value and the NIF gives a basis for prioritisation.
The state, businesses and other bodies could run much more efficiently and effectively and
civic society could function more effectively with more appropriate data and information.
However, collecting such data can be very expensive. But much already exists as a byproduct of government activity, even though it is not always readily accessible. We do not
know the cost in cash, institutional, human and opportunity costs of the present data
collection efforts by governments in the UK. However, given the budgets of relevant Trading
Funds and other bodies like the Office for National Statistics, the direct cost is in excess of
£1bn annually and is certainly significantly more. We do not believe that there is presently
any strategic overview of what is and should be collected and maintained by governments.
We are convinced that such a strategic overview is highly desirable – especially in the
current stringent financial environment – for some data may no longer be of high priority and
new data may be required to meet current or anticipated needs.
17
We need also to ensure that the data which is collected is accessible to potential users. It is
desirable but perhaps not essential that all data components of the NIF are made available
5
The importance of infrastructure under-pinning publically accessible data was recognised at least as long ago as 1994 when
President Clinton made Executive Order 12904 setting up the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) in the USA, based
initially and largely on copyright-free federal government data. The NSDI was described as “a comprehensive and coordinated
environment for the production, management, dissemination, and use of geospatial data, involving the totality of the relevant
policies, technology, institutions, data, and individuals.” (finance was not factored in). Experience of the NSDI – including its
governance, the success of some partnerships but not others, the incentives trialed to make it work at local and state level as
well as nationally and its origins as part of the Osborne and Gaebler proposals to reform government are all germane to the
UK.
6
If the NIF is to provide added value over and above a data repository/graveyard, it follows that the data must be capable of
being linked and used in combination. This in turn requires good documentation of the information characteristics and use of
standards such as common definitions wherever possible. Stability and fairness of the policies – on licensing, charging,
updating and quality assurance – are vital if businesses are to be tempted to engage with data exploitation for service delivery.
Central to the success of the NIF is the existence of suitable information management (c.f. ICT) skills.
5
at low or no cost to the end user. It is very highly desirable, however, that all key or core data
sets are made available free at the point of use.7
18
The NIF would not have to be created from scratch. The basis already exists through
extensive, distributed data development and limited release across the whole range of
government departments and agencies. But it has grown up chaotically over decades (or
longer), the product of a myriad of historical decisions in different government departments.
It has not been the product of much strategic thought, is invisible to many potential users
and does not meet contemporary needs. Our argument for developing a properly structured
NIF is predicated upon the need to prioritise the essential from the „nice to have‟ and to
maximise advantage through considering synergies as well as the merits of individual data
sets. We do not pretend this will be easy. It requires both top down and bottom up
approaches. But the foundation exists.
19
Our concept of an NIF could be achieved incrementally. The NIF embraces the data, its
users and their applications, plus the infrastructure needed to make it function. While it
potentially covers all data and all sectors, and related functions, it can be focussed initially
on the information and operations that governments can most readily influence and which
seem of highest priority.
Issues that need addressing
20
Here we identify important issues which we believe need to be tackled to meet the
challenges for Open Data and to make a contemporary NIF work effectively.
What is the proper role of governments?
21
The NIF needs to be founded on some coherent and fundamental principles about the role of
governments in providing information for „those outside‟. Is the role of governments simply to
provide for wider use, and at no or low cost, that data which they themselves need? Or
should governments ensure that data and information needed by external bodies and civic
society (and which is not otherwise easily available) should be collected and disseminated
under an Open Government Licence, where possible? Or – at the extreme – should
governments become genuinely active players in the information market, tailoring what they
7
We note that the Dutch government has defined a set of 12 key registers - core datasets - which it proposes to be made
available free or at maximum marginal costs for external-to-government use of the key registers is planned from 2016. See
Marc de Vries (2012) Funding of a system of key registers in a psi-conomics and contemporary perspective - the Dutch
experience in a Danish context, Danish Ministry for Housing, Urban and Rural Affairs, April 2012. De Vries argues that the
creation of „key registers‟ is the foundation of infrastructure: he defines a Key Register as “a high quality database that
constitutes the sole source of data for the performance of governmental statutory duties. Accordingly, governmental
organisations are under the obligation to avail themselves of only these sources and citizens and companies cannot be
requested to submit these data more than once. Typically, Key Registers hold essential and frequently used public sector
information pertaining to persons, companies, land, buildings and other „infrastructural‟ elements critical to the proper
functioning of government. Some important Key Registers in Denmark are the Central Business Register (CVR), the Danish
Cadastral Map and Register, the Danish Civil Registration System (CPR), the Danish collection of topographical maps and the
Danish Building and Dwelling Register (BBR)”.
6
collect to meet the needs of users within and outside the public sector? And to what extent is
it sensible in the longer term for governments to collect data, as opposed to largely procuring
it commercially by exploiting their huge purchasing power? For example, do governments
really need to collect such a wide range of transport data given the heavy engagement of the
private sector in this domain? If governments are no longer the main data collector, how best
do they foster an Open Data environment in the
public interest?
22
At present, any over-arching policy on the role of UK
governments as information „players‟ is unclear,
especially where this would involve additional
expenditure. Most importantly, in a government
committed to the Open Data cause, there is a paradox
‘‘There is a paradox in that
some of the most useful
data currently produced in
the public sector –
considered as ‘core
reference data sets’ by
many – are charged for.’’
in that some of the most useful data currently
produced in the public sector – considered „core
reference data sets‟ by many - are charged for. Such
fundamental inconsistencies need to be addressed.
Clarity of definitions
23
The terminology used by governments and many stakeholders is also inconsistent, as the
White Paper recognises. APPSI is taking a lead and working closely with the Cabinet Office
and The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on a standard glossary of PSI and
Open Data definitions. Beyond individual technical terms, however, are variations in the
definition of groups of users. For example, various non-commercial bodies are excluded
from the Public Sector Mapping Agreement and equivalent procurement exercises while the
academic community is included. This inconsistency hinders take-up of PSI and would
complicate the operation of a NIF.
What exists and what is already used?
24
At present there are several other key „unknown unknowns‟, notably what data are actually
held by the entire public sector. For example, the assessment process set up under the
Statistics and Registration Service Act of 2007 revealed to potential users for the first time
that there are no fewer than 1135 sets of National Statistics produced by central government
departments (let alone an unknown number of sets of other official statistics).
25
Other than spasmodic, patchy and short-lived developments of information asset registers in
various government departments over the last decade, there seems to be no general parallel
to the statistical stock-take. It would be helpful in prioritising the creation of a NIF to know
7
what exists and is already available, the extent to which available information is presently
used, its potential value and cost of making it fit for purpose, even if only as ball-park
estimates. Again, statisticians have pioneered assessments of current use although they
have proved difficult to identify in some cases. At present, there is general talk about data
release that is not always supported by evidence of need: there is therefore (at least) the risk
of spending resources publishing data that nobody wants.
Coping with confidentiality
26
Thus far the Open Data initiative has confined itself to non-personal data although the White
Paper begins to consider access to confidential data. Great care is obviously required
because of concerns about release of confidential data about individuals and businesses.
Yet a greatly restrictive approach severely limits important research – for example in health
where individualised data is needed for analysis of the possible causes of many diseases let alone improvements to services which could be achieved by linking personal data. The
Thomas and Walport Data Sharing Report (2008) advocated a number of steps to make
sharing of confidential data possible while avoiding data disclosure. Various other promising
developments are underway, such as Dame Fiona Caldicott‟s review of information
governance in the NHS and social care to enable good practice in the sharing of information.
27
We are clear that such sharing of confidential data is of immense practical value and that
ways need to be implemented to permit wider use of such linked personal data but without
disclosing to whom this data pertains. The most important key to achieving this is through
anonymisation after any linkage is done in a „safe harbour‟. The Information Commissioner
has recently published a consultation on approaches to anonymisation8, the Office for
National Statistics already runs a data analysis service for approved researchers based on
certain confidential data and various academic groups have worked on sophisticated
methodologies to avoid disclosure of confidential information. We urge government to
continue to tackle the issue because in so doing it will facilitate use of data of immense
value.
The information ecosystem
28
The bounds of the de facto NIF are inexorably growing. For example, data held in the wider
public sector outside central government is of considerable interest to individual citizens
about their devolved administration, local authority or health trust. Data drawn from multiple
sources – governments, the private sector and even crowd-sourced information – are being
combined to add value. In addition, the provision of some data is globalising and increasingly
government bodies procure or exploit data – some of it available at no cash cost - from novel
8
http://www.ico.gov.uk/about_us/consultations/our_consultations.aspx
8
suppliers. Open Street Map is a resource of growing relevance and Google Maps is a tool
widely used by a number of UK government bodies. Many governments around the world
purchase or lease satellite imagery from major US-based corporations. Credit rating
agencies, major retailers and value-adders like Dr Foster sell data to various government
entities (even though some of it originates from within government). The terms under which
such data are procured sometimes restrict it being made widely available, even under the
Open Data initiative. A particular example is that some privatised entities under contract to
government collect data that is not readily made available for re-use, sometimes because
the contracts include commercial rights.
29
If we look forward five or ten years, this information ecosystem seems certain to develop
considerably, with some data being made available at zero cost by government and other,
competitive or value-added, data being made available at a charge by UK or foreign private
sector bodies. We strongly suspect that financial constraints and other factors will
progressively limit what government collects while the private sector will be competing to
collect and market data. As indicated above, this raises fundamental questions about the
shape and role of the public sector in the information ecosystem, perhaps becoming more of
a consumer than collector. The NIF needs to be designed to evolve to meet such
challenges, while recognising that they cannot all be anticipated.
Have we got the right human capital?
30
There is good evidence that the skills – within governments and elsewhere – necessary to
develop much greater and more effective use of Open Data, let alone build a NIF, are in
short supply. We see these skills as a crucial part of the necessary infrastructure. We need
to develop information management professionalism. Information management is a key
resource but, unlike other key resources such as finance, information technology, human
relations, property, and procurement, it does not have recognised and well-developed
educational and professional underpinnings.
A national information strategy?
31
All of the above might be much easier to take forward if there were a national information
strategy – but there is not9. Having made inquiries into why previous attempts to create such
a strategy failed, we recognise the difficulties of creating something beyond the banal and
set of „motherhood‟ statements. We remain of the view that to have a high quality strategy
would however be of great value and APPSI would be delighted to contribute to its creation.
9
All central government departments are required to produce their own Open Data strategies, but these are not coordinated
into a NIF. Some „arms length‟ government bodies have published their own information strategies, e.g. the NHS published
„The Power of Information’, its own information strategy in May 2012; see
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_134181
9
The way forward
32
The UK Government White Paper and parts of the various documents describing the Open
Data agenda represent a potentially effective series of measures which could drive the
framework within which national datasets can be grown, curated and disseminated in ways
that facilitate market growth and citizen engagement. The explicit role that the Data Strategy
Board has in advising Ministers on the quality of Open Data and the support for research in
this domain could be key to this.
33
The way in which Government information is developed, procured, and managed needs,
however, to be underpinned by long term planning in terms of information standards, training
of staff, procurement terms and institutional culture – which is what a NIF would achieve. It is
possible the Open Data Institute will take a lead in at least some of this, but it is critical that
the Institute is empowered and connected to the information management and IT
infrastructure of governments, rather than develop as an isolated research body. Structures
and mechanisms need to be installed at the outset to make this an Institute that has practical
impact over the middle term.
34
The UK government‟s plans form valuable building blocks for the NIF. The White Paper
contains a number of excellent commitments, although we do not yet see the „glue‟ that will
bring the initiatives together, along with an infrastructure to provide leadership. The definition
of the Data Strategy Board and its scope clearly provides that body with an opportunity to
become the nexus of a contemporary National Information Framework. That said, we remain
convinced that steps to create a NIF merit much greater explicit focus. As presently defined,
the Data Strategy Board, working with others like APPSI, is in a potentially good position to
foster the NIF but its Terms of Reference need tuning to
make this possible.
35
In our view, the UK government should promote discussion
and investigation of the NIF through a structured series of
papers, workshops and studies to engage as widely as
possible with those who stand to contribute and benefit.
These can help to define requirements, build the justification
and establish priorities. APPSI is helping the Cabinet Office
and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to
shape the thinking and stands ready to contribute further
and help to facilitate appropriate elements of the
development, perhaps in a joint initiative with the Data
Strategy Board.
10
‘‘Government should
promote further
discussion and
investigation of the NIF
through a structured
series of papers,
workshops and studies.’’
The NIF – What would success look like?
36
As with many visionary concepts, realising the great national benefits of a joined-up
information strategy is not easily amenable to a simple cost/benefit analysis. This is also the
case with the Open Data agenda that forms part of the NIF – the requirement is readily
apparent but acts of faith, commitment and political support are necessary.
37
Over time, we can see that the NIF would be a coordinated collection of activities which
together enable, facilitate, improve and enhance the objectives of Open Data and PSI.
Benefits would accrue nationally and locally across all sectors in terms of savings, efficiency,
growth, delivery, policy, joined up thinking, integrated services, social welfare, citizen and
community engagement, etc. through more and better information being available. Some,
but not all of these gains could be monitored and measured.
38
In terms of outcomes one would hope to see:
 Greater awareness and clarity of the value of information to the economy and society;
 Greater public trust and confidence in public information;
 Integrated policies and improved practices;
 A single authoritative source of related PSI material;
 Guidance that one could rely upon as being definitive so that it could be incorporated into
any organisation‟s governance and delivery system;
 A place to share best practice;
 A single point/team where ambiguity on PSI matters gets sorted out;
 Identifiable rapid growth in information products and services.
39
Finally, creating an information parallel (the NIF) alongside the National (physical)
Infrastructure will be very much less expensive than the physical. We note that Professor
Dieter Helm, a distinguished Oxford economist well-known for his work on infrastructure, has
estimated the cost of the Government's infrastructure plans/intentions at some £500bn within
the next 10 years10 (equivalent to a little over 3% of GDP). Estimating the benefits that both
of these programmes will bring over the longer term is an imprecise science but there is now
a myriad of reports produced in many countries (and the EU) which predict substantial
economic as well as social gains from better use of PSI. We believe that a strategic NIF is
essential to achieving these gains and will be a very impressive return on investment.
If you have comments on the ideas and proposals contained in this paper, please email them
to secretariat@appsi.gsi.gov.uk.
10
Presentation to Reform Conference: Building Confidence in Infrastructure, 14 June 2012, and BBC programme: Built in
Britain 7 October 2012
11