1. ESS.VIP.SERV Shared Services
TF Meeting 07 October 2016
Agenda item F1 Main Conclusions
Eurostat

2. Main conclusions – B3
In the SERV context, there is often a misalignment of expectations, vocabulary and understanding between the business and IT.
Suggestions to bridge this gap:
CSPA definitions are the right level to start collaboration
EA teams, business architects, analysts and methodologists should be the stakeholders responsible to bridge the gap between IT and business. They should ensure that SERV-related artefacts, concepts and architecture are embedded in the project (ex.: filling in CSPA templates)
A cross-body that connects these needs at ESS level could be useful, to ensure the discussion aspects related with SERV and flow the communication.

3. Main conclusions – D1
One of the steps of the information gathering could be to find within the ESS, pre-existing software solutions / implementations which already address the functionalities of the candidate services.
It is within the 3rd phase of the ESSNET that the actual implementation of the sub-selected services will take place.
One risk is that there are commercial tools that already deliver with high quality the functionality that is aimed to develop by some of the candidate services. A cost-analysis / benchmarking of commercial solutions could help deciding which to choose, though it does not say what will be the commercial company strategy in the long-term.
Still, some of the commercial software could be encapsulated and still be delivered as a service in the case of a need.
Within WP#5 the alternatives with Open Source should be analysed to see which candidate services to choose.

4. Main conclusions – D3
The TF has its mandate till end Its renewal may involve a reconfiguration of the membership in order to allow other NSIs to participate.
One of the better ways to guarantee the involvement of other NSIs is via success stories of service implementation, not only by Eurostat but as well from other Member States.
SERV should be presented to business stakeholders as well, not only in the context of ITWG.

5. Main conclusions – D4
The next version of the catalogue should address the status during all the lifecycle of a service.
The trust and stability of the governance of a service could be addressed by having multiple contributors for the service.
Trust across the different stakeholders can be increased by sharing success stories.
In order to ensure that support is not only best effort, it is advisable to have multiple collaboration for each of the services, so that all could contribute.
Going to a commercial solution is not necessarily a guarantee of trustful support.
Lack of trust can lead to limited sharing of services. The maturity level of each stakeholder should be boosted by using best practices.
Trust can also be increased with better usage of collaborative tools.