Skip to main content

This page has been translated using TexTra by NICT. Please note that the translation may not be completely accurate.If you find any mistranslations, we appreciate your feedback on the "Request form for improving the automatic translation ".

First Study Group on Common Standards for Standardization of Local Government Information Systems

Overview

  • Date: February 27, 2025 (2025) (Thursday) from 17:00 to 18:00
  • Location: online meetings
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Agenda
      1. Draft Revision of Standards for Non-Functional Requirements for Local Government Information Systems
    3. Closing

Material

Related policy

Summary of the meeting

The proceedings of this Study Group shall be disclosed as a summary of the proceedings from the viewpoint of leading to lively discussions among the parties concerned.

Date

  • Thursday, February 27, 2025, from 17:00 to 18:00

Location

  • On-line

Attendees (Honorifics omitted)

Member

  • Chair: Masahiko Shoji (Professor, Faculty of Sociology, Musashi University)
  • Kakizaki Yoshiro (Associate Professor, Department of Information and Communications Technology, Faculty of Information and Communications Technology
  • FUJIMURA Akiko (Senior Researcher, NTT Social Information Research Institute)
  • Mikihito Yoshioka (Director of Digital Strategy Department, Planning and Coordination Bureau, Kobe City)
  • Kiyoshi Takigami (Deputy Manager, Digital Strategy Division, Planning and Finance Department, Tomioka City)
  • SAITO Rie (Section Chief, ICT Promotion Office, Strategy and Finance Department, Fukaya City)
  • Akio Yoshida (Director, Planning Promotion Division, Kyoto Prefectural Association of Towns and Villages
  • Kiyoka Ishizuka (General Incorporated Association Code for Japan) [Absent]
  • YOSHIMOTO Akihira (General Manager, Planning Department, National Association for the Advancement of Information Technology)

Associate member

  • Hiroshi Maeda (RKKCS Corporation)
  • Hitoshi Itaya (Gcom Holdings, Inc.)
  • Daisuke Yokoyama (TKC Corporation)
  • Takahiro Yamazaki (DENSAN CO.,LTD.)
  • Sayaka Yazawa (NEC Corporation)
  • Izumi Anayama
  • Kazuhisa Omura (Fujitsu Japan Ltd.)

Observer

  • Tomoyuki Yamashita (Deputy Chief, General Affairs Division, Children and Families Agency Director-General's Secretariat
  • Ryo Suematsu (Section Chief, General Affairs Division, Children and Families Agency Director-General's Secretariat
  • Yuta Fukasaku (Section Chief, General Affairs Division, Children and Families Agency Director-General's Secretariat)
  • Saga Sakino (Officer, General Affairs Division, Children and Families Agency Director-General's Secretariat)
  • Daisaku Yamamoto (Assistant Director, Child Allowance Management Office, Growth Environment Division, Children and Families Agency Growth Bureau)
  • TAKIZAWA Satoshi (Specialist Officer, Child Allowance Management Office, Growth Environment Division, Children and Families Agency Growth Bureau)
  • Kazuya Ota (Section Chief of Planning laws and ordinances, Child Allowance Management Office, Growth Environment Division, Children and Families Agency Growth Bureau)
  • Emi Yamasaki (Guidance Section, Child Allowance Management Office, Growth Environment Division, Children and Families Agency Growth Bureau)
  • Aiko Uchida (Specialist Officer, Maternal and Child Health Division, Children and Families Agency Regional Development Bureau)
  • Shoya Taki (Deputy Director, Maternal and Child Health Division, Children and Families Agency Regional Development Bureau)
  • Takeshi Kanoe (Section Chief, Family Welfare Division, Children and Families Agency Support Bureau)
  • Yamato, Hiwatashi (Officer, Family Welfare Division, Children and Families Agency Support Bureau)
  • Genta FUJIMOTO (Investigator, Resident Systems Division, Autonomous Administration Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications)
  • AKIYAMA Ryo (Assistant Director, Resident Systems Division, Autonomous Administration Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications)
  • Takashi Koizumi (Section Chief, First Resident Register Section, Resident Systems Division, Autonomous Administration Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications)
  • Kenta TAKIGUCHI (Section Chief, Resident Register Section No. 2, Resident Systems Division, Autonomous Administration Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications)
  • Koken IZUMI (Chief, Resident Systems Division, Autonomous Administration Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications)
  • SUGIURA Shunsuke (Administrative Officer, Resident Systems Division, Autonomous Administration Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications)
  • Natsumi KURIHARA (Administrative Officer, Resident Systems Division, Autonomous Administration Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications)
  • Kimihiro ANDO (Deputy Chief, Administration Division, Elections Department, Autonomous Administration Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications)
  • Dan Uchiyama (Section Chief, Administration Division, Elections Department, Autonomous Administration Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications)
  • SAKAI Katsutoshi (Deputy Director, Digitization Promotion Office, Planning Division, Autonomous Taxation Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications)
  • Yuto Sanpei (Section Chief, Digitization Promotion Office, Planning Division, Autonomous Taxation Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications)
  • Kazunori Nishiya (Administrative Officer for General Affairs, Digitization Promotion Office, Planning Division, Autonomous Taxation Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications)
  • Furukawa Shiki (Family Registration Section, First Civil Affairs Division, Civil Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Justice)
  • Emi Hashida (Assistant Director, Study Support Project Team, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau)
  • Tomohiro Ohtani (Section Chief, Student Support Section, Student Support Project Team, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau)
  • MOTOOKA Hiroko (Assistant Director, Educational Reform Office, Elementary and Secondary Education Planning Division, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau)
  • Tomoyuki Watanabe (Specialist, Educational Reform Office, Elementary and Secondary Education Planning Division, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau)
  • Tomoka FUKUCHI (Compulsory Education Reform Section, Educational System Reform Office, Elementary and Secondary Education Planning Division, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau)
  • Shuhei Kimura (Policy Division, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Minister's Secretariat, cybersecurity, Assistant Director, Information Technology Promotion Office)
  • Mutsumi Seki (Chief, Information Planning Section, cybersecurity and Information Technology Promotion Office, Policy Division, Minister's Secretariat, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology)
  • OHTSUKA Seiya (Information and Planning Section, cybersecurity and Information Technology Promotion Office, Policy Division, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Minister's Secretariat
  • Satoru Shimazoe (Deputy Chief of the Director Office in charge of Information Technology, Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare Minister's Secretariat)
  • Kazuhiro Iino (Deputy Director-General, Director Office in charge of Information Technology, Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare Minister's Secretariat

Business

  • The establishment of the Study Group will be based on the outline of the distributed materials, and the members of the Study Group will be as shown in the attached sheet.
  • Professor Masahiko Shoji of the Faculty of Sociology, Musashi University, will serve as chair.
  • The secretariat explained the revision of the standard for non-functional requirements for local government information systems.

Question

Member

Increasing the options from mandatory to recommended raises concerns about the ability of smaller municipalities, such as those with a one person information systems department, to choose the appropriate level.

Isn't it correct to set a minimum requirement?

In addition, it may be possible to prepare sets such as Shochikubai (pine, bamboo and plum trees) so that local governments can easily choose from them.

Secretariat

The Government of Japan would like to deepen its consideration on whether or not minimum requirements should be set for each item, including how to express them.

Member

I basically agree with the relaxation and optimization of non-functional requirements.

The reasons for the revision should be arranged based on the reasons for the current review and the need to standardize non-functional requirements in the first place.

It is necessary to consider ways to reduce the burden on local governments, and it is hoped that discussions will be made so that decisions cannot be made without an understanding of the government cloud.

With regard to the expression "recommendation," it would be better to consider the expression so as not to cause misunderstanding.

Secretariat

In the process of standardization, we have received opinions calling for flexibility in the standardization of non-functional requirements and opinions that this has led to high operating expenses, and we believe that the time has come for further study precisely because of the progress of standardization.

We would like to ask for your opinions on the appropriate expression of "recommendation" based on your opinions.

Member

Although the non-functional requirements are basically within the scope permitted by the current standards for non-functional requirements, the JICS makes changes in line with the operational form of business jurisdiction and through individual discussions and opinions with business operators at the time of procurement.

In dividing the items into mandatory and recommended, is there a common understanding among the three parties, i.e., the national government, local governments, and business operators, regarding the standard positioning of non-functional requirements? For example, depending on whether an SLA is a goal-oriented or a guarantee-oriented SLA, the way of thinking of the business operator differs. Therefore, it is important to match the definition of the term with the understanding.

If the options are expanded to include several recommended items, it is expected that the level of non-functional requirements proposed by the operator under the shared use system will differ from the level desired by each organization, and there is a concern that the number of services that can be selected from the viewpoint of the organization will decrease.

With regard to the point that was raised as a point of discussion, "How about setting it depending on whether or not information is provided to other organizations?", in considering the level within the organization, it does not consider whether or not information is provided to other organizations frequently. There is a difference among the 20 operations, and the operation is decided based on the characteristics of the operation itself, such as "whether it will immediately affect the citizen's window when the citizen's response and system are stopped, and whether it will be no problem if it is suspended after reception once".

Secretariat

According to the Standardization Act, local governments are responsible for conforming to standards for non-functional requirements. However, in reality, since a system is completed only when a business operator ordered by the local government provides the system as a service, I believe that the local government and the business operator should guarantee the system in an integrated manner. In addition, since it is a standard, it must be regarded as a guarantee type. On the premise of this, I recognize that it is pointed out that there is a risk of misunderstanding as to which level can be selected for the recommended items of the standard for non-functional requirements shown this time. I would like to examine it including expressions and show it again.

There is a possibility that the level required by one local government may not match the level required by other local governments. It may be possible to organize the level required by each group by grouping local governments into large, medium, and small, but it is recognized that it is necessary to examine whether it is possible to organize the level required by local governments with large populations and other local governments.

Member

I agree with the intention to reduce the burden on local governments by reviewing the standards for non-functional requirements and to promote smooth use. However, if the recommended items shown this time are selected by each local government, it may not be consistent with the purpose of standardization, which has been to suppress customization and reduce the burden of individual response.

In addition, since it is not clear whether the review of non-functional requirements can really prevent the operating expenses from remaining high, it would be better to conduct sufficient verification and confirmation in the environment of small-scale local governments and local governments where others are not affected.

There are concerns that if the government were to ease the requirements, it would raise the bar for making it mandatory again in the event of future problems.

Member

At a standard specification review meeting for a certain business, there was a discussion about dividing specifications by size, and we expressed our disapproval, but we understood that it was an indication of a similar purpose.

In addition, the necessity of verification is also pointed out.

Secretariat

It is not reasonable to revise the standards at the expense of the merits of standardization. We need to consider our response based on the opinions we received today. We will consider how we can respond to the need for verification.

Member

I am in favor of reducing the burden on local governments.

Operators are developing standard compliance system with the aim of moving to standardization by the end of FY 2025. At present, I think it is at the stage just before completion. I think there are some local governments and operators that have already built systems based on the current non-functional requirements. I think there will be some opinions that it will be a problem if the processing speed and encryption are relaxed from now.

Secretariat

The items that should be considered to be changed to the recommended items have been presented as materials for discussion. Depending on the state of transition in each local government, some items may be able to be reviewed in the future, while others may be difficult to review. If there are items that are considered to be extremely difficult to review, we will consider how to handle them in the future.

Member

The revision of the standard of non-functional requirements in the middle of the development by the operator may not be able to be handled by the operator.

In the "Standard for Non-Functional Requirements for Local Government Information Systems [Version 1.1]," there is a statement that if the level of the selected item is lowered, it will not be deemed to meet the standard, and some companies may have had difficulty interpreting it.

For example, the non-functional requirements for WAF are not recommended, but it seems to be a choice of "yes" or "no". Therefore, the term "recommended" should be considered.

Secretariat

With regard to the expression "recommended items," which was also mentioned by other members, we would like to consider appropriate expressions from the viewpoint of understandability and avoiding misunderstanding.

We would like to express the non-functional requirements of the WAF appropriately.

Member

Can't the recommended items be weighted because they have different levels of importance?

In particular, it is written that the operating hours are about eight hours a day, but some local governments are open for more than eight hours. Some are also open on Saturdays and Sundays, which is far from the current situation.

The organization plans to shift to a system based on the current non-functional requirements, but some systems can be easily relaxed and others cannot. Therefore, it is necessary to listen carefully to the opinions of the operators and proceed with the discussion.

Secretariat

As you pointed out, the degree of importance varies among the recommendations, and we will consider whether it is possible to weight them.

Regarding the indication that the operating hours of eight hours a day may be different from the actual situation, it may be due to the fact that the current standard for non-functional requirements is based on the actual operating situation at that time, as it succeeded the content created about 10 years ago. We will also consider to what extent each item should be properly expressed.

Although we received opinions from business operators last autumn, we would like to discuss the matter while receiving opinions from associate members based on the progress of the subsequent examination.

Secretariat

Please send additional comments to the Secretariat by Friday, March 8.

The next review meeting is scheduled to be held around the end of March or early April. I would like to adjust the schedule again.

Or more