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 ".

Study Group on Common Standards for Standardization in Local Government Information Systems (2nd)

Overview

  • Date and time: June 12, 2025 (2025) (Thursday) from 10:00 to 12:00
  • Location: Online Meeting
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Agenda
      1. Proposed Revision of Standards for Non-Functional Requirements for Local Government Information Systems
    3. Adjournment

Material

Relevant policy

Summary of the proceedings

The proceedings of this Study Group will be disclosed as a summary of the proceedings from the viewpoint of leading to an open discussion among the parties concerned.

Date and

  • Thursday, June 12, 2025, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

US>

  • On-line

Attendees (honorifics omitted)

Member

  • Chair: Masahiko Shoji (Professor, Faculty of Sociology, Musashi University)
  • Toshiro Kakizaki (Associate Professor, Department of Information and Communications Science, School of Information and Communications Science
  • FUJIMURA Akiko (Senior Researcher, NTT Social Information Research Institute)
  • Mikihito Yoshioka (Head of Digital Strategy Department, Planning and Coordination Bureau, Kobe City)
  • Kiyoshi Takigami (Deputy Manager, Digital Strategy Division, Planning and Finance Department, Tomioka City)
  • Rie Saito (Section Chief, ICT Promotion Office, Planning and Finance Department, Fukaya City) [Attended by a representative]
  • Akio Yoshida (Director of the Planning and Promotion Division, Kyoto Association of Towns and
  • ISHIZUKA Sayaka (Code for Japan)
  • Akihei Yoshimoto (General Manager of Planning Department, Association for Promotion of Public Local Information and Communication)

Associate member

  • Hiroshi Maeda (RKKCS Corporation)
  • Hitoshi Itaya (Gcom Holdings, Inc.)
  • Daisuke Yokoyama (TKC Corporation)
  • Sayaka Yazawa (NEC Corporation)
  • Izumi Anayama (Hitachi Systems, Ltd.)
  • Chikahisa Omura (Fujitsu Japan Co., Ltd.)

Observer

  • Satoshi Takizawa (Deputy Director, General Affairs Division, Director-General's Secretariat, Children and Families Agency)
  • KOMACHI Yuma (Section Chief, General Affairs Division, Director-General's Secretariat, Children and Families Agency
  • Sagasakino (Officer, General Affairs Division, Commissioner-General's Secretariat, Children and Families Agency)
  • Daisaku Yamamoto (Deputy Director, Child Allowance Management Office, Growth Environment Division, Growth Bureau, Children and Families Agency)
  • Sachie Nishimura (Section Chief, Child Allowance Management Office, Growth Environment Division, Growth Bureau, Children and Families Agency)
  • Akira Itoh (Section Chief, Family Welfare Division, Children and Families Agency Support Bureau)
  • Akihiko Ueda (Deputy Director, Maternal and Child Health Division, Children and Families Agency Growth Bureau)
  • Shoya Taki (Deputy Manager, Maternal and Child Health Division, Growth Bureau, Children and Families Agency)
  • Kimihiro Ando (Deputy Manager, Administration Division, Elections Department, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Local Government Bureau)
  • Ryosuke Fukazu (Section Chief of Administration Division, Elections Department, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Local Government Bureau)
  • Kazunori Nishiya (Administrative Officer of General Affairs, Computerization Promotion Office, Planning Division, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Local Tax Bureau)
  • Tsukasa Furukawa (Family Registration Section, Civil Affairs Division No. 1, Ministry of Justice Civil Affairs Bureau)
  • Takehiro Yanai (Specialist, Educational System Reform Office, Elementary and Secondary Education Planning Division, Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology)
  • Kunihisa Shimoji (Section Chief of Information Planning Section, cybersecurity and Informatization Promotion Office, Policy Division, Minister's Secretariat, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
  • Seiya Otsuka (Information Planning Section, cybersecurity and Informatization Promotion Office, Policy Division, Minister's Secretariat, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology)
  • Satoru Shimazoe (Deputy Director, Director Office, in charge of Informatization, Minister Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare's Secretariat)
  • Kazuhiro IINO (In charge of Informatization, Minister Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare's Secretariat, Deputy Director, Director Office)

Agenda

  • The secretariat explained the revision plan of the standard of the local government information system non-functional requirement based on the first review meeting and the deep hearing result to local governments and vendors.

Interpellation

Members: Although the establishment of the menu of pine, bamboo and plum trees as a grouping was proposed at the first review meeting, the classification by the scale of the local government is an example. The local government is not necessarily forcibly allocated according to the set menu, and it is intended to reduce the clerical burden by the local government proceeding with the review according to its own situation based on the set menu. As a result of the in-depth hearing, opinions have been raised on other grouping methods. Therefore, we request the Government of the United States to continue its consideration.

Secretariat: municipalities, we will continue to consider them. In light of the standardization schedule for the core business system, we will revise it based on the proposal presented today in fiscal 2025, and we would like to continue discussions so that we can present a more realistic standard for non-functional requirements in line with the next renewal period of standard compliance system.

Members: If significant cost reduction is to be aimed at, it is necessary to sort out the extent of the cost reduction effect by the recommended level items. In addition, considering the current situation of cost increase due to system standardization, it may be better to set more drastic review items.

In addition, although it will be a matter to be discussed after September, which is the publication time of this revision, we think that we should summarize why on-premise is not covered and the non-functional requirements are specified in the Government Cloud, and communicate the purpose again. We recognize that one of the purposes of system standardization is to give priority to the sustainability of local governments. Under the current situation where it cannot be said that non-functional requirements are satisfied by using the Government Cloud, it may be necessary to communicate to local governments that they should actively adopt lower selection levels for non-functional requirements in order to enhance sustainability.

Secretariat: Regarding the recommended level items, we mainly classified those that were answered to have a certain effect after interviewing the possibility of the appearance of cost effectiveness, and regarding the essential level items, we mainly classified those that did not receive a clear answer about the cost reduction effect. We recognize that it is necessary to continue to monitor to what extent the cost effectiveness will be generated by the recommended level items presented in this revised draft and to identify their effects. We will proceed with the selection of the final draft items based on the results of the nationwide public comment.

The Government Cloud and public clouds are a foundation that can satisfy the contents specified in each item of non-functional requirements at a high level, and it is considered that a higher level can be required compared to on-premise non-functional requirements. Therefore, it has been established as a standard for non-functional requirements. By setting recommended level items, the range of choices for local governments will be expanded, which will have a positive effect on resolving constraints such as financial resources and vendor resources, and will be promoted to enhance sustainability.

Members: First of all, we agree with the direction of proceeding with the contents indicated in this revision proposal and gradually improving it. We do not regard the transmission of the purpose as an issue to be considered until September, and we will continue to discuss it.

Members: . It has been indicated that the Standards for Non-Functional Requirements are applicable to the standard compliance system built in the government cloud or public cloud. However, the standard compliance system is allowed to be built in the agency cloud, etc. if there are reasonable reasons such as cost benefits. In that case, if the Standards for Non-Functional Requirements are not applicable, it may not be possible to make a comparison based on the same standards as those for the Government Cloud, and it may be difficult to clarify reasonable reasons such as cost benefits. Therefore, we should carefully explain the idea of the scope of application.

In addition, considering that the Essential Level Items are set to ensure the security of the entire Government Cloud, it is necessary to consider whether non-Government Cloud, such as a common infrastructure for data linkage and an integrated collection and delinquency system, which are to be built integrally with standard compliance system, can be excluded from the application of the Non-Functional Requirements when they are built on standard compliance system.

Secretariat: non-functional requirements, in addition to the requirements based on the Standardization Act, there have been repeated discussions on the premise of application within public clouds including the Government Cloud. Therefore, it is difficult to apply the currently specified items to the Government Cloud or outside public clouds. For systems that are not applicable, such as when standard compliance system is built entirely outside the Government Cloud or public clouds, it is hoped that the "Non-functional Requirement Grades (Local Governments' Version)" shown by J-LIS will be referred to as technical advice and built.

As mentioned above, it is difficult to apply the standards of non-functional requirements to systems other than those in standard compliance system. However, depending on the intention of local governments, non-functional requirements equivalent to those in standard compliance system may be established for non-standardized systems that are closely linked to the services subject to standardization. Please make a decision while considering the balance between cost and security.

Members: local government. In the previous review meeting, there were concerns that increasing the number of options would weaken the significance of the unified criteria and that dividing the items into essential and recommended items would cause confusion. However, we understand that this time the review and review were promoted while observing the level of the items.

For items for which lower levels can be selected if negative conditions are met, it is considered important to describe negative conditions. Currently, requirements to meet negative conditions are described. Shouldn't validity from a security perspective be described, such as why it is no problem to select lower levels if negative conditions are met? While maintaining the current description in principle, it is considered necessary to describe each condition specifically so that local governments and vendors do not hesitate to make a decision. It is requested that consideration be given with reference to the opinions of local governments and vendors.

Secretariat: When selecting negative conditions, we have been consulted by local governments using PMO tools, etc., and we have responded as needed, and we have also prepared FAQs for local governments. As more local governments are expected to set non-functional requirements toward the second half of 2025, we will continue to respond carefully. Non-functional requirements need to be set again when vendors are switched, and we believe that it is easier to ensure flexibility in migration when they are re-set. In addition, the items indicated as recommended level items in this draft revision are limited to those with low costs for review, and although we believe that it is relatively unlikely to cause confusion, we will respond while fully taking into account the opinions of the field.

Members: We felt that it is necessary to proceed carefully in the discussion of the revision of the standard of non-functional requirements. In some cases, easing the requirements that are difficult to adapt does not necessarily lead to cost reduction, and if it is recognized that cost reduction can always be achieved by selecting a lower level, a discrepancy will occur. Therefore, it may be necessary to proceed while obtaining a detailed agreement with the local government.

Secretariat: For the task of cost reduction, we will take various measures to deal with the structural and temporary factors involved in the transition to standardization and deregulation, and the revision of the standard of non-functional requirements is one of them. Based on the opinions received, we will prepare materials and explain so as not to misunderstand.

Members: It is possible to lower the selection level of essential items if they meet negative conditions, but it may be difficult for local governments to lower the level of recommended items because there are no negative conditions. If local governments are to be encouraged to select lower levels from the perspective of sustainability, it may be necessary to use expressions and communication methods that make it easier for them to select lower levels.

Secretariat: Since there is no change in the stance of satisfying the standard 55 items of non-functional requirements in principle, if we tell them that it is possible to select all levels without presenting recommended levels, it may be contrary to the purpose. We understand that it is necessary to provide a careful explanation on the point that it is possible for local governments to make a decision and select, and we intend to provide a careful explanation by holding an explanatory meeting before the nationwide public comment inquiry.
The Government of Japan will continue to consider the wording in the document, taking into account various opinions and based on the comments received.

Members: From the viewpoint of small-scale local governments, they seem to select the recommended level even in the recommended level items. If the criteria are considered to be eased items, it is requested to continue to consider expressions that make it easier for local governments to lower the selection level.

Members: As with the opinions of other members, I think that there is a desire to match the recommended level items as a local government. I would like Digital Agency to convey its intention that a lower selection level can be adopted.

Secretariat: We will devise the expression based on the opinions. The next review meeting is expected to be held at the end of June. We will inform you of the date later.

Greater than or