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 the Standardization of Local Government Information Systems (1st)

Overview

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

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)
  • Akio Yoshida (Director of the Planning and Promotion Division, Kyoto Association of Towns and
  • Kiyoka Ishizuka (General Incorporated Association Code for Japan) [Absent]
  • 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)
  • Takahiro Yamazaki (DENSAN CO.,LTD.)
  • Sayaka Yazawa (NEC Corporation)
  • Izumi Anayama (Hitachi Systems, Ltd.)
  • Chikahisa Omura (Fujitsu Japan Co., Ltd.)

Observer

  • Tomoyuki Yamashita (Deputy Director, General Affairs Division, Director-General's Secretariat, Children and Families Agency)
  • Akira Suematsu (Section Chief, General Affairs Division, Director-General's Secretariat, Children and Families Agency
  • Yuta Fukasaku (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)
  • Satoshi Takizawa (Senior Specialist, Child Allowance Management Office, Environment and Development Division, Development Bureau, Children and Families Agency)
  • Kazuya Ota (Section Chief, Planning and laws and ordinances, Child Allowance Management Office, Growth Environment Division, Growth Bureau, Children and Families Agency)
  • Emi Yamazaki (Guidance Section, Child Allowance Management Office, Growth Environment Division, Growth Bureau, Children and Families Agency)
  • Aiko Uchida (Senior Specialist, Maternal and Child Health Division, Children and Families Agency Regional Development Bureau)
  • Shoya Taki (Deputy Manager, Maternal and Child Health Division, Growth Bureau, Children and Families Agency)
  • Takeshi Kanoe (Section Chief, Family Welfare Division, Children and Families Agency Support Bureau)
  • Yamato Hiwatashi (Officer, Family Welfare Section, Children and Families Agency Support Bureau)
  • Genta FUJIMOTO (Investigator of Resident Program Division, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Local Government Bureau)
  • AKIYAMA Akira (Deputy Director, Resident Systems Division, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Local Government Bureau)
  • Takashi Koizumi (Section Chief of the Resident Register, Resident Systems Division, Local Government Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications)
  • Kenta Takiguchi (Section Chief of the Resident Register No. 2, Resident Systems Division, Local Government Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications)
  • Koken IZUMI (Chief, Resident Program Division, Local Government Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications)
  • Shunsuke Sugiura (Administrative Officer, Resident Program Division, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Local Government Bureau)
  • Natsumi Kurihara (Administrative Officer, Resident Program Division, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Local Government Bureau)
  • Kimihiro Ando (Deputy Manager, Administration Division, Elections Department, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Local Government Bureau)
  • Dan Uchiyama (Section Chief, Election Division, Local Government Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications)
  • Katsutoshi Sakai (Deputy Manager, Digitalization and Promotion Office, Planning Division, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Local Tax Bureau)
  • Yuto Sanpei (Section Chief, Computerization Promotion Office, Planning Division, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Local Tax 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)
  • Megumi Hashida (Assistant Manager, Student Support Project Team, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau)
  • Tomohiro Ohtani (School Attendance Support Section Chief, School Attendance Support Project Team, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau)
  • Hiroko Motooka (Deputy Director, Educational System Reform Office, Elementary and Secondary Education Planning Division, Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology)
  • Tomoyuki Watanabe (Specialist, Educational System Reform Office, Elementary and Secondary Education Planning Division, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau)
  • Chika Fukuchi (Compulsory Education Reform Section, Educational System Reform Office, Elementary and Secondary Education Planning Division, Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology)
  • Shuhei Kimura (Deputy Director, cybersecurity and Information Promotion Office, Policy Division, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology's Secretariat)
  • Mutsumi Seki (Chief, Information Planning Section, cybersecurity and Informatization Promotion Office, Policy Division, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology's Secretariat)
  • 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 establishment of the Study Group shall be in accordance with the outline of the meeting in the handout, and the members shall be as indicated in the attachment.
  • It was decided that Professor Masahiko Shoji of the Faculty of Sociology, Musashi University, will serve as Chair.
  • The secretariat explained the revision of the standard of local government information system non-functional requirements.

Interpellation

Members: There are concerns that increasing choice in the form of a recommendation rather than a requirement will not provide an appropriate level of choice for small municipalities with a one person information systems department.

I think the right direction is to establish a minimum requirement.

In addition, it may be possible to consider a format in which a set of pine, bamboo, and plum trees is prepared so that local governments can easily choose from them.

Secretariat: We would like to deepen consideration on whether or not to set a minimum requirement for each item, including how to express it.

Members: We basically agree with the relaxation and optimization of non-functional requirements.

We think that the reasons for the revision should be organized based on the point of why the review is being carried out now and the point that non-functional requirements must be standardized in the first place.

The perspective of reducing the burden on local governments is necessary, and it is hoped that consideration will proceed so that decisions cannot be made without an understanding of the Government Cloud.

It may be better to consider the expression "recommend" so as not to cause misunderstanding.

Secretariat: We have received opinions that flexibility is required for the standard of non-functional requirements in the standardization efforts and that it may lead to high operating costs. We believe that the time has come when we need to consider it again precisely because the standardization efforts are progressing.

We would like to hear your opinions on the wording of "recommendation", as well as your opinions on appropriate wording.

Members: Although non-functional requirements are basically within the scope permitted by the current standards for non-functional requirements, this organization is making changes in accordance with the operational form of the business jurisdiction and through individual discussions and opinions with business operators at the time of procurement.

In dividing the items into "essential" and "recommended," as a premise, is there a common recognition among the three parties of the national government, local governments, and business operators regarding the positioning of the standard of non-functional requirements? Specifically, it is important to match the definition and recognition of the term because business operators have different perceptions depending on, for example, whether the SLA is a target effort type or a guarantee type.

If several items are selected as recommended items and the options are expanded, it is expected that the level of non-functional requirements proposed by business operators in the shared use system and the level desired by each organization will differ, and there is concern that the number of services that this organization can select will decrease.

Regarding the point presented as an issue, "How about setting it according to whether or not information is provided to other organizations?", when considering the level within this organization, whether or not information is provided to other organizations frequently is not considered. 20 There are differences even within the operations, and the operation is decided based on the characteristics of the operations themselves, such as "Even if the response to citizens and the system stops, will the citizens' window be affected immediately? Is it a business that can be put on hold once received?"

Secretariat: Standardization Act, local governments are responsible for conforming to the standards for non-functional requirements, but in reality, it is only completed when the business operator that ordered the system provides it as a service, so I think it is a system in which local governments and business operators are guaranteed in an integrated manner. In addition, as long as it is a standard, it must be regarded as a guarantee type. On that premise, I recognize that it is pointed out that there is a risk of causing a misunderstanding that the recommended items of the standards for non-functional requirements shown this time may be any level. I would like to show it again after considering the expressions and so on.

There is a possibility that the level required by one local government may not match the level required by another local government. It may be possible to organize the levels required by each group by grouping them by small, medium, or large local governments, but it is recognized that it is necessary to consider whether the levels required by large and other local governments can be combined.

Members: We agree with the aim of reducing the burden on local governments by reviewing the standards of non-functional requirements and promoting smooth use. However, if each local government chooses the recommended items shown this time, it may not be consistent with the purpose of standardization, which has been stated to reduce customization and reduce the burden of individual response.

In addition, it is not clear whether the review of non-functional requirements can really prevent the high operating costs, so it may be better to conduct sufficient verification and confirmation in small-scale local governments and local governments that will not be affected.

However, there are concerns that if the government eases the recommendation requirement, it will raise the hurdle of making it mandatory again if a problem occurs in the future.

Members: and At a meeting of the Standard Specifications Review Committee for a certain business, there was a discussion about dividing specifications by size, and we showed disapproval. We understand that this is an indication of a similar purpose.

It is also reasonable to point out the necessity of verification.

Secretariat: It cannot be said that it is reasonable to review the standardization even if it harms its merits. 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.

Members: municipality.

Business operators are developing standard compliance system with the aim of moving to standardization by the end of fiscal 2025, and at this point, I think we are at a stage just before it is completed. Some local governments and business operators are probably already building systems based on the current non-functional requirements, and some people may say that they will be troubled if the processing speed and encryption aspects are eased from now.

Secretariat: are shown as materials for discussion. Depending on the transition status of each local government, some items can be reviewed in the future and others may be difficult to review. If there are items that are considered to be extremely difficult to review, we will consider how to treat them in the future.

Members: Operators may not be able to cope with the revision of the standards of non-functional requirements during the development of operators.

In the "Standards for Non-Functional Requirements for Local Government Information Systems [Version 1.1]", there is a description that if the level of the selection items is lowered, it will not be regarded as meeting the standards, and some business operators may have had difficulty interpreting it.

For example, a non-functional requirement for a WAF is not a recommendation but a choice to be made. Therefore, the term "recommendation" should be considered.

Secretariat: As we heard from other members, we would like to consider appropriate expressions for the expression "recommended items" from the viewpoint of clarity and not to cause misunderstanding.

The non-functional requirements of the WAF should be described appropriately.

Members: Since the importance of the recommended items is not uniform, is it possible to assign weights to them?

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

This group is planning to move to a system created with the current non-functional requirements, but there are some that can be eased easily and some that cannot, so we think it is necessary to listen to the opinions of the operators and proceed with the discussion.

Secretariat: recommendations, and we will consider whether it is possible to weight them.

With regard to the point raised by the CFTC that the 8-hour-a-day requirement for non-functional requirements may be out of line with the reality, it is possible that this is because the current non-functional requirement standard is based on the actual operation of the requirements at that time, which was created about 10 years ago. The CFTC will consider how appropriate the wording of each item should be.

We have received opinions from the operators once last autumn. Based on the progress of the review, we would like to discuss while receiving opinions from associate members.

Secretariat: Comments should be sent to the secretariat by Friday, 8 March, for additional comments.

The next review meeting is scheduled to be held between the end of March and the beginning of April. The schedule will be adjusted later.

Greater than or