How can Seamless Public Finance Interoperability Empower Government COVID-19 Pandemic Responses?

It’s High Time to Reintroduce the “I” in Integrated Financial Management Systems for Government, but Let’s Get Beyond “Integrated”

Context : PFM experts coined the term “IFMIS””to refer to government systems that integrated core financial functions. Only problem? Very few were truly integrated. Integration is in a horrible state in many countries with multiple silos, legacy systems, and manual processes.

  • Multiple custom subsystems with different technologies and classifications 
  • The combination of custom and Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) 
  • It’s difficult to integrate modules from a single ERP system (despite the marketing noise from these vendors) 
  • We all seemed to give up on the “integrated” aspiration for Government Resource Planning: “FMIS” it is 

Enter  the COVID-19 pandemic, with governments:

  • Reallocating spending 
  • Procuring PPE supplies and medical equipment 
  • Assisting businesses and citizens 
  • Supporting public servants to deliver citizen services 
  • Tracking spending 

Challenge:: how can governments successfully manage the pandemic response when:

  • Revenue, debt, and expenditure systems are separate, with different classifications, so liquidity information is stale? 
  • Procurement and core financial systems are separate so tracking spending alignment is difficult? 
  • Controls differ among procurement, relief, and other payroll, so many non-compliant spending occurs?

Reality check is that “integration” as originally conceived with “IFMIS” is not enough:

  • Integration at the database level is a poor IT practice because there is no metadata and interfaces will break 
  • Integration at key points in the budget cycle, usually with vouchers, is superficial and prone to error 
  • Integration without metadata management generates many versions of the truth, compromises decision-making and audit 
  • Integration through APIs and web services lack resilience to software changes, especially when these integration methods are not commercially supported 
  • Integration without shared budget, commitment, and approval controls introduces compliance risks 

An alternative view is that “integration” is just Information Technology “plumbing”.

  • It’s very complex “plumbing” with a range of tools including: stored procedures, scripts, ODBC/JDBC calls, flat files, Extraction-Transformation-Load, Remote Procedure Calls, proprietary methods, metadata management, web services, and APIs 
  • Many integration methods are error-prone 
  • It’s difficult to validate data completeness, data validity, controls compliance, and user authorization at government transaction scales

Legacy Approach Integration
That’s why it’s high time to think “interoperability”: seamless and unified integration

  • where all core (and some non-core) are built on the same functions 
  • not just building modules with the same technology deployed as silos where classifications and controls can differ 
  • a single environment where all modules share the same metadata and controls 
  • change the Chart of Accounts, change a process, transfer an employee, depreciate an asset: once 
  • no need for a metadata management system or integration callisthenics

Postmodern Approach Interoperability
Why it matters for public finance?  Consider the following scenario (that happens far too often):

  • a government ministry attempts to procure something when the procurement system is not interoperable with core financials 
  • the ministry can procure based on different classifications than described in the core financial system 
  • the ministry can skip over segregation of duties in the procurement 
  • the ministry can record the procurement as anything in the financial system COA 
  • and, it can show up in government accounts as an emergency COVID-19 expenditure, when it isn’t

What is different  about the legacy COTS method vs. the postmodern “unified” approach?
Unified Integration
Example: debt, capital, development, operating & public sector budget planning integration, procurement integration, payroll integration

  • Legacy: large monolithic components assembled as module silos, includes modules from mergers, has proprietary integration with some support for open standards, requires metadata management to interoperate 
  • Postmodern: granular components shared across the suite that inherently interoperate with a single point of metadata management 
  • In other words, don’t be fooled when legacy ERP vendors talk about integration

What about  custom-developed financial applications in government? Integration has proven to be elusive in governments who think simple bespoke systems will cost less and have similar benefits to COTS.

  • Mind you, some COTS implementations have as much code customization as custom-developed software! 
  • Many governments using custom-developed systems cannot provide timely information to decision-makers 
  • The amount of overnight batch processing for consolidated reporting or transparency portals in some countries is impressive: high complex transformation, validation and loading 

What’s really needed for government resource planning or FMIS environments is an evaluation method to determine integration and interoperability risks and opportunities.

  • That’s another service that FreeBalance can provide, remotely, to any government organization

The ideal Government IFMIS: Interoperable Financial Management Information System
Governce Objects, Controls and Making Enables Transparency


Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More