Survey on Open Source Software in the Spanish Government (ESFA-AGE). 2011

Survey on Open Source Software in the
Spanish Government (ESFA-AGE)
Survey on Open Source Software
in the Spanish Government
(ESFA-AGE). 2011
Results.
National Observatory for Open Source Software (ONSFA).
January 2012
CENATIC- National Competency Centre for the application of open source technologies

CENATIC is the National Competency Centre for the application of open source technologies, a Public
Foundation promoted by the Ministry of Industry, Energy and Commerce and the Autonomous Government of
Extremadura. In addition, the autonomous regions of Andalusia, Aragon, Asturias, Cantabria, Catalonia, Balearic
Islands, Basque Country and Galicia and the company Telefónica serve on its Board of Trustees.
The aim of CENATIC is to promote knowledge and use of open source software in all areas of society, particularly in
public administrations, companies, the technological sector supplying or using free technologies and development
communities. Further information about CENATIC is available at http://www.cenatic.es
The National Observatory for Open Source Software (ONSFA) is the centre of excellence for the analysis and
monitoring of free open source software in Spain. The Observatory is also a meeting point and a place for dialogue,
where the most important agents in open source software can share knowledge and ideas. Further information
about ONSFA is available at http://observatorio.cenatic.es/
Acknowledgements:
We would like to express our appreciation for the invaluable collaboration of all the IT Department heads that have
so kindly taken the time to respond to the ESFA-AGE 2011 survey. Without their help, the drafting of this report
would not have been possible.
About CENATIC

1. Analysis and Assessment
Open source software is unquestionably the spearhead for a broader model that prioritises and promotes a
commitment to transparency, independence, collaboration and the rationalisation of resources. For years now, the
public administrations have legislated in favour of this model, for example, by passing Law 56/2007, of 28
December, on Measures to Promote the Information Society, Royal Decree 4/2010, of 8 January, which regulates
the National Interoperability Scheme in the field of e-Government or the recent Royal Decree 1495/2011, of 24
October, which implements Law 37/2007, of 16 November, on the reuse of public sector information in the state
public sector.
Furthermore, the administration is also adopting open source software in its technological projects, as is reflected by
the fact that nearly 90% of them use some type of open source software for their server environments and almost
80% use it on their desktop computers. However, these data must be considered in light of the volume represented
by each of the above percentages, which correspond to 40 and 15%, respectively.
Consequently, while open source software is being applied in a wide variety of environments in the Administration,
we are still far from generalised application, and even more so in the case of desktop systems. This difference may
be explained by the fact that migration to open source software in the latter case is slower because of its complexity,
since in practice there is still a dependence on private systems, the inertia of which is difficult to overcome.

One factor to bear in mind in this analysis of the adoption of technology is the life cycle of the systems developed by
and/or for the administration, which based on established depreciation schedules (and in practice, due to the
obsolescence of the technology) is approximately 5 years. These periods determine the software replacement
cycles, as well as the option to adopt new (in this case, open source) solutions.
Furthermore, if we analyse how the Administrations acquire software, we find a wide range of possibilities, from the
68% of them that opt for applications from public repositories to the 27% that reuse open source solutions from
other public administrations. Perhaps the most striking aspect is the difference between the latter figure and the
percentage of administrations that directly generate open source software (46%), which demonstrates the need to
continue to promote the reuse of open source software instead of creating customised versions.
However, the technological legacy of the public administrations has not been created with its subsequent release
and reuse in mind; for this reason, there are a series of legal and technical complications a posteriori that prevent
other administrations from reusing the software. It is encouraging to note that almost half of the administrations
begin new technological developments with the intention of releasing and/or reusing the software in the future, and
that 24% of them have already released code or plan to do so.
When these applications and pre-existing ones are released, it will be possible for other administrations to reuse
them, thus opting for a collaborative development model with positive results that go far beyond greater cost
efficiency.

In any case, in spite of the difficulties and the road that lies ahead, this study clearly demonstrates the confidence
the administrations have in the capacities and benefits of open source software, since over 50% of them use it to
support critical applications. Furthermore, among the most important criteria guiding their software acquisition
policies are the basic elements of performance, interoperability and ease of customisation, characteristics that are
intrinsic to and traditionally form part of open source software. On the other hand, those surveyed recognise that the
lack of professional experts in open source solutions and the lack of training in this regard represent an obstacle to
adopting it in a more generalised manner.
Therefore, in conclusion, this study has shed light on two important situations. On one hand, the commitment of the
public institutions to a model that is much more open and collaborative, circumventing the difficulties so that, little by
little, the technological panorama is regenerated with open source solutions that most of them believe in. This
commitment will make it possible, as these solutions are released, for other administrations to reuse them and
collaborate as communities that enable a better evolution of the solutions. On the other hand, the study reveals the
need to structure the ICT paradigm around open source software and train professionals so that they become the
true architects of this change in model.
Therefore, in the immediate future, it will be necessary to undertake actions in both senses that make it possible to
catalyse and channel the benefits of open source software to meet the needs of the public administrations:
facilitating the process of releasing and reusing software and properly training professionals in the ICT sector so that
they may contribute to building a good reserve of experts to carry out this task.

2. Main results

3. In terms of the volume of open source software deployed on the servers at
organisations in the Spanish government (programs, operating systems and
utilities, both in production and in testing or pre-production environments),
approximately 40% is open source software. With regard to desktop software
as a whole, open code solutions represent around 15%.
1. Most of the organisations belonging to the Spanish Government (AGE) use free and/or open source software
(OSS) for both servers and desktop systems. More specifically, 9 out of 10 organisations have open code solutions
deployed on their servers, while 8 out of 10 use open source desktop programs.
2. Analysing how they were acquired, we find that 68% have acquired the open source technologies they have
implemented for free, accessing them from a software repository or forge; 46% have engaged in their own
developments using open source solutions; 33% of the organisations have issued tenders for the acquisition of
commercial open source software; and 27% report having reused open source solutions from another public
administration.

4. Of the 40% of the open source software installed on servers, nearly 19% has been downloaded for free from a
forge or repository, 12.6% has been developed in-house using open source solutions; approximately 5% is
commercial open source software resulting from a public tender and 2.82% is reused open source software from
another public administration. The open source desktop software available in the organisations has mainly (12%)
been downloaded from a repository or forge.
5. More than half of the organisations in the Spanish government (55.4%) report that the open source software
deployed on their servers provides support for critical applications.
6. The practice of releasing OSS solutions is not very widespread, given that 3 out of every 4 organisations have
neither released solutions they have developed internally nor plan to do so in the short term, mainly because they
have not considered doing so (70%), or they do not have a strategy for releasing them (31%). Around 18% of the
organisations have released software and 6% plan to do so in the near future.
7. Meeting software expectations and performance requirements are, in the
opinion of IT department managers, the main criteria shaping policies and
practices for software acquisition. Important aspects include interoperability with
other products, software guarantees, ease of customisation and migration,
support and maintenance costs.

8. The shortage of personnel who are experts in open source solutions and the resulting need for training is considered
to be the main barrier or aspect that complicates the adoption of open source software in the public administrations.
9. In the case of public tenders for software solutions, normally there are no departments or methodologies available to
assess the quality of the software offered (79% of the organisations). In these tenders, it is also not customary to
stipulate that the proposed solutions must consider the use of open source solutions (38%). Nevertheless, while not
specifically requiring the solutions offered to be open source, 2 out of every 10 organisations take a favourable view of
offers that consider open source solutions and 1 out of every 10 organisations clearly stipulate in the tenders that, as far
as possible (taking into account the department's system architecture), software components must be open source.
10. In the opinion of the heads of the IT departments in collaborating
organisations, the level of knowledge in the field of open source software on
behalf of technicians in their departments is average (49% of the organisations)
to poor (37%), with there being a general consensus about the need to improve
knowledge about open source software among department personnel (86% of
the organisations).

3. Methodology

4. Representativeness of
the results

To establish the sampling frame, the organisations used were those that were identified in the General State
Budgets for 2010. This sampling frame included the Spanish Government Ministries, as well as their corresponding
Autonomous Organisations and State Agencies under the auspices of the Ministerial Departments of the Spanish
Government.
Finally, the study focused on a population of 198 organisations (from 210 organisations, 12 were eliminated for
having confirmed that they have no IT department), with a 95.5% confidence level (two sigmas) and P=Q
(maximum uncertainty), with an error for the sample set of ±4.42%.
The following organisations participated:

5. Open Source Software on Servers
5.1 Use of OSS on Servers

(143 cases)
Figure 1. Total percentage of organisations that have deployed OSS on Servers
90.9
9.1
Percentage of organisations that have OSS
Percentage of organisations that do not have OSS

Percentage of open source software
Percentage of proprietary software
(143 cases)
A13. Of all the software that you have indicated you have deployed on the servers in your organisation, approximately what
percentage is open source software and what percentage is proprietary software? We are referring to programs, operating
systems and utilities, in both production and in testing or pre-production environments.
Figure 2. Total percentage of software deployed on servers by type
(OSS or Proprietary)

% OSS developed by the organisation
% OSS reused from other Public Administrations
% OSS purchased commercially
% OSS downloaded for free
% Proprietary software
(143 cases)
Figure 3. Percentage of OSS used on servers by acquisition type
A14. And more specifically, indicate the percentage of software (volume of applications) that...

(143 cases)
% of the Public Administrations in which all the
software deployed on servers is OSS (100%)
% of the Public Administrations in which most of the
software deployed on servers is OSS (75-99%)
% of the Public Administrations in which between 50
and 74% of the software deployed on servers is OSS
% of the Public Administrations in which between 25
and 49% of the software deployed on servers is OSS
% of the Public Administrations in which less than 24%
of the software deployed on servers is OSS
% of the Public Administrations that have no OSS
deployed on servers
A13. Of all the software that you have indicated you have deployed on the servers in your organisation, approximately what
percentage is open source software and what percentage is proprietary software? We are referring to programs, operating
systems and utilities, in both production and in testing or pre-production environments.
Figure 4. Detailed percentages of OSS deployed on servers

(130 cases)
Percentage of organisations in which the OSS
deployed on servers provides support for critical
applications
Figure 5. Servers with OSS providing support for critical applications
A13B. Indicate whether any open source software that is deployed on servers in your organisation provides support for
business applications that you consider to be critical (ERP, transactions, databases, human resource management, etc.).
Percentage of organisations in which
the OSS deployed on servers does not
provide support for critical applications

External support provided by a company
Internal support provided by department personnel
Combined support (external and internal)
No support
No response
(143 cases)
Figure 6. Type of server software support
A12. Who is primarily responsible for providing support for all servers in your organisation?

5.2 Details of the technology
used on servers

Operating systems
Email servers
Database servers
Webmail systems
Directory service systems
Content management systems (CMS)
Application servers
Enterprise content management (ECM)
Customer relationship management (CRM)
Business process management (BPM)
(143 cases)
Figure 7. Server software technologies deployed

WINDOWS
LINUX
Other
(143 cases)
Figure 8. Operating systems used on servers
A1. Indicate what operating systems are used on the servers at your institution.

Windows Server 2003
Linux (Red Hat)
Windows Server 2008
Linux (Ubuntu)
Solaris
Linux (Debian)
Linux (Centos)
Linux (SuSE)
HP-UX
Windows 2000 Server
Windows 2000 Advanced Server
AIX
Z/OS
Scientific Linux
BSD (FreeBSD)
Windows NT Server
BSD (NetBSD)
Other
(143 cases)
Figure 9. Details of the operating systems used on servers
A1. Indicate what operating systems are used on the servers at your institution.

MS Exchange
External servers
Postfix
Sendmail
Lotus Domino
Qmail
Zimbra
Exim
Other
Unknown
(143 cases)
Figure 10. Email servers
A2. Indicate what email servers are used at your institution.

Microsoft Outlook Web Access
IMP/Horde Webmail
SquirrelMail
Lotus Domino
Zimbra
Deucalion
Roundcube
Novell NetMail WebAccess
Exchange
Oracle Webmail
Other
Unknown
None
(143 cases)
Figure 11. Webmail systems
A3. Indicate what webmail system your organisation uses.

MySQL
Microsoft SQL Server
Oracle
PostgreSQL
IBM DB2
Software AG
Ingres
Informix
Adabis
Other
Unknown
None
(143 cases)
Figure 12. Database servers
A4. Indicate what database servers your organisation uses.

Drupal
Joomla
Sharepoint
Open CMS
Alfresco
Liferay
Documentum
Magnolia
Plone/Zope
Custom development
Wordpress
Own
Webcontrol
Oracle
Ucm
Other
Unknown
None
(143 cases)
Figure 13. Content management systems
A5. Indicate what web content management system (CMS) your organisation uses.

Microsoft Active Directory
OpenLDAP
Oracle Internet Directory
Novell eDirectory
Other
Unknown
None
(143 cases)
Figure 14. Directory service systems
A6. Indicate what directory service systems your organisation uses.

ApacheTomcat
Oracle IAS
Jboss
BEA WebLogic
GlassFish
IBM WebSphere
Other
Unknown
None
(143 cases)
Figure 15. Application server systems
A7. Indicate what application servers your organisation uses.

Alfresco
Sharepoint
Documentum
Open CMS
OpenText
Oracle UCM
Custom development
Absys
Invesdoc
Eversuite
IBM FileNet
Nuxeo
Knowledgetree
Other
Unknown
None
(143 cases)
Figure 16. Enterprise content management systems
A8. Indicate what enterprise content management systems (ECM) your organisation uses.

mySAP CRM
Navision
OpenCRM
PeopleSoft
Sugar CRM
Other
Unknown
None
(143 cases)
Figure 17. Customer relationship management systems
A9. Indicate what customer relationship management systems (CRM) your organisation uses.

MicroStrategy
JBPM
Bonita
Oracle BPM
Other
Unknown
None
(143 cases)
Figure 18. Business process management systems
A10. Indicate what business process management systems (BPM) your organisation uses.

Agenda/calendar server
Project management
Digital repository
Wiki
Groupware, collaborative software
Blog
Social network service
None of the above
(143 cases)
Figure 19. Collaborative software
A11. Indicate whether your organisation uses software in the following areas. If so, what is the name of the software?

5.3 Use of Desktop OSS

(143 cases)
Figure 20. Total percentage of organisations that have deployed desktop OSS
83.2
16.8
Percentage of organisations that have OSS
Percentage of organisations that do not have OSS

Percentage of open source software
Percentage of proprietary software
(143 cases)
Figure 21. Total percentage of desktop software by type (OSS and proprietary)
B4. Of all the desktop software that you have indicated you have in your organisation, approximately what percentage is
open source desktop software and what percentage is proprietary software? We are referring to programs, operating
systems and utilities that are being used.

% OSS developed by the organisation
% OSS reused from other Public Administrations
% OSS purchased commercially
% OSS downloaded for free
% Proprietary software
(143 cases)
Figure 22. OSS used on desktops, by acquisition type
B5. And more specifically, indicate the percentage of software (volume of applications) that...

(143 cases)
Figure 23. Detailed percentages of OSS deployed on desktops
% of the organisations in which all the software
deployed on desktops is OSS (100%)
% of the organisations in which most of the software
deployed on desktops is OSS (75-99%)
% of the organisations in which between 50 and
74% of the software deployed on desktops is OSS
% of the organisations in which between 25 and
49% of the software deployed on desktops is OSS
% of the organisations in which less than 24% of the
software deployed on desktops is OSS
% of the organisations that have no OSS deployed
on desktops
B4. Of all the desktop software that you have indicated you have in your organisation, approximately what percentage is
open source desktop software and what percentage is proprietary software? We are referring to programs, operating
systems and utilities that are being used.

External support provided by a company
Internal support provided by department personnel
Combined support (external and internal)
No support
No response
(143 cases)
Figure 24. Type of desktop software support
B3. Who is primarily responsible for providing support for all desktop software in your organisation?

5.4 Details of the technology used
on desktops and cloud applications

WINDOWS
LINUX
Other
(143 cases)
MAC
Figure 25. Desktop operating systems
B1. Indicate what operating systems are used on computers at your institution.
100
42,7
33,6
7,7
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Windows XP
Windows 7
Windows Vista
Linux (Ubuntu)
Mac OS X
Mac OS
Linux (Debian)
Linux (Red Hat)
Windows 2000
Windows 98 or earlier
Linux (SuSE)
Windows NT
Solaris
Open Solaris
BSD (FreeBSD)
Other
(143 cases)
Figure 26. Details of desktop operating systems
B1. Indicate what operating systems are used on computers at your institution.

Microsoft Office
Microsoft Internet Explorer
Microsoft Outlook / OutlookExpress
Mozilla / Firefox web browser
Google Chrome
Skype (VoIP)
Thunderbird mail client
OpenOffice
Safari
Messenger
Gimp
Mac Mail
iWork
LibreOffice
Evolution
Ekiga (VoIP)
NeoOffice
Empathy
Others
(143 cases)
Figure 27. Desktop applications
B2. Indicate which of the following desktop applications are used at your organisation.

(143 cases)
Use CLOUD applications
Do not use CLOUD applications
Figure 28. Use of cloud applications
B2B. Are any cloud-based desktop applications used at your organisation?

5.5 Practices and policies related to
software acquisition

Figure 29. Organisations that have developed OSS solutions
(143 cases)
Organisations that have
developed server solutions with
OSS
Organisations that have
developed desktop solutions
with OSS
4 6 . 9
1 4 . 7
0 % 2 0 % 4 0 % 6 0 % 8 0 % 1 0 0 %

Organisations that have developed
OSS server solutions (67 cases)
Organisations that have released one or more solutions
developed with OSS
Organisations that have not released solutions developed
with OSS, but that intend to do so
with OSS and do not intend to do so
Figure 30. Release of server solutions developed internally with OSS
A15. Focusing on server tools developed internally by your department using open source software, indicate whether
any of these have been released or if you plan to release them for reuse.

Organisations that have developed OSS desktop solutions (20 cases)
VERY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE
Organisations that have released one or more solutions
developed with OSS
with OSS, but intend to do so
with OSS and do not intend to do so
Figure 31. Release of desktop solutions developed internally with OSS
B6. Focusing on the open source desktop applications for internal use that you have indicated as having been
developed in your organisation, indicate whether any have been released or if you plan to release these applications
for reuse.

Organisations that have developed OSS server solutions
and that have not released them and do not plan to do so (51 cases)
Figure 32. Reasons for not releasing server solutions developed internally with OSS
Haven't considered it
No release strategy
Lack of knowledge of legal aspects and methodology.
Because it is very specific software
Other
No reason
A17. Indicate the reasons why internally-developed server software has not been released.
7 0 .6
3 1 .4
1 1 .8
1 1 .8
9 .8
2 .0
0 % 2 0 % 4 0 % 6 0 % 8 0 % 1 0 0 %

Organisations that have developed OSS desktop solutions
and that have not released them and do not plan to do so (17 cases)
Figure 33. Reasons for not releasing desktop solutions developed internally with OSS
Haven't considered it
No release strategy
Lack of knowledge of legal aspects and methodology.
Security problems
Other
No reason
B8. Indicate the reasons why internally-developed desktop software has not been released.
5 2 .9
2 9 .4
5 .9
5 .9
1 1 .8
5 .9
0 % 2 0 % 4 0 % 6 0 % 8 0 % 1 0 0 %

Meets expectations
Software performance
Interoperability with other products
Guarantee
Migration cost
Ease of customisation
Support and maintenance cost
Total cost of ownership (TCO)
Updating cost
Prior personnel experience
Software previously used by the organisation
Preferences of technical personnel
Contractual obligations - licensing
Independence from suppliers
Because it is open source
Impact on local ICT
(1) Not at all important
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5) Very important
(6) No opinion
Average
4.52
4.17
4.05
4.01
3.94
3.9
3.86
3.77
3.74
3.71
3.7
3.62
3.57
3.54
3.2
2.94
Deviation
0.63
0.96
0.93
0.96
0.92
1.03
0.97
1.02
1.02
0.96
1.01
1.07
1.05
1.23
1.13
1.09
Figure 34. Criteria that have an influence on software acquisition
C1. Of the following criteria that might influence the public acquisition of software, indicate the importance of each for your
organisation (on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important).
(143 cases)
32.9
34.3
38.5
35.0
44.8
39.2
37.1
35.0
33.6
45.5
37.8
36.4
30.8
29.4
30.1
17.5
58.7
44.1
36.4
36.4
28.0
31.5
28.0
24.5
25.9
19.6
22.4
21.7
20.3
25.9
11.2
6.3
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Software performance
Meets expectations
Support and maintenance
cost
Ease of customisation
Migration cost
Guarantee
Interoperability with other
products
Independence from
suppliers
Contractual obligations -
licensing
Preferences of technical
personnel
Software previously used by
the organisation
Impact on local ICT
Because it is open source
Prior personnel experience
Updating cost
Total cost of ownership
(TCO)
Critical
aspects
Important
aspects
Less important
aspects
Interesting
aspects
Figure 35. Ranking of criteria that have an influence on software
acquisition

(1) Totally
disagree
(5) Totally
agree
No
opinion
(143 cases)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Lack of expert personnel, training
Problems with migration from proprietary platforms
Lack of knowledge about solutions
Unfamiliarity with technical support companies
Interoperability problems with products
Specific software adaptations
No OSS solutions that meet their needs
Time investment to identify software
Related costs
Difficulty in calculating TCO
Quality guarantees not sufficient with OSS
Drafting of technical and legal terms and conditions
Legal aspects of OSS, including licenses
Average
3.59
3.48
3.4
3.37
3.35
3.07
3
2.93
2.92
2.56
2.5
2.44
2.33
Deviation
1.14
1.07
1.21
1.22
1.17
1.25
1.26
1.11
1.21
1.09
1.27
1.26
1.16
Figure 36. Barriers to open source software acquisition
C2. Below is a list of possible reasons that might make it more difficult for organisations like yours to adopt open source software. With your organisation
in mind, indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each (on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means “I totally disagree” and 5 “I totally agree”).
35.0
28.7
28.7
30.8
29.4
27.3
18.9
20.3
18.9
14.7
12.6
11.2
9.1
22.4
18.9
20.3
19.6
16.8
11.9
14.0
7.7
11.9
2.8
8.4
7.0
5.6
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Most
significant
barrier
Significant
barriers
Less significant
barriers
Specific software adaptations
There are no OSS solutions that meet our needs.
Time investment required to identify suitable software
Related costs (change management, training, etc.)
Lack of expert
personnel, need for
training
Problems with migration from proprietary platforms
Lack of knowledge about solutions
Unfamiliarity with technical support companies
Interoperability problems with implemented products
Difficulty in calculating TCO
Quality guarantees not sufficient with OSS
Drafting of technical and legal terms and conditions
Legal aspects of OSS, including licenses
Irrelevant
barriers
Figure 37. Ranking of barriers to open source software acquisition

(143 cases)
Figure 38. Existence of departments or methodologies to assess software quality
C3. With regard to the public acquisition of open source software, indicate whether you have a department or methodology to
assess the quality and suitability of the software in terms of legal and technological requirements.
Has a quality control centre that verifies both the
required features and the validity of the
licensing (compatibility among licenses used in
the development)
Has no quality control centre, but has a
methodology that requires suppliers to adopt
suitable licenses
Has no department or methodologies in this
regard
Unknown

(143 cases)
All software components must be open
source.
As much as possible (taking into account the
architecture of the organisation's current systems),
the software components must be open source.
Unknown
Not a requirement, but open source software
solutions are viewed favourably.
Figure 39. Requirements related to the public acquisition of software
C4. Indicate whether it is a requirement in public tenders for software.
No specifications in this regard; it is left up to
the discretion of the tenderers.

5.6 OSS knowledge and training

(143 cases)
Basic
level
Intermediate
level
Expert
level
Figure 40. Average level of OSS knowledge by personnel in the organisation
F1. How would you define the average level of knowledge in the area of open source software that personnel in your
organisation have?

Personnel should improve their knowledge of OSS
Personnel do not need to improve their knowledge of OSS
(143 cases)
Figure 41. Need to improve knowledge of OSS by personnel in the organisation
F2. Do you think that the technical personnel in your organisation should improve their knowledge of open source software?

OSS training was provided in 2010
OSS training was not provided in 2010
(143 cases)
Figure 42. OSS training during 2010 in the IT department
G1. Did your organisation provide employee training in open source software during 2010?

(143 cases)
1-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
100%
Unknown
Average
32.65 %
Figure 43. Percentage of employees who received training in OSS
G2. What percentage of your employees received this training in open source software during 2010?

5.7 Trends and forecasts for
technology adoption/migration

Server operating systems
Content management system
Desktop operating systems
Databases
Office automation, productivity applications
Browsers
Application servers
Enterprise content management (ECM)
Email client
Webmail
Wiki
Mail servers
VoIP
Directory service system
Groupware
Project management
Agenda/calendar servers
Digital repository
Blog
Business process management (BPM)
Social network services
Customer relationship management (CRM)
(143 cases)
Figure 44. Organisations that anticipate adopting or replacing technologies, by type
E. Indicate whether your organisation is considering implementing any of the systems listed below, either to
replace an obsolete system or as a new implementation.

Yes; the organisation will develop it with OSS for internal use.
Yes; it will be reused from another public administration.
Yes; OSS will be acquired through a public tender.
Yes; OSS will be downloaded for free from the Internet.
Yes; proprietary software will be acquired through a public tender.
(143 cases)
SERVER OPERATING SYSTEMS
CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
DESKTOP OPERATING SYSTEMS
Figure 45. Organisations that will replace or adopt new systems, by software type.
E. Indicate whether your organisation is considering implementing any of the systems listed below, either to
replace an obsolete system or as a new implementation.

More information about these data:
Report “El software libre en los organismos públicos de ámbito estatal. 2011.”
["Open source software in public organisations of the Spanish government. 2011."] Available at:
www.cenatic.es/dossier/panel-informe-age2011
Panel de Indicadores Administraciones Públicas del ONSFA.
[Panel of Public Administration Indicators from the ONSFA.] Available at: www.cenatic.es/dossier/panel-indicadores-
age2011
This work is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Spain license.
To see a copy of this license, please visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.es
http://www.cenatic.es
http://observatorio.cenatic.es
http://www.twitter.com/cenatic
http://www.facebook.com/cenatic
http://www.youtube.com/user/videoscenatic
http://identi.ca/cenatic.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cenatic
Authors:
Ana Trejo Pulido (coordination)
Manuel Domínguez Dorado
Pop Ramsamy
Published by: CENATIC. Av/ Clara Campoamor s/n. 06200 Almendralejo (Badajoz) December 2011.
ISBN-13: 978-84-15927-07-5

Survey on Open Source Software in the Spanish Government (ESFA-AGE). 2011

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Survey on Open Source Software in the Spanish Government (ESFA-AGE). 2011

Similar to Survey on Open Source Software in the Spanish Government (ESFA-AGE). 2011 (20)

More from CENATIC

More from CENATIC (14)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Survey on Open Source Software in the Spanish Government (ESFA-AGE). 2011