By
Joseph M. Firestone and Nancy Bordier
We think most people agree that money has corrupted our politics. Some even think that we now live in a Plutocracy, and not in a Democracy, and that both parties are corrupted and now represent only the financial oligarchy. So, the central issue of our time is how can we break its hold? How can we overcome the influence of money in politics and make our political system more responsive to most Americans once again?
The way we can do that is by modifying the political system so that much less money is needed for new citizen voting blocs to organize and make themselves felt as a political force. In turn, we think, this modification comes down to removing the necessity for candidates and new movements to engage in mass media advertising, and direct mail marketing campaigns to become popular, grow strong, and win elections.
There’s only one way to get that done, however, and that’s to create a system of communication and political organization that relies primarily on the Internet, and makes organizing so cheap for people, that money is irrelevant to formulating one’s message, getting it out, and joining with others to produce platforms and candidates with capability to compete with others who have huge amounts of corporate and personal money. We have to make campaign resources like Meg Whitman’s $100 million — plus irrelevant to winning elections. We need a software application and Internet site(s) that will provide people with a virtual place through which they can: define their own policy options and prioritize them to create political agendas, social network with others who have similar agendas to their own, work together with these others to create collective political agendas, voting blocs, coalitions and new political parties that, partly by using monitoring, evaluating, and communicating capabilities of the application will make their representatives accountable. In this post on the Interactive Voter Choice System, Nancy Bordier and I described the premises of such an application, for which she has a patent pending, and also how it would work to help people overcome the problems of political organization, while providing a very low cost environment.
The application will supply the most comprehensive current environment available for developing a rich inner life for new voting blocs, and the people within them. It will provide a richer ecology for voting blocs to evolve within, than anything available now. It will also support openness, transparency, and political inclusiveness within its voting blocs. Because of these characteristics, including the openness of the blocs, more of the blocs will solve their problems, and adapt better to their environments, improving the chances that some of them will transcend the awkward brittle stages of voting bloc growth, and survive long enough to grow into a real force that will challenge the legacy parties and force the changes in the American political system we are all looking for.
Most Americans want to do something about the mess that we’re in. They’ll respond to an application like the one we’ve outlined, because it will facilitate their efforts to self-organize coalitions, evaluate their representatives, influence them, and, finally, hold them accountable. Since it will cost little more than time to organize and get one’s messages out by using it, the application will eliminate the need for voting blocs and candidates to rely on big money to evolve support. It will de-fang the Citizens United decision. It will be the solution to the problem of how we can shift the balance back from Plutocracy toward Democracy.
(Cross-posted at All Life Is Problem Solving and Fiscal Sustainability).



24 Comments

Great idea…right track. GO!
Thanks witregards, It’s described in much more detail here.
That Hamsher woman once got so angry at some 1000+ word post I wrote in the early am slot that she pnished everyone writing for fdl with a rule that we could only use 100 words…no exceptions. She imposed this rule for any entire week.
No matter what the topic, or how important it was, we had to convey the central message or truth in 100 words or less, including hyper links. Interested readers could read more via the links.
we hated it, but it was the right drill. Jane knew what she was doing … But don’t tell her!
Help us out, lets, you bring important stuff, but when I read hundreds of articles every week there is a competition for those I can’t grasp withouts paying close attention for 1000 or more words.
I feel the same way you do, Scarecrow, about reading long posts and just skip over the long ones that I do not find compelling.
OTOH, despite many efforts, I have found it almost impossible to explain in 100 or even 1000 words or less the compelling reasons behind the need for the Interactive Voter Choice System and how it empowers grassroots voters across the political spectrum to oust elected representatives corrupted by special interest campaign contributions and elect those who will enact their policy priorities into law.
Joe Firestone has been terrific in this regard during our collaboration to co-author Preventing the Collapse of Democracy with the Interactive Voter Choice System. We worked diligently together to write it as concisely and cogently as possible. But obviously it did not grab your attention away from the other hundreds of articles that you read every week, which I can totally understand.
We will keep at it, though, and hopefully we can come up with a 1000 word description before too long that will entice you to read it. Anyone who has any ideas that can help us is invited to go to a prototype website built around the invention, Re-Inventing Democracy, and share with us any short cuts that come to mind for explaining it better in fewer words. I can be reached at info@reinventingdemocracy.us.
Sorry, John. Don’t think I can help beyond what I’ve done just above. The problem we’re addressing in the long piece is why we believe the IVCS will work. One over-riding reason is that people have the motivation to self-organize if they’re enabled because there’s so much anger at the present political situation.
That’s easy to say briefly, and I’ve just said it.
But after that, the explanation of why the IVCS will work has to focus on the details of how people might use the application to create policy agendas, build voting blocs around those agendas, grow those voting, negotiate with other voting blocs to build coalitions, and finally use those coalitions to either take over the existing parties, or build third parties. The long piece fills in how we envision the details, and it is because it is a matter of understanding and relating to the details that we haven’t been able to boil it down to normal blog post size.
So, I’ll think I have to leave it to people to make the choice about whether they want to make the investment of reading and discussion. I’ve tried to encourage them with this short piece, and today I’ll probably write yet another piece meant to introduce or encourage the idea. But if people want to understand more about how and why it will work, they’ll have to take an hour to read the longer description.
Thanks for bringing up the problem of length, which I certainly acknowledge exists and also regret.
I see Nancy replied, while I was writing mine. As you can see she’s very forthcoming and perhaps we will figure out how to put it into 1,000 words before too long.
Appreciate the response and the difficulty, Nancy. I didn’t mean this as a criticism of the concept or your work, or of lets’ great contributions here. It’s not you; it’s a generic problem for all of us at sites like FDL.
But suppose you got an opportunity to appear on Rachel Maddow, and she said, “you’ll get about 2-3 minutes, depending on other stuff happening, including my lead in question.” I doubt you would reply, “Sorry, but this will take me a half hour to explain, so I won’t do your show.”
What do you want folks to see/hear in that two or three minutes? And how would you phrase it so that they’re encouraged to follow the links for more information? or get invited back for a five minute segment?
I’d like to see hard evidence that broadcast advertising and mass-mailing campaigns actually do anything interesting at all.
When I was working in interactive media/marketing the clearest signal that came up over and over again with clients, some of them huge companies, was that they had very, very little idea if much if any of their TV, radio, print, and mailer advertising was actually producing a significant upward trend in sales conversions. They knew they couldn’t do none, because all their competitors were doing it, but they had no idea how much they ought to be doing, so they’d just throw lots of money at it, and essentially hope for the best; despite the rhetorical acrobatics of the internal marketing departments trying to justify their budgets with a bunch of numbers they’d pull out of their asses.
The reason was the extremely primitive means of measuring success of the campaign. The broadcasters sell you “exposure,” and it’s not at all clear that exposure gets you much. Internal testing when attempting to create value-pricing models for our services indicated a heavy trend that broadcast advertising most likely entrenches the brand faithful, and occasionally influences the ambivalent.
I agree with you that we’re never going to break the back of this mess if we’re content to try and outspend the opposition, because it’ll never happen, and they make the rules, not us. Not to mention, something I’ve said a thousand times, every advertisement you purchase materially enriches a big-money interest that will actively work against you at some point.
That said, good luck getting traction here. Most of the FDL staff/regulars have been extremely hostile to any language that surmises that getting into a fundraising-arms-race is a surefire losing bet for us.
I should frame that in terms of marginal returns. At some point the scale can be so huge that it’s a thorough propaganda campaign, but that takes truly significant resources and existing media ownership stake to coordinate.
How is IVCS patentable? It’s a forum, a blog, and a collaborative document/editing system (aka wiki), or have I missed something?
Is the software that underlies IVCS going to be open sourced?
When I read over the longer description you linked to it’s very hard not to see it as reinventing Basecamp, et al. Repurposed for politics rather than client services, but nonetheless essentially the same structure.
John, For the 2-3 minutes, I’d say something like we said just above, and then answer questions. Would that be alright?
Hi Nathan, I agree that it’s hard to measure the success of TV and media campaigns. But I also think that it’s pretty clear that the competitive situation currently requires that both sides establish expensive presences in the media, and that if only were side were there, it would easily win an election.
About FDL staff, I can’t say, since I have about the same contact with staff here as you have. However, I think that I’ve seen a great hunger for a way of breaking through this closed political system on the part of the mass of FDL folk who post and comment here.
One of the things I’ve been telling Nancy, is that I think people here will really warm to this application because we’ve all been so hungry for something to do to break open up “the village” and get it out of “the veal pen.”
One last issue, I think that the application we’ve been describing would actually be very helpful for FDL, since it could benefit from organizing its own activist efforts using IVCS facilities. We plan a richer environment than FDL’s for supporting political activism, and we’re not in any conflict at all with FDL’s blogging and publishing activities.
You mean like Fox?
I’ll leave the patentability question for Nancy to answer, except to say that it’s not specific technical aspects of the software that are being patented, but rather a social process patent that is being sought. I can say that the initial Government response to the patent application is one that provides good reason for hope.
Moving to the technical characteristics of the application and speaking here from my own personal point of view, I think the application will have a lot of capabilities in common with Basecamp, but I also think it will have technical capabilities Basecamp doesn’t have. Here’s a list of the categories of capabilities I envision:
Some of this fits Basecamp very well, other capabilities not so much
Forgot to comment on whether software will be open-sourced. I think some of it will be, but not everything.
Hello Nathan,
Thanks for your interest in the Interactive Voter Choice System.
You might find the section on the website prototype entitled How the System Works provides information about what it does.
Your description of IVCS, as a
prompts me to ask you a favor since I see on LinkedIn that you are very knowledgeable on multiple technology fronts.
The question, if you do read the section I recommend, is how would you describe what IVCS does?
Joe and I would appreciate your input here as we ponder how we can explain what it does more concisely.
This is a great question, Scarecrow, because I have actually thought about what I would say if I ever got on the Rachel Maddow show — which I would love to do if she ever decides to focus on how we can keep our democracy from collapsing along with our economy, banking and financial system and global military empire!
I would say that the Interactive Voter Choice System and the website built around it leverage the collective action power of the Internet to create a unique web-based platform for popular control of government. (The Re-Inventing Democracy website is a prototype I built to illustrate what the invention is designed to do.)
The invention and website empower grassroots voters across the political spectrum to build winning trans-partisan voting blocs around shared policy priorities that can oust representatives corrupted by corporate campaign contributions and elect representatives who will enact their priorities into law.
The blocs can work inside existing political parties or create new ones. Most importantly, the invention provides the members of voting blocs consensus-building tools that they can use to build broad based electoral coalitions of large cross-sections of voters around shared priorities.
By using these tools, the 80% of all Americans whom polls show want to see most elected officials replaced can take on the two major political parties without fragmenting the electorate into losing splinter groups that are too small to win elections.
How is that for a start?
I’ll go down these one by one to provide the quick analog in existing project management & collaboration tools:
“Projects”
“Tickets and Issues”
“Resource and Timeline Management”
“Documents, Assets, and Attachments”
This is a very, very, very complicated problem and infrastructure scalability becomes an immediate issue. You pretty much have to use non-relational DB structures, but you give up some functionality in doing so. Your best bet is to integrate with existing platforms that have already solved this problem; in my opinion. You don’t need to re-invent Facebook (et al) when it already exists.
“Wiki and Workflows”
There are lots of tools for providing client-based issue prioritization based on voting schemes. A ticket gets created, and then users are able to “like” the fix or feature described to set priorities in the ticket tracking system.
I’m not sure I understand this concept well enough based on this description to make a comment.
This also isn’t specific enough for me to comment on. Integrating what with what? Exposing what app logic to where? Serving what kinds of presentation (view) elements to whom?
“Users, Groups, Access Metadata, and Permissions”
When I look over this set of features and requirements I immediately see 37signals platform tools. Highrise, Basecamp, Campfire, etc.
Also there are a thousand wiki tools available for collaborative structured document creation with permissions structures for access and approval workflows. One that I’ve always liked that’s significantly more narrow in scope is the one that the Django Book uses here: http://www.djangobook.com/en/2.0/chapter01/ and detailed here: http://www.djangobook.com/about/comments/
For prioritization there are systems like this: http://www.redmine.org/boards/3/topics/5506 for lots of project management tools. Immediately things like ActiveCollab, Redmine, etc. come to mind. The client-portal aspect becomes a determining factor.
Essentially everything you want to do already exists in a handful of tools.
Hi Nancy,
I really should update my LinkedIn profile sometime. I can’t get the link you provided to work, but in a nutshell it sounds like what you’re doing is virtualizing the traditional campaign headquarters. You’re moving the entire campaign office online, and ostensibly democratizing it.
I’m not sure if the idea is to have this basically sit out there as a tool someone just can use to create their own virtual campaign office, or if it’s more managed than that, but in any case it might be worthwhile to attempt to do this with existing tools, and then get a really good feeling for the shortcomings as they apply to politics.
I’m sure there are differences between project/sales team/resource/client management and political campaigning, but it’s not entirely clear to me what they are when I really think about it.
Nathan, I gave you categories, but didn’t fill them in with my specifications for them. I’m not sure that a FireDogLake comment exchange is the place to do an IT – oriented discussion of capabilities of the application. I’m pretty sure that some of the capabilities aren’t available in the software you named but are available in other software. I see the need for access to a variety of software available as web services and for the whole thing to have a web-oriented architecture. Here’s a further specification of the capabilities which still falls short of the necessary technical specification.
1. Formulating problems requiring new policy solutions. Anyone wanting to use the IVCS will do so because they’re dissatisfied with the state of the nation and will want to do something about it. In other words, they will have seen a problem or problems and want to have their say in proposing a solution(s). So the system will provide facilities (e.g. forums, web conferencing) that people can use to talk over their problems with others, in an effort to clarify exactly what the problem is so that they can state it clearly for themselves. Discussions about and formulations of problems will be stored in the segment of the IVCS knowledge base devoted to problems and will be linked to the people who had a part in formulating them.
2. Formulating policy options and prioritizing them to build agendas. People using the IVCS will be able to create their own policy options and also select others from a knowledge base. In addition they’ll be able to rate their policy options relative to one another to establish their relative priorities. The rating system used by the IVCS will translate user priority ratings into real numbers, rather that just ranks. The policy options and ratings of each user will be entered and stored in the policy options knowledge base in addition, if you use the IVCS you’ll be able to make annotations linked to the options text, explaining why their policy options make sense.
The IVCS will also provide facilities for people to gather information both within the IVCS and across the web to help them to arrive at their policy agendas. IVCS search technology will employ the best available in semantic web technology newly emerging in web 2.0 and 3.0 applications to help people locate information relevant to the policy options they’re considering. In addition, content aggregation “mash-ups” will draw on hundreds of web sites for content related to issue areas linked to policy options. Finally, for more advanced users the IVCS will include policy impact analytical tools for modeling, measuring, and projecting.
3. Evaluating policy options, priorities, and agendas, including agenda-similarity analysis, and tracking the evaluations.A person trying to put together a policy agenda needs to be able to evaluate its policy options and priorities. That includes both self-evaluation and evaluation by others. Later we’ll summarize the collaboration support in the IVCS. But, here again, the search and content aggregation capabilities just mentioned will supply people with tools to help them to critically evaluate policy options, and the annotation and linking capabilities will give them the ability to tie their evaluations to their policy options and to create a track record that they and others will be able to use in the future.
4. Creating, Aggregating, Retrieving, Integrating and Managing Content. People using the IVCS will have a very wide range of these capabilities for doing whatever they have to do to be able to formulate their problems, individual policy agendas and critical evaluations. First, they’ll be able to access an already existing policy options knowledge base, and use the search capabilities of IVCS, to get an idea about what other people’s policy agendas are like. Second, the IVCS will start off with a knowledge base of more than 100 policy options, and as people use the system they’ll be adding to this knowledge base by creating policy options of their own. In a very short time this will give people an enormous knowledge base of policy options to study, select from, and use to create revised options, or suggest new ones. Third, people using the IVCS will be able to access existing policy options by using folksonomies established by the users themselves over time. Fourth, they’ll be able to produce content by participating in forums, by blogging and micro-blogging, and by contributing to Wikis they’ll create on various issues. Fifth, power users of the system will be able to create mash-ups that integrate content from hundreds of content sources and the make use of this information for their own decision making.
Sixth, IVCs’s cognitive mapping capability will allow people to compare the cognitive profile of their own policy agendas with other policy agendas available in the Knowledge base. This will help people place their agendas in context, and prepare the way for collaboration with others in voting blocs. Seventh, there many other IVCS capabilities much too numerous to mention in this very limited and deliberately non-technical treatment of capabilities in this content processing and management category; but one of the most important is the annotation capability mentioned earlier. It’s the capability that marks the difference between a knowledge base and a database or content base. The knowledge base in the IVCS will contain the track record of criticisms and evaluations of all its policy options, and well as all the reasoning recorded in it supporting the policy options. And that’s what makes it different from ordinary data or content stores. Since people will have access to such a knowledge base, they’ll always be able to assess the strength of any policy option or policy agenda for themselves. The best practices in policy will be there. The lessons learned will be there. The history of performance will be there, and all will be organized, searchable, and navigable due to the annotation and linking capability present in the IVCS and people’s use of this capability over time.
5. Social networking including building and mapping them, and analyzing them. People using IVCS will be able to use social networking capabilities like those in such well-known applications as Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and Friendster. In addition, they will be able to access their social network graphs, use social software such a blogging, micro-blogging, wiki participation and origination, sharing videos, images, and policy agendas, create communities and discussion groups, exchange ideas, and search for and locate experts. Finally, using capabilities based on text and data mining, and also the cognitive mapping capability mentioned earlier, people using IVCS will be able to find and contact voters with statistically and/or conceptually similar priorities. So, these capabilities are a gateway to other people who can help you to build winning voting blocs, political parties and electoral coalitions that have the voting strength to elect representatives who will enact their priorities into law
6. Collaborating and managing collaborations. If an individual wants to join with others to form a voting bloc that means collaboration with others will be necessary. That is you can join a voting bloc without actually collaborating. But if you want to solve any problems the voting bloc may uncover, or if you want to influence office-holders or turn the voting bloc into a primary force or a political party, then that’s going to take collaboration. The IVCS system will offer individuals a wide range of collaboration capabilities and opportunities so that voting blocs and the individuals in them will be able to function. Some of these capabilities will be discussed under other categories. Here we’ll restrict ourselves to summarizing the more general collaborative capabilities in the IVCS. First, there will team-based workflow to allow teams of people to plan and implement common tasks involving specialization. This capability can be very powerful in campaigns and also in complex problem solving processes also involving specialization. Second, IVCS will also include virtual team workspaces. These are like forums, but have more comprehensive capabilities than forums. Third, IVCS will include application and desktop sharing in virtual collaborative sessions. Fourth, users will be able to collaborate on documents such as policy agendas, policy options, impact analyses, and blog posts. Fifth, we’ve already said that wikis will be available. These are inherently collaborative. Sixth, of course, also as already mentioned, there will be discussion forums for people to use in creating voting bloc coalitions. Seventh, Project, Task, and Event Management tools will be provided. Eighth, IVCS will provide web-conferencing for online meetings to recognize and formulate problems, develop solutions, criticize them, and mobilize support for policy agendas and for voting bloc campaign activities. Ninth, IVCS will support collaborative prioritization of policy options as well as planning and prioritization of political initiatives to get policy options passed into law.
Lastly, IVCS will provide a collaborative e-learning facility that will support people in getting access to content fragments gathered from across the internet that are relevant to a problem they’re trying to solve. The facility will provide a variety of virtual environments for collaborative learning for teams.
7. Developing policy options, priorities, and agendas at the voting bloc level (including voting/polling). Many of the collaboration capabilities just mentioned are also clearly relevant to this category, since they can be used by teams and communities trying to collaboratively develop agreed upon policy agendas at the voting bloc level. That is, this activity is itself a type of collaboration. In addition, we note here that IVCS will offer a voting/polling capability. The capability can be used in any number of collaborative contexts, but for IVCS its most important application is for getting agreement in voting blocs, and then using the agreed upon policy agendas as a legislative mandate for elected representatives and electoral candidates.
These policy agendas are a rating tool for evaluating announced candidates and recruiting prospective candidates. They also provide a capability for monitoring elected representatives’ legislative actions, as well as a scorecard and decision making tool for evaluating their track records and deciding whether to vote for or against them.
8. Campaign and office-holder communications/influence tool set. Apart from their policy agenda scorecard, monitoring, and rating tool, IVCS will include the following additional influence capabilities: A mass e-mail blaster; “Write-your-rep” campaigns and petitions using the voting bloc agendas; web conferencing between voting bloc members and reps, if they agree to attend; voting bloc donation solicitation and management; political event management; and voting bloc chapter management. If the content management, collaboration, problem solving, policy agenda and campaign and office holder tools are used well, then the result will be the emergence of some very large-scale voting blocs, defined both locally and across local and state boundaries. These cohesive voting blocs will represent new centers of power and influence in the political system and will be in a position to win primaries for candidates they favor, take over party machinery, and also start new political parties if they are so inclined.
9. Integrating data, application logic, and presentation level fragments made available as web services through “mash-ups”. Mash-ups combine application services, and network-based data and content from multiple sources into new or existing applications. A leading example of a mash-up is Google Maps. Google Maps can be used along with data from other sources to create more complex mash-ups. For example, a mash-up can easily be created that would use Google Maps to represent voting bloc densities across the country. With the right tools, mash-ups can be created quickly and without programming, IVCS will use them to create new representations of profile data, changes in profile data and voting bloc development over time. The mash-up tools to be incorporated in the IVCS will allow it to continuously enrich the variety of its applications to respond to user needs while largely avoiding new programming.
10. Security and access capabilities. The guiding principles of the IVCS are those of Popper’s Open Society, so security will have a very limited role in the life of voting blocs, and will be used primarily to protect financial data, or the identities of those want to identify themselves only by a handle. The IVCS will emphasize transparency and inclusiveness in most voting bloc processes, since these characteristics are essential for open societies and open collectivities of all kinds.
For the narrow range of processes that will need security and for general access to the IVCS, the system will provide Identity Management and Single Sign-On for members. It will also provide a hierarchical system of access rights, guaranteeing the security of sensitive data, content, or applications. Access rights can be assigned to any object including a collection, a document, a link, or even to a single paragraph in a document. Users can be assigned either read-only access to a document, or the right to modify it and delete links associated with it. A central user and rights directory allows access rights of individual users or groups to be assigned with a mouse-click.
Thanks, Joe, for adding this important information.
I would like to emphasize, however, that voting bloc members can decide to limit access to their blocs, their membership lists and their activities.
If they wish, they can totally block access to any and all information regarding activity within their blocs. In particular, they can block all access to any votes or polls they take, and to their results.
On the other hand, they can also publicize their blocs and all or some of their activities.
For example, they can decide to list their bloc on the website’s list of all IVCS blocs and provide whatever information about it they wish, for whatever reason, such as recruiting new members or creating coalitions.
All such transparency decisions are theirs to make. The website will provide them tools for implementing these decisions.
I agree with Nancy’s reply.
Hi, Nathan.
I described vote bloc gaming scenarios that I thought a vote bloc technology should be able to easily accomodate. (Discovering, in the process, and thanks to a good question, what I believe was a heretofore missing ingredient in discussions of vote bloc technology, viz., strategy.) Please see my diary Gaming competing ‘FireDogLake Voting Blocs’ scenarios – getting Unity out of Diversity
I’ve worked with ticketing systems, e.g. RT, which had been modified to handle invoices being submitted from various branches to the branch office that I was working at. The company I used it at did so because it was open source, and they were on the cheap side. I’m also somewhat familiar with Sharepoint’s workflow capability.
Quite frankly, although I’m hardly an expert, I see only a modest connection between what I could glean of RT’s workflow capabilities, and what I’ve read of Sharepoint’s workflow engine, with what an IVCS needs to do. (Plus, I’ve gone through exercizes in using the out-of-the-box workflow capabilities.) Sharepoint comes with poll web parts, and it’s programmable (you can make your own web part), so with coding, I suppose one should be able to serve some sort of IVCS purpose.
OTOH, you say
This does seem like a rough fit to what voting blocs would need to do in order to reset their priorities, or perform cross-voting-bloc votes in order to determine, say, a common, compromise set of policy options that they can both support, temporarily, during the current election season.
So, perhaps you could elaborate a bit on such systems, and tell us whether you think any of them would fit these requirements very well for an IVCS, say perhaps with just configuration, or whether their code base would have to be modified.
Producing an IVCS may well turn out to be a chore of mostly systems integration, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. OTOH, without producing a system that meets it’s requirements well and is intuitive, we are basically going to be stuck with the “vote blocs” that we have, already – unions and other “small grain” groups of voters that somehow always get shoved down either the “large grain” funnel that says “Democrats” or the “large grain” funnel that says “Republicans”.
Hi Metamars, I agree that:
.
That’s why I’m viewing the right approach as one that conceptualizes the system from the viewpoint of Web-Oriented Architecture with integrative software at its core for pulling together a variety of resources/services/apps.