Summary of the market dialogue concerning business users
In September and October 2016, the Danish Agency for Digitisation and the Danish banks conducted a market dialogue in order to get market input prior to the coming invitation to tender for the replacement of NemID, called MitID.
The purpose of the market dialogue has been to get market input on the existing solutions, possible new solutions based on well-known technology, new technologies and components and a number of other topics regarding legal and contractual matters.
The market dialogue is to help ensure that a competitive tender process can be conducted with attractive pricing.
Great market interest
The market has shown great interest in the project, and a number of potential suppliers offered their participation in the market dialogue. The Danish Agency for Digitisation started a dialogue with a number of foreign and domestic suppliers, suppliers with standard components and suppliers with development and integration expertise, as well as suppliers with key expertise in individual areas.
The following suppliers participated in the market dialogue concerning the next generation of NemID for business users: Signaturgruppen, IBM Danmark, KMD, Cryptomatic, Nets, Indra, Worldline, Estonian ICT Cluster and Nine. This provided the Danish Agency for Digitisation with valuable input for the tender documents.
Learning points and impressions
In the business area, the market is less mature than in the citizen area, and the Danish model differs significantly from the way business identities are handled in other countries. It was therefore important to learn that the existing solution for business users, including its application, must be described very carefully to create the right understanding of the requirements for a new solution.
The discussions in the business area provided a lot of valuable input in relation to the visions about greater use of private credentials (code cards) in a business context.
The market has pointed out several different cost drivers and business models. These include a business model in which the supplier's earnings are predominantly dependent on consumption. Another factor is the handling of rights to the solution, which should depend on whether it is a completely new development, or whether mainly standard components are included. In general, the market advised that it should be considered to which extent many or few credentials are requested. Many options when choosing credentials could also result in many business logics which, all other things being equal, are costly to handle.
In respect of support, the general impression was that the market can deliver support services at all levels. The market pointed out that support is an important task – not least in communication.
It was learned that it is difficult to obtain time estimate input at such an early point in time prior to the actual tender procedure when a dialogue has to be carried out, and when there is only an overall solution concept.
The general impression is that the market is open to various payment models. It was generally highlighted that depending on the model, a supplier will include a large or small risk premium for solution elements not determined in advance such as, for example, transaction volumes. Thus, it is important to create the right financial incentive for the supplier.
Overall, the general impression was that the market preferred that the development service and the operation of the solution be handled by the same supplier at least during the first contract period. This will place the responsibility with one supplier and also make it easier to manage the contract, among other things with regard to the transition from the existing solution and further development of the solution.
Many stakeholders will require many test environments and dedicated pre-production environments. If a multi-supplier scenario is chosen, it may also be expedient to establish a central test function to ensure that testing is performed across suppliers.
As regards rights, the general market feedback was that IPR could not be granted. A few indicated that they were willing to negotiate this further. However, the overall impression was that the customer will usually obtain an open-ended right of use of standard components. With respect to customer-specific developments, the customer may typically get IPR, but usually the customer will obtain an open-ended right of use. Shared IPR could be discussed.
The next step
The market dialogue has provided the Danish Agency for Digitisation with valuable input for its work with the business-oriented elements of the next generation of the National Digital Identity and Signing (NDIS) solution.