Title: Overview on IMS CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK

Conclusion and Outlook

In general, we notice that the originally quite strict borders between the defined three types of IMS are diminishing. Type 1 IMS (account management systems) currently are expanding towards customer relationship management (CRM), which could as well be used in the context of type 2 IMS. In addition to the organisation-side view type 2 IMS (profiling systems) have a client-side view, which could as well be considered to be identity management of type 3. The categorisation into three types originally designed for different products still serves well to describe a certain view on more and more integrated solutions. 

To demonstrate further areas of activity within the FIDIS Network we want to use a common economic model [SCH96]. This describes four phases for the lifecycles of products: 

1. Phase 1: experimental or access phase 

2. Phase 2: expansion phase 

3. Phase 3: maturity and stagnation phase 

4. Phase 4: regression phase 

Using this model with the identified types of IMS we observe that IMS of the types 1 and 2 are in the second phase (expansion) of this model, IMS of type 1. The mechanisms of market (like competition of various manufacturers, supported standards like LDAP, SQL etc.) are working quite well with these types of IMS. Looking at IMS of type 3 we observe that they are in the phase 1 (experimental). The large variety of existing solutions presented in this document, the low degree of commercial activities (compared to the IMS of Type 1 and 2) and significant public activities (public promoted projects, public research) lend support to this classification. 

Looking at technological aspects of the described types of IMS there is no public technology promotion necessary for IMS of type 1 and 2. Areas of research and development are integration of related and so far independent systems and technologies. This could lead to further development of the framework of European legislation (especially in the sector of privacy compliance) or its application.  

While the necessity for activities in the legislation is the same with type 3 IMS as with IMS of type 1 and 2 there are additional needs. Barriers towards expanding markets (phase 2 of the economic model) and possible activities for overcoming those barriers are: 

1. The perception differs widely of what identity management is. A clearer taxonomy and public awareness are necessary. 

2. While current concepts and technologies for identity management are not commonly understood new technologies such as RFID and Ambient Intelligence are emerging. The technical opportunity of remote readout of e.g. the RFID without any notice by the user raises new questions towards identity management. Most today established IMS know an authentication done actively by the user.     
   In addition known technologies, such as the use of mobile devices and biometrics are developing towards new services or applications (e.g. location based services and ID documents). The public reception influenced by technology friendly placement and a lack of integrated concepts is dominated by the discussion of risks. Technological, political, social and economic opportunities have to be looked at in combination with legislation (including human rights and privacy compliance). As a result there will be recommendations for further integrated technological development and development of legislation towards those technologies.

3. Integration of the existing, technologically feasible solutions is generally poor, interoperability therefore a major area of interest. 

4. While there are some prototypes with good usability features (e.g. iManager), many tools and application examined in this document are of poor usability (e.g. first generation remailers). This applies especially to those tools addressing special technical solutions for privacy compliance. To gain a better acceptance in the market, usability has to be improved.

5. For type 3 IMS privacy, compliance is a unique selling proposition. On the other hand dependability and risk minimisation (understood as elements of security) are important for the provider of commercial or governmental services. This disjunction is leading to a separate discussion on fraudulent use together with criminal and forensic aspects of identity and identity management. Recommendations for further development of legislation based on an integrated understanding of the underlying technologies and social systems could be one result of this discussion. 

The FIDIS Network of Excellence will address those aspects. The workpackages in the current workplan are designed to meet the described requirements. Basing upon the results and suggestions of this and other documents produced within the FIDIS Network the workplan will be updated.