Single Window Systems
In the OIC Member States
89
and changing applications a disproportionate level of technical and human resources
because of hard coded applications.
 The decentralised architecture in Morocco lacks a centralized data layer, which hikes up
infrastructure costs, maintenance costs, and disaster recovery costs.
 The legacy client server systems in the Cameroon Single Window made difficult
increased maintenance costs and made changing to newer technology impossible
without a complete re-engineering. The Cameroon SW lacks of interoperability and
interconnectivity with the Customs Management System, ASYCUDA ++, due to the
distributed architecture of ASYCUDA++. Even in the new second generation the
Cameroon SW will face this problem and will only centralize the data for reporting and
analysis.
This explains why all three Single Window operators launched a second general design phase
that fundamentally changes the IT architecture and SW strategic design.
The second generation developments in Cameroon and Moroccan are comprehensive designs
that attempt a broader flow of procedures and processes from the arrival of the vessel to the exit
of the goods, including goods and documents centric interventions.
The three Single Windows also struggle to introduce paperless procedures.
 The lack of legal framework for electronic documents and signature in the Kyrgyz
Republic leads to the de facto duplication of electronic and paper based procedures.
Duplication reduces adherence of users to the Single Window.
 In Cameroon, the duplication of paper and electronic procedures is due to individual
resistance by some agencies.
 The Moroccan Single Window gradually integrates paperless procedures into the Single
Window through legal acts and despite resistance from traders/transporters and
agencies.
The financial management is a major challenge for many Single Windows.
 The Cameroon and Kyrgyz Republic Single Windows both face revenue constraints as
the fees only cover a minor part of their operational expenses. They are therefore
dependent on government budget support and third parties funding for updates and
innovation. When relying on third party funding they have limited involvement in the
procurement, development, and acceptance of the system.
 None of the three Single Windows adopted a cost estimation methodology that would
allow appropriately predicting budget requirement and allocating resources. The
current budget process is done on an ad hoc basis and this cannot provide a proper
planning.
The outsourcing of the design, development and production of the IT system has caused
difficulties in all three Single Windows. The internal staff was little involved and trained for
maintenance and changes. Vendor or proprietary lock-in it makes the Single Window operator
dependent on a vendor products and services, without possibility to use another vendor.