You really don’t understand Systems Design & Development or Technical Architecture, do you?
Saying "the technology is there" makes it sound simple, which it isn’t - it took SpaceX 6 years to get their first successful launch (after multiple failures), and it’s first commercial launch took 12 years, but "the technology" already existed (it’s entire ethos is using COTS and existing testing technology to reduce cost and development time).
You stated
Quote:
|
The API is simply a software bridge that enables two systems to talk to each other. It is not a technological barrier.
|
It’s not the technology that takes the time, it’s understanding and agreeing the requirements, designing the systems and interfaces, prototyping and testing those systems and interfaces, developing the full solution and interfaces, testing and implementing those systems and interfaces, regression testing the impact of any changes required to linked systems (a couple of loops of the last two steps when errors are found or changes required), and while all this is going on, requirements for system changes will being requested* as the world (political and economic) changes (new laws, standards, processes, etc.).
To give you a sense of timescales, the current Customs system (CHIEF) was suppose to have been retired in 2012 - in fact, it’s replacement, CDS, will be implemented at the end of March 2023; the "technology" is/was there, but it’s 11 years late.
And as for the NZ "technological solution", how does it deal with the cross-border foot and road traffic from Australia?
*
and by requested, I mean demanded, usually by politicians