...
 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	...
 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	...
 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	...
 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	...
 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	...
 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	...
 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	...
 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	...
 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	...
 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	...
 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	...
 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	...
 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	...
 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	...
 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	...
 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	...
 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	...
 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	...
 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	...
 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	...
 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	...
 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	...
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
0205 f01 international research roadmap
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

0205 f01 international research roadmap

7,226

Published on

Published in: Technology, News & Politics
1 Comment
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
7,226
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
15
Comments
1
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "0205 f01 international research roadmap"

  1. 1.                                                                                                                              0205F01_INTERNATIONAL  RESEARCH  ROADMAP     ICT  Seventh  Framework  Programme  (ICT  FP7)       Grant  Agreement  No:  288828   Bridging  Communities  for  Next  Generation  Policy-­‐Making         Towards  Policy-­‐making  2.0:   The  International  Research  Roadmap  on     ICT  for  Governance  and  Policy  Modelling       Internal  Deliverable  Form   Project  Reference  No.   ICT  FP7  288828   Deliverable  No.     D2.2.2   Relevant  Workpackage:   WP2   Nature:   Report   Dissemination  Level:   Public   Document  version:   FINAL  1.0   Date:   12/09/2013   Authors:   David   Osimo   &   Francesco   Mureddu   (T4I2),   Riccardo   Onori   &   Stefano  Armenia  (CATTID),  Gianluca  Carlo  Misuraca  (IPTS)   Reviewers:   Eva  Jaho  (ATC),  Andrea  Bassi  (MI)   Document  description:   This   deliverable   describes   the   final   version   of   the   new   International   Research   Roadmap   on   ICT   Tools   for   Governance   and   Policy  
  2. 2.                                                                                                                              0205F01_INTERNATIONAL  RESEARCH  ROADMAP   Modelling           History   Version   Date   Reason   Revised  by   1.0   30/06/2013   1st  draft   T4I2   2.0   12/07/2013   2nd  draft  sent  for  peer   T4I2   review       26/07/2013   Peer   review   feedback   3.0   09/08/2013   3rd   draft   sent   for   final   T4I2   confirmation     06/09/2013   Partners’  approval   1.0   12/09/2013   Final   version   sent   to   ATC   the  PO  and  reviewers   and   ATC,  MI   ATC,   DIAG,   IPTS,  MI   W3C,   2  |  P a g e  
  3. 3.                                                                                                                              0205F01_INTERNATIONAL  RESEARCH  ROADMAP   TABLE  OF  CONTENTS     EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 5   1.   BACKGROUND:  WHY  A  ROADMAP?........................................................................................................ 8   1.1.   1.2.   1.3.   1.4.   The  rationale  of  the  roadmap:  what  is  the  problem? ............................................................................. 8   An  open  and  recursive  methodology ...................................................................................................... 9   Scope  and  definition.............................................................................................................................. 16   Policy:  Between  politics  and  services .................................................................................................... 19   2.   NOT  JUST  ANOTHER  HYPE:  THE  DEMAND  SIDE  OF  POLICY-­‐MAKING  2.0 ................................................ 20   2.1.   The  typical  tasks  of  policy-­‐makers:  the  policy  cycle .............................................................................. 21   2.2.   The  traditional  tools  of  policy-­‐making................................................................................................... 22   2.3.   The  key  challenges  of  policy-­‐makers ..................................................................................................... 23   2.3.1.   Detect  and  understand  problems  before  they  become  unsolvable............................................... 24   2.3.2.   Generate  high  involvement  of  citizens  in  policy-­‐making................................................................ 24   2.3.3.   Identify  “good  ideas”  and  innovative  solutions  to  long-­‐standing  problems .................................. 24   2.3.4.   Reduce  uncertainty  on  the  possible  impacts  of  policies ................................................................ 25   2.3.5.   Ensure  long  -­‐  term  thinking ............................................................................................................ 27   2.3.6.   Encourage  behavioural  change  and  uptake ................................................................................... 27   2.3.7.   Manage  crisis  and  the  “unknown  unknown” ................................................................................. 27   2.3.8.   Moving  from  conversations  to  action ............................................................................................ 28   2.3.9.   Detect  non-­‐compliance  and  mis-­‐spending  through  better  transparency ...................................... 28   2.3.10.   Understand  the  impact  of  policies ............................................................................................... 29   2.4.   When  policy-­‐making  2.0  becomes  a  reality:  a  tentative  vision  for  2030............................................... 29   2.4.1.   Agenda  setting  phase:  recognizing  the  problem ............................................................................ 29   2.4.2.   Policy  design ................................................................................................................................... 30   2.4.3.   Implementation.............................................................................................................................. 31   2.4.4.   Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................... 31   2.5.   The  key  challenges  for  policy  makers  and  the  corresponding  phases  in  the  policy  cycle ..................... 32   3.   THE  SUPPLY  SIDE:  CURRENT  STATUS  AND  THE  RESEARCH  CHALLENGES................................................ 33   3.1.   Policy  Modelling .................................................................................................................................... 33   3.1.1.   Systems  of  Atomized  Models ......................................................................................................... 33   3.1.2.   Collaborative  Modelling ................................................................................................................. 42   3.1.3.   Easy  Access  to  Information  and  Knowledge  Creation .................................................................... 53   3.1.4.   Model  Validation ............................................................................................................................ 56   3.1.5.   Immersive  Simulation..................................................................................................................... 59   3.1.6.   Output  Analysis  and  Knowledge  Synthesis..................................................................................... 61   3.2.   Data-­‐powered  Collaborative  Governance ............................................................................................. 64   3.2.1.   Big  Data .......................................................................................................................................... 64   3.2.2.   Opinion  Mining  and  Sentiment  Analysis......................................................................................... 78   3.2.3.   Visual  Analytics  for  collaborative  governance:  the  opportunities  and  the  research  challenges.... 85   3.2.4.   Serious  Gaming  for  Behavioural  Change ........................................................................................ 98   3.2.5.   Linked  Open  Government  Data .................................................................................................... 103   3.2.6.   Collaborative  Governance ............................................................................................................ 109   3.2.7.   Participatory  Sensing .................................................................................................................... 113   3.2.8.   Identity  Management................................................................................................................... 117   3.2.9.   Global  Systems  Science ................................................................................................................ 120   4.   THE  CASE  FOR  POLICY-­‐MAKING  2.0:  EVALUATING  THE  IMPACT .......................................................... 127   4.1.   Cross  analysis  of  case  studies .............................................................................................................. 127   4.1.1.   Global  Epidemic  and  Mobility  Model ........................................................................................... 128   Impact  of  Gleam ......................................................................................................................................... 128   4.1.2.   UrbanSim ...................................................................................................................................... 129   3  |  P a g e  
  4. 4.                                                                                                                              0205F01_INTERNATIONAL  RESEARCH  ROADMAP   4.1.3.   Opinion  Space............................................................................................................................... 130   4.1.4.   2050  Pathways  Analysis................................................................................................................ 132   4.1.5.   Cross  analysis  of  the  case  studies................................................................................................. 134   4.2.   Survey  of  Users’  needs  results............................................................................................................. 136   4.3.   Analysis  of  the  prize  winners............................................................................................................... 139   4.4.   Lessons  learnt  from  cases  and  prize.................................................................................................... 143   4.5.   An  additional  research  challenge:  counterfactual  impact  evaluation  of  Policy  Making  2.0................ 144   5.   CONCLUSIONS:  POLICY-­‐MAKING  2.0  BETWEEN  HYPE  AND  REALITY .................................................... 149   6.   REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 153   7.   LIST  OF  ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................ 157             LIST  OF  FIGURES   Figure  1:  the  fragmentation  of  policy-­‐making  2.0.................................................................................................. 8   Figure  2  Outline  of  the  participatory  process ...................................................................................................... 10   Figure  3:  Policy  Cycle  and  Related  Activities ........................................................................................................ 22   Figure  4:  Total  Disasters  Reported ...................................................................................................................... 28   Figure  5:  Agricultural  Production  and  Externalities  Simulator  (APES) ............................................................... 36   Figure  6:  Conversational  Modelling  Interface .................................................................................................... 45   Figure  7:  the  PADGET  Framework ....................................................................................................................... 46   Figure  8:  the  Time-­‐Space  Matrix ......................................................................................................................... 49   Figure  9:  COMA,  COllaborative  Modelling  Architecture .................................................................................... 50   Figure  10:  OCOPOMO  eParticipation  Platform................................................................................................... 51   Figure  11:  Twitrratr.............................................................................................................................................. 81   Figure  12:  Wordclouds......................................................................................................................................... 82   Figure  13:  UserVoice............................................................................................................................................ 82   Figure  14    Open  Data  Business  Model  (source:  Istituto  Superiore  Mario  Boella) .............................................. 106   Figure  15  -­‐LOD  providers  and  their  linkages ...................................................................................................... 107   Figure  16  Rating  other  opinions'  in  Opinion  Space ............................................................................................ 131   Figure  17  Playing  the  My2050  game  for  the  demand  side................................................................................. 133   Figure   18   Adoption   of   ICT   Tools   and   Methodologies   for   policy-­‐making   (source:   CROSSOVER   Survey   of   Users’   Needs  2012) ....................................................................................................................................................... 137   Figure   19   Needs   and   Challenges   in   the   Policy   Making   Process   (source:   CROSSOVER   Survey   of   Users’   Needs   2012) .................................................................................................................................................................. 138   Figure  20:  a  proposed  evaluation  framework  for  policy-­‐making  2.0 ................................................................. 144   Figure  21:  Relation  Between  Policy-­‐Making  Needs  and  Research  Challenges................................................... 149     4  |  P a g e  
  5. 5.                                                                                                                              0205F01_INTERNATIONAL  RESEARCH  ROADMAP   Executive  Summary   This   deliverable   introduces   and   describes   the   interim   version   of   the   new   International   Research   Roadmap  on  ICT  tools  for  Governance  and  Policy  Modelling,  renamed  by  the  project  team  as  “Policy-­‐ Making   2.0”,   one   of   the   core   outputs   of   the   Crossover   project,   which   is   developed   under   WP2   Content  Production.     The   roadmap   aims   to   establish   the   scientific   and   political   basis   for   long-­‐lasting   interest   and   commitment   to   next   generation   policy-­‐making   by   researchers   and   policy-­‐makers.   In   doing   so,   it   contains  an  analysis  of  what  technologies  are  currently  available,   for  what  concrete  purposes,   and   what  could  become  available  in  the  future.  The  main  rationale  for  such  a  document  is  the  current   fragmentation   of   the   landscape   between   different   stakeholders,   disciplines,   policy   domains   and   geographical  areas.     The  document  is  the  result  of  a  highly  participative  process  undergone  between  the  first  draft  and   the   final   roadmap,   with   the   involvement   of   hundreds   of   people   through   11   different   input   methods,   from  live  workshops  to  online  discussion.     5  |  P a g e  
  6. 6.                                                                                                                              0205F01_INTERNATIONAL  RESEARCH  ROADMAP   After  a  brief  introduction  of  the  background,  the  document  analyses  the  demand  side:  the  current   status   of   policy-­‐making,   with   the   key   tasks   (illustrated   by   the   traditional   policy   cycle)   and   existing   challenges:   a. Detect  and  understand  problems  before  they  become  unsolvable b. Generate  high  involvement  of  citizens  in  policy-­‐making c. Identify  “good  ideas”  and  innovative  solutions  to  long-­‐standing  problems d. Reduce  uncertainty  on  the  possible  impacts  of  policies e. Ensure  long  -­‐  term  thinking f. Encourage  behavioural  change  and  uptake g. Manage  crisis  and  the  “unknown  unknown” h. Moving  from  conversations  to  action i. Detect  non-­‐compliance  and  mis-­‐spending  through  better  transparency j. Understand  the  impact  of  policies It   then   presents   a   concrete   tentative   vision   of   how   policy-­‐making   could   look   in   2030,   if   these   challenges  were  overcome.   Section   3   represents   the   core   of   the   roadmap   and   presents   the   key   research   challenges   to   be   addressed   to   achieve   this   vision,   updating   the   original   version   based   on   the   input   of   the   consultation.  For  each  research  challenge,  it  presents  the  current  status,  the  existing  gaps,  and  short   and  long  term  research  perspectives.  The  key  research  challenges  are:   1. Policy  Modelling 1.1. Systems  of  Atomized  Models 1.2. Collaborative  Modelling 1.3. Easy  Access  to  Information  and  Knowledge  Creation 1.4. Model  Validation 1.5. Immersive  Simulation 1.6. Output  Analysis  and  Knowledge  Synthesis 2. Data-­‐powered  Collaborative  Governance 2.1. Big  Data 2.2. Opinion  Mining  and  Sentiment  Analysis 2.3. Visual  Analytics  for  collaborative  governance:  the  opportunities  and  the  research  challenges 2.4. Serious  Gaming  for  Behavioural  Change 2.5. Linked  Open  Government  Data 2.6. Collaborative  Governance 2.7. Participatory  Sensing 2.8. Identity  Management 2.9. Global  Systems  Science   But   to   what   extent   policy-­‐making   2.0   can   be   said   to   genuinely   improve   policy-­‐making?   Section   4   looks  at  the  available  evidence  about  the  impact  of  policy-­‐making  2.0,  across  case  studies,  the  survey   and  the  prize.  As  it  emerges  that  no  robust  impact  evaluation  is  available,  we  propose  an  additional   6  |  P a g e  
  7. 7.                                                                                                                              0205F01_INTERNATIONAL  RESEARCH  ROADMAP   research   challenge   on   impact   evaluation   of   policy-­‐making   accompanied   by   a   proposed   evaluation   framework.     Finally,   we   summarize   the   findings   of   the   document   bringing   together   the   different   sections,   suggesting   that   policy-­‐making   2.0   cannot   be   considered   the   panacea   for   all   issues   related   to   bad   public   policies,   but   that   at   the   same   time   it   is   more   than   just   a   neutral   set   of   disparate   tools.   It   provides  an  integrated  and  mutually  reinforcing  set  of  methods  that  share  a  similar  vision  of  policy-­‐ making   and   that   should   be   addressed   in   an   integrated   and   strategic   way;   and   it   provides   opportunities  to  improve  the  checks  and  balances  systems  behind  decision  making  in  government,   and  as  such  it  should  be  further  pursued.       and  as  such  it  should  be  further  pursued.     7  |  P a g e  
  8. 8.                                                                                                                              0205F01_INTERNATIONAL  RESEARCH  ROADMAP   1.   BACKGROUND:  WHY  A  ROADMAP?   1.1. The  rationale  of  the  roadmap:  what  is  the  problem?     The   CROSSOVER   project   aims   to   consolidate   and   expand   the   existing   community   on   ICT   for   Governance  and  Policy  Modelling  (built  largely  within  FP7)  by:     -­‐   Bringing   together   and   reinforcing   the   links   between   the   different   global   communities   of   researchers  and  experts:  it  will  create  directories  of  experts  and  solutions,  and  animate  knowledge   exchange  across  communities  of  practice  both  offline  and  online;   -­‐   Reaching   out   and   raising   the   awareness   of   non-­‐experts   and   potential   users,   with   special   regard  to  high-­‐level  policy-­‐makers  and  policy  advisors:  it  will  produce  multimedia  content,  a  practical   handbook  and  high-­‐level  policy  conferences  with  competition  for  prizes;   -­‐   Establishing  the  scientific  and  political  basis  for  long-­‐lasting  interest  and  commitment  to  next   generation   policy-­‐making,   beyond   the   mere   availability   of   FP7   funding:   it   will   focus   on   use   cases   and   a  demand-­‐driven  approach,  involving  policy-­‐makers  and  advisors.   The   CROSSOVER   project   pursues   this   goal   through   a   combination   of   content   production,   ad   hoc   and   well-­‐designed  online  and  offline  animation;  as  well  as  strong  links  with  existing  communities  outside   the  CROSSOVER  project  and  outside  the  realm  of  e-­‐Government.     The   present   deliverable   is   one   of   the   core   outputs   of   the   project:   the   International   Research   Roadmap  on  ICT  Tools  for  Governance  and  Policy  Modelling.  It  aims  to  create  a  common  platform   between  actors  fragmented  in  different  disciplines,  policy  domains,  organisations  and  geographical   areas,  as  illustrated  in  the  figure  below.     Figure  1:  the  fragmentation  of  policy-­‐making  2.0     But  most  of  all,  it  aims  to  provide  a  clear  outline  of  what  technologies  are  available  now  for  policy-­‐ makers  to  improve  their  work,  and  what  could  become  available  tomorrow.     8  |  P a g e  
  9. 9.                                                                                                                              0205F01_INTERNATIONAL  RESEARCH  ROADMAP   CROSSOVER   builds   on   the   results   of   the   CROSSROAD   project1,   which   elaborated   a   research   roadmap   on   the   same   topic   along   the   whole   of   2010.   With   respect   to   the   previous   roadmap,   this   document   is   firstly  a  revised  and  updated  version.  Beside  this,  it  contains  some  fundamental  novelties:   -­‐ A  demand-­‐driven  approach:  rather  than  focussing  on  the  technology,  the  present  roadmap   starts   from   the   needs   and   the   activities   of   policy-­‐making   and   then   links   the   research   challenges  to  them.     -­‐ An  additional  emphasis  on  cases  and  applications:  for  each  research  challenge,  we  indicate   relevant  cases  and  practical  solutions   -­‐ A   clearer   thematic   focus   on   ICT   for   Governance   and   Policy-­‐Modelling,   by   dropping   more   peripheral   grand   challenges   of   Government   Service   Utility   and   Scientific   Base   for   ICT-­‐ enabled  Governance   -­‐ A   global   coverage:   while   CROSSROAD   focussed   on   Europe,   CROSSOVER   includes   cases   and   experiences  from  all  over  the  world   -­‐ A   living  roadmap:   the   present   deliverable   is   accompanied   by   an   online   repositories   of   tools,   people  and  applications   1.2. An  open  and  recursive  methodology     The  present  Research  Roadmap  on  Policy-­‐Making  2.0  is  developed  with  a  sequential  approach  based   on   the   existing   research   roadmap   developed   by   the   CROSSROAD   project.   In   order   to   achieve   the   goals  of  overcoming  the  fragmentation,  an  open  and  inclusive  approach  was  necessary.   In   the   initial   phase   of   the   project,   up   to   M6   (March   2012),   the   consortium   started   a   collection   of   literature,   information   about   software   tools   and   applications   cases.   In   addition   to   this   desk-­‐based   review,   the   document   has   benefited   from   the   informal   discussions   being   held   on   the   LinkedIn   group   of  the  project  (Policy-­‐making  2.0),  where  more  than  800  practitioners  and  researchers  are  discussing   the  practices  and  the  challenges  of  policy-­‐making.   The   first   draft   of   the   roadmap   was   then   released   in   M9   (June   2012)   of   the   project,   for   public   feedback.   The   publication   of   the   deliverable   kicked   off   the   engagement   activities   of   the   project,   designed  to  provide  further  input  and  to  improve  the  roadmap:   -­‐ As   soon   as   it   was   released,   the   preliminary   version   of   the   roadmap   was   published   in   commentable   format   on   the   project   website   http://www.CROSSOVER-­‐project.eu/.   Animators   stimulated   discussion   about   it   and   generated   comments   by   researchers   and   practitioners  alike.  This  participatory  process  helped  enriching  the  roadmap,  which  was  then   published  in  its  final  version  after  validation  by  the  community/ies  of  practitioners  and  policy   makers   -­‐ Two   workshops   organised   by   the   project   aimed   at   gathering   input   on   the   research   challenges  and  feedback  on  the  proposed  roadmap     -­‐ An  online  survey,  as  well  as  several  focus  groups  and  meetings  with  practitioners  from  civil   society  and  government  helped  to  focus  the  roadmap  on  the  actual  needs                                                                                                                             1  http://CROSSROAD.epu.ntua.gr/   9  |  P a g e  
  10. 10.                                                                                                                              0205F01_INTERNATIONAL  RESEARCH  ROADMAP     Figure  2  Outline  of  the  participatory  process   The   process   for   updating   the   roadmap   included   therefore   a   wide   set   of   contributions.   Firstly,   the   Crossroad  roadmap  was  enriched  with  desk-­‐based  research:  202  cases  collected  in  the  platform  +  4   cases  collected  and  described  in  the  case  studies  performed  by  the  National  Technical  University  of   Athens  (NTUA),  and  the  50  applications  to  the  prize.     This  first  draft  was  then  published  for  comments  by  some  of  the  800  members  of  the  LinkedIn  group   who   also   provided   relevant   cases.   An   additional   survey   of   users’   needs   provides   provided   insights   from   240   respondents   and   over   200   people   presents   presented   at   focus   groups.   Additional   discussions   with   Global   Systems   Science     community,   third   party   workshops   and   the   US   Policy   Informatics  Network    helped  in  refine  refining  further  the  roadmap.   The   two   workshops   provided   high-­‐quality   insight   that   enriched   the   roadmap   with   specific   contributions.     In   the   table   below   we   outline   in   detail   the   specific   contribution   of   each   section   of   the   roadmap,   that   is  described  in  full  in  the  following  section.   10  |  P a g e  
  11. 11.                                                                                                                              0205F01_INTERNATIONAL  RESEARCH  ROADMAP       Type  of  contribution   Extent  of  the  contribution   Contribution  to  the  roadmap   1) Comments to the roadmap • 40  comments   • 9  different  experts   • • • • 2) Presentations in the PMOD • Papers  received:  42   • Registered  participants:  70     • No.  Countries’  citizens  present:   20   • Linked  Open  Government  Data   • 16  presentations   • 30  participants   • Collaborative  Modelling   • Systems  of  Atomized  Models   • Opinion  Mining   • Impact  of  policy  making  2.0   • Roadmap  methodology   • Linked  Open  Government  Data   • Opinion  Mining   • Collaborative  Governance workshop 3) Presentations in Transatlantic workshop 4) Survey of User’s Needs the   • 236  respondents   • 33%  engaged  in  policy  design   • 27%  engaged  in  monitoring  and   evaluation   • 22%  engaged  in  agenda  setting   • 18%  engaged  in  policy   implementation   5) Focus groups   6) Case studies 7) Analysis of the prize 8) LinkedIn group 139  attendants  -­‐  Forum  PA,  the   Italian  leading  conference  on  e-­‐ government     • 35  attendants-­‐  INSITE  event  on   sustainability     • 40  attendants  -­‐  Webinar  for  the   United  Nations  Development   Programme   • Collection  of  202  tools  and   practices   • Elicitation  of  20  best  practices   • Further  elicitation  of  4  best   practices  for  in-­‐depth  case   study   • • • • 47  submission  received   10  short  listed   3  winners   840  participants   Visual  Analytics   Systems  of  Atomized  Models   Model  Validation   Serious  Gaming     • Impact  of  policy  making  2.0   • Roadmap  methodology   • Impact  of  policy  making  2.0   • Roadmap  methodology   • Annex  with  a  repository  of  cases   • Analysis  of  the  prize  process  on  the   Impact  Chapter   • Comments  to  the  roadmap   • Increased  attendance  to  the   workshops   • Collection  of  practices  and  tools   Table  1  Contributions  to  the  roadmap   1) Comments  to  the  Roadmap   The  roadmap  has  been  published  in  commentable  format  in  two  different  versions:  a  short  one  on   Makingspeechtalk2,   and   a   full   version   (downloadable   after   answering   the   survey   on   the   needs   of                                                                                                                             2  http://makingspeechestalk.com/CROSSOVER/   11  |  P a g e  
  12. 12.                                                                                                                              0205F01_INTERNATIONAL  RESEARCH  ROADMAP   policy-­‐makers)   available   in   the   CROSSOVER   website3.   Everybody   was   able   to   comment   on   single   parts  of  the  roadmap  or  to  propose  new  topics,  application  cases  and  research  challenges.  The  aim   of   publishing   the   document   in   commentable   format   was   to   get   the   input   from   experts   for   co-­‐ creating   the   roadmap.   More   specifically   we   were   interested   in   knowing   if   the   current   formulation   of   the   research   challenge   was   acceptable,   and   we   wanted   to   collect   best   practices   and   application   cases  from  the  community  of  experts  and  practitioners  at  large.  As  already  mentioned,  the  roadmap   received  over  40  useful  and  detailed  comments  from  a  number  of  experts  in  the  different  domains.   2) PMOD  Workshop   The   June   2012   workshop   was   the   first   of   three   to   be   organised   under   the   CROSSOVER   project.   Formally   titled   "Using   Open   Data:   policy   modelling,   citizen   empowerment,   data   journalism"   but   generally   referred   to   by   the   term   PMOD   (policy   modelling),   it   set   out   to   explore   whether   advocates'   claims   of   the   huge   potential   for   open   data   as   an   engine   for   a   new   economy,   as   an   aid   to   transparency   and,   of   particular   relevance   to   CROSSOVER,   as   an   aid   to   evidence-­‐based   policy   modelling,   were   justified.   In   terms   of   organization,   the   event   was   run   as   a   W3C/CROSSOVER   workshop  and  held  at  the  European  Commission's  Albert  Borschette  Conference  Centre  in  the  two   days   immediately   prior   to   the   Digital   Agenda   Assembly.   That   combination   helped   to   secure   good   support  from  a  high  calibre  audience.  42  papers  were  received  and  the  majority  was  accepted  by  the   programme   committee   for   full   presentation.   Authors   of   several   other   papers   plus   members   of   the   programme  committee,  the  CROSSOVER  animators  and  a  small  number  of  invited  guests  comprised   the   70   registered   attendees   of   which   67   turned   up.   The   event   reached   a   larger   audience   through   organising   a   networking   event   on   the   evening   following   the   workshop   to   which   attendees   of   the   data   workshop   at   the   Digital   Agenda   Assembly   were   invited.   Furthermore,   through   the   live   IRC   channel   and   Tweets   using   the   #pmod   hashtag,   others   were   able   to   monitor   proceedings.   The   agenda,  attendee  list  and  final  report  are  all  available  on  the  W3C    Web  site  which  provides  a  high   profile  for  the  workshop  and  the  project.   Most  of  the  results  of  the  workshop  were  used  to  improve  the  research  challenge  on  Linked  Open   Government  Data.     3) Transatlantic  Workshop   The   Transatlantic   Research   on   Policy   Modelling   Workshop   that   was   held   in   Washington,   DC   on   January   28th   and   29th,   2013.   It   was   organized   by   the   Millennium   Institute   and   the   New   America   Foundation  (NAF),  Washington,  DC,  USA.  NAF  is  a  nonprofit,  nonpartisan  public  policy  institute  that   invests  in  new  thinkers  and  new  ideas  to  address  the  next  generation  of  challenges  facing  the  United   States.  This  event  brought  together  speakers  and  attendees  working  and/or  interested  in  improving   ICT   tools   for   education   and   policy   makers.   The   speakers   and   attendees   came   from   a   diverse   background,  both  technical  and  non-­‐technical  to  share  experiences  and  knowledge  and  discuss  ways   to  make  the  current  state  of  modelling  and  ICT  more  accessible  and  attractive  for  decision  makers   on   both   sides   of   the   Atlantic   Ocean.   The   models   presented   in   the   workshop   have   been   integrated   in   the   “Collaborative   Modelling”,   “Systems   of   Atomized   Models”   and   “Opinion   Mining”   research   challenges.     4) Survey  of  User’s  Needs                                                                                                                             3  http://www.CROSSOVER-­‐project.eu/ResearchRoadmap.aspx       12  |  P a g e  
  13. 13.                                                                                                                              0205F01_INTERNATIONAL  RESEARCH  ROADMAP   The   Survey   of   Users’   Needs   performed   within   the   scope   of   the   CROSSOVER   project   aimed   at   collecting   the   views   and   the   requirements   of   policy-­‐making   stakeholders.   More   in   particular   the   survey   intended   to   stimulate   actual   and   potential   practitioners,   such   as   decision   makers   (government   official   involved   in   the   policy-­‐making   process)   or   policy   advisors   (technical   expert   advising  decision-­‐makers  from  outside  government)  to  provide  input,  feedback  and  validation  to  the   new   research   roadmap   on   ICT   tools   for   Governance   and   Policy   Modelling   under   development   (CROSSOVER,   2012b).   About   450   people   took   part   in   the   overall   exercise,   combining   live   meetings   (214)   and   online   survey   (240+   answers),   providing   concrete   elements   to   improve   the   CROSSOVER   roadmap  and  the  other  activities  to  be  carried  out  by  the  project.     5) Focus  groups   In   addition   to   the   survey,   Tech4i2   ran   a   series   of   dedicated   meetings   where   the   roadmap   was   presented   and   followed   up   by   intense   dedicated   discussion.   These   events   where   all   high-­‐profile,   attended  by  policy-­‐makers  in  the  broad  sense:  not  only  government  officials,  but  also  policy  advisors   and  civil  society  organisations.  More  precisely  three  events  have  been  run:   • On  the  17th  of  May  2012  CROSSOVER  was  invited  to  give  a  keynote  speech  to  ForumPA   on   the   CROSSOVER   Research   Roadmap.   FORUM   PA   is   a   leading   European   exhibition   exploring   innovation   in   Public   Administration   and   local   systems.   For   22   years,   FORUM   PA   has   attracted   thousands   of   visitors   and   hundreds   of   exhibitors   (public   authorities,   private   companies   and   citizens)   to   come   together   and   learn   and   the   participation   of   important   leaders:   ministers,   Nobel   prize   winners   (Amartya   Sen,   Edward   Prescott),   industry  leaders  (Luca  Cordero  di  Montezemolo)  and  hundreds  of  speakers.   • On   May   24th   2012,   CROSSOVER   was   invited   to   attend   the   HUB/Insite   project   meeting   of   sustainability   practitioners   from   all   over   Europe.   The   Hub   and   the   INSITE   Project   brought  together  more  than  25  sustainability  practitioners  working  at  the  cutting  edge   of  innovation  within  industry,  urban  development,  energy,  technology  and  policy  across   Europe.  This  includes  people  tackling  today’s  key  challenges  in  carbon  reduction,  smart   cities,  governance  and  behavioural  change  across  all  these  areas.  Tech4i2  presented  the   Research   Roadmap,   and   facilitated   a   dedicated   session   CROSSOVER   was   invited   to   attend   the   HUB/Insite   project   meeting   of   sustainability   practitioners   from   all   over   Europe.     • On  March  22nd  2012,  CROSSOVER  was  invited  to  present  the  policy-­‐making  2.0  model   to   the   practitioners   of   the   “governance”   network   of   UNDP   –   Europe   and   CIS,   which   included   about   40   people   from   Central   and   Eastern   Europe.   Webinar   for   the   United   Nations  Development  Programme  –  Europe  and  CIS   6) Case  Studies   Within   the   scope   of   the   CROSSOVER   project,   the   European   Commission's   Joint   Research   Centre,   Institute  for  Prospective  Technological  Studies  (JRC-­‐IPTS),  in  collaboration  with  a  team  of  experts  of   the   National   Technical   University   of   Athens   (NTUA)   carried   out   the   activity   of   mapping   and   identification   of   Case   Studies   on   ICT   solutions   for   governance   and   policy   modelling   (CROSSOVER,   2013).   The   research   design   envisaged   a   set   of   macro   phases.   The   initial   phase   consisted   in   the   creation  of  a  case  study  repository  through  the  identification  and  prioritization  of  potential  sources   of  information,  an  open  invitation  for  proposal  of  cases  through  web2.0  channels,  followed  by  the   definition   of   the   1st-­‐round   criteria   for   selecting   at   least   twenty   practices   and   the   information-­‐ oriented  selection  of  the  corresponding  case  studies  on  applications  of  ICT  solutions  for  governance   and  policy  modelling.  In  the  second  phase,  case  studies  have  been  elicited  through  the  definition  of   the  2nd-­‐round  criteria  for  selecting  eight  promising  practices  and  the  application  of  a  multi-­‐criteria   method,   followed   by   further   elaboration   on   the   eight   case   studies   that   have   been   selected   by   the   13  |  P a g e  
  14. 14.                                                                                                                              0205F01_INTERNATIONAL  RESEARCH  ROADMAP   multi-­‐criteria   method   based   on   desk   research.   In   the   third   phase   the   final   four   cases   have   been   selected   and   subjected   to   an   in-­‐depth   analysis   carried   out   through   meticulous   study   of   the   available   public   documentation   and   the   conduction   of   interviews   with   key   involved   stakeholders.   After   the   final   selection   of   cases   and   the   in   depth   analysis,   the   findings   have   been   synthesized   through   the   analysis   of   the   emerging   trends   from   applications   of   ICT   solutions   for   governance   and   policy   modelling   as   well   as   the   development   of   key   considerations   for   the   CROSSOVER   roadmap   for   the   themes   that   refer   to   its   scope.   Finally   the   key   findings   of   the   analysis   of   the   four   cases   have   been   shared  with  the  CROSSOVER  partners  and  the  community  that  follows  closely  the  Policy  Making  2.0   domain   over   various   Web   2.0   channels,   to   provide   feedback   and   validation.   The   key   results   of   the   case  studies  are  described  later  in  the  impact  section.     7) Analysis  of  the  Prize   This   prize   was   given   to   the   best   policy-­‐making   2.0   applications,   that   is   are   for   the   best   use   of   technology   to   improve   the   design,   delivery   and   evaluation   of   Government   policy.   The   focus   of   the   jury  has  been  on  implementations  that  can  show  a  real  impact  on  policy  making,  either  in  terms  of   better  policy  or  wider  participation.  These  technologies  included,  but  are  not  limited  to:   • Visual  analytics   • Open  and  big  data   • Modelling  and  simulation  (beyond  general  equilibrium  models)   • Collaborative  governance  and  crowdsourcing   • Serious  gaming   • Opinion  mining   An   important   condition   for   participating   to   the   selection   has   been   the   real-­‐life   implementation   of   technology  to  policy  issues.     Out  of  50  applications,  the  jury  selected  the  best  12  and  eventually  the  3  winners,  which  received  an   IPAD  mini.    The  principal  domains  of  the  applications  were  as  follow:   • • • • • • 23  in  the  “Collaborative  Governance  and  Crowd-­‐sourcing”  domain   13  in  the  “Open  and  Big  Data”  domain   4  in  the  “Visual  Analytics”  domain   2  in  the  “Modelling  and  Simulation  (beyond  general  equilibrium  models)”  domain   2  in  the  “Serious  Gaming”  domain   1   in   each   of   the   following   domains:   “Open   Source   Governance”,   “Opinion   Mining”,   “Participatory  Policy  Making”     All  the  relevant  applications  received  have  been  integrated  in  the  roadmap.  The  criteria  for  judging   the  applications  were:   • • • • Impact  on  the  quality  of  policies   Openness,  scalability  and  replicability   Extensiveness  of  public  and  policymakers’  take  up   Technological  innovativeness   To  this  respect,  the  applicants  to  the  prize  were  required  to  provide  the  following  information:   • Name  of  the  application     14  |  P a g e  
  15. 15.                                                                                                                              0205F01_INTERNATIONAL  RESEARCH  ROADMAP   • • • • • • • Year  of  launch     Short  description  of  the  technological  domain   Link  to  the  application     Describe  the  impact  of  the  application  on  the  quality  of  policies     Describe  the  public  and  policymaker  take  up  of  the  application   Describe  to  what  extent  the  application  was  technologically  innovative   Contact  details  of  the  applicant       8) LinkedIn  Group  Policy-­‐Making  2.0     A   crucial   element   in   the   engagement   of   stakeholders   is   given   by   the   creation   of   a   group   on   LinkedIn   called   Policy   Making   2.0 4 ,   which   is   a   virtual   place   where   actual   and   potential   practitioners   of   advanced  ICT  tools  for  policy-­‐making  can  exchange  experiences.  The  group  displays  a  high  selected   pool   of   high   level   members   (over   840)   engaging   in   discussions   and   exchange   of   views.   In   order   to   foster  debate  in  the  group,  the  CROSSOVER  consortium  posts  on  a  regular  base  info  about  the  new   cases   and   tools   to   be   integrated   in   the   knowledge   repository.   Some   other   discussion   topics   relate   to   the  best  ways  to  engage  the  government  in  online  policy  making,  the  posting  of  third  parties  content   and   info   about   incoming   CROSSOVER   workshops.   In   particular   the   group   is   being   used   for   disseminating  the  Survey  on  the  ICT  Needs  of  Policy  Makers,  as  well  as  the  roadmap  in  commentable   format.   The   Policy   Making   2.0   group   also   serves   as   a   liaison   channel   with   similar   projects   such   as   eGvoPoliNet   and   OCOPOMO.   As   agreed   the   eGovPoliNet   LinkedIn   group   has   merged   with   the   CROSSOVER   Policy   Making   2.0   group,   and   after   the   end   of   the   CROSSOVER   project   the   interaction   will   continue   led   by   the   eGovPoliNet   consortium.   Moreover   as   we   are   approaching   the   end   of   the   project  we  decided  to  shift  from  a  closed  LinkedIn  group  to  an  open  one.                                                                                                                               4  http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=4165795   15  |  P a g e  
  16. 16.                                                                                                                              0205F01_INTERNATIONAL  RESEARCH  ROADMAP         1.3. Scope  and  definition   Policy-­‐making  2.0  refers  to  a  set  of  methodologies  and  technological  solutions  aimed  at  innovating   policy-­‐making.  As  we  will  describe  in  section  2.1,  the  scope  goes  well  beyond  the  focus  on  “Decision-­‐ making”  notion  typical  of  eParticipation,  and  encompasses  all  phases  of  the  policy  cycle.  The  main   goal   is   limited   to   improving   the   quality   of   policies,   not   of   making   them   more   consensual   or   representative.   Policy-­‐making  2.0  is  a  new  term  that  we  have  coined  to  express  in  more  understandable  terms  the   somehow  technical  notion  of  “ICT  for  governance  and  policy  modelling”.  Its  usage  in  the  course  of   the  project  proved  more  effective  than  the  latter  when  discussing  with  stakeholders.  Thereby  from   now  on  we  will  refer  to  the  roadmap  as  the  Research  Roadmap  on  Policy-­‐Making  2.0.   The  full  set  of  methodologies  and  tools  has  been  spelled  out  in  the  taxonomy  in  WP15:   1.1.   Open  government  information  &  intelligence  for  transparency   1.1.1.   Open  &  Transparent  Information  Management   1.1.1.1.  Open  data  policy   1.1.1.2.  Open  data  licence   1.1.1.3.  Open  data  portal   1.1.1.4.  Code  list   1.1.1.5.  Vocabulary/ontology   1.1.1.6.  Reference  data   1.1.1.7.  Data  cleaning  and  reconciliation  tool   1.1.2.   Data  published  on  the  Web  under  an  open  licence   1.1.2.1.  Human-­‐readable  data   1.1.2.2.  Machine  readable  data  in  proprietary  format   1.1.2.3.  Machine-­‐readable  data  published  in  a  non-­‐proprietary  format   1.1.2.4.  Data  published  in  RDF   1.1.2.5.  SPARQL  endpoint  for  querying  RDF  data   1.1.2.6.  RDF  data  linked  to  other  data  sets   1.1.3.   Visual  Analytics   1.1.3.1.  Visualisation  of  a  single,  static,  embedded  data  set   1.1.3.2.  Visualisation  of  multiple  static  data  sets   1.1.3.3.  Visualisation  of  a  single  live  data  feed  or  updating  data  set   1.1.3.4.  Visualisation  of  multiple  data  points,  including  live  feeds  or  updates   1.2.   Social  computing,  citizen  engagement  and  inclusion   1.2.1.   Social  Computing   1.2.1.1.  Collaborative  writing  and  annotation   1.2.1.2.  Content  syndication   1.2.1.3.  Feedback  and  reputation  management  systems   1.2.1.4.  Social  Network  Analysis   1.2.1.5.  Participatory  sensing   1.2.2.   Citizen  Engagement                                                                                                                             5  The  taxonomy  presented  here  builds  on  CROSSROAD  taxonomy,  which  has  been  expanded,  reviewed  and  updated  by  the   members  of  the  Consortium   16  |  P a g e  
  17. 17.                                                                                                                              0205F01_INTERNATIONAL  RESEARCH  ROADMAP   1.3.   1.4.   1.2.2.1.  Online  deliberation   1.2.2.2.  Argumentation  support   1.2.2.3.  Petition,  Polling  and  voting   1.2.2.4.  Serious  games   1.2.2.5.  Opinion  mining   1.2.3.   Public  Opinion-­‐Mining  &  Sentiment  Analysis   1.2.3.1.  Opinion  tracking   1.2.3.2.  Multi-­‐lingual  and  Multi-­‐Cultural  opinion  extraction  and  filtering   1.2.3.3.  Real-­‐time  opinion  visualisation   1.2.3.4.  Collective  Wisdom  Analysis  and  Exploitation   Policy  Assessment   1.3.1.   Policy  Context  Analysis   1.3.1.1.  Forecasting   1.3.1.2.  Foresight   1.3.1.3.  Back-­‐Casting   1.3.1.4.  Now-­‐Casting   1.3.1.5.  Early  Warning  Systems   1.3.1.6.  Technology  Road-­‐Mapping  (TRM)   1.3.2.   Policy  Modelling   1.3.2.1.  Group  Model  Building   1.3.2.2.  Systems  Thinking  &  Behavioural  Modelling   1.3.2.3.  System  Dynamics   1.3.2.4.  Agent-­‐Based  Modelling   1.3.2.5.  Stochastic  Modelling   1.3.2.6.  Cellular  Automata   1.3.3.   Policy  Simulation   1.3.3.1.  Multi-­‐level  &  micro-­‐simulation  models   1.3.3.2.  Discrete  Event  Simulation   1.3.3.3.  Autonomous  Agents,  ABM  Simulation,  Multi-­‐Agent  Systems  (MAS)   1.3.3.4.  Virtual  Worlds,  Virtual  Reality  &  Gaming  Simulation   1.3.3.5.  Model  Integration   1.3.3.6.  Model  Calibration  &  Validation   1.3.4.   Policy  Evaluation   1.3.4.1.  Impact  Assessment   1.3.4.2.  Scenarios   1.3.4.3.  Model  Quality  Evaluation   1.3.4.4.  Multi-­‐Criteria  Decision  Analysis   Identity,  privacy  and  trust  in  governance   1.4.1.   Identity  Management   1.4.1.1.  Federated  Identity  Management  Systems   1.4.1.2.  User  centric,  self  managed  and  lightweight  credentials   1.4.1.3.  Legal-­‐social  aspects  of  eIdentity  management   1.4.1.4.  Mobile  Identity  (Portability)   1.4.2.   Privacy   1.4.2.1.  Privacy  and  Data  Protection   1.4.2.2.  Privacy  Enhancing  Technologies   1.4.2.3.  Anonymity  and  Pseudonymity   1.4.2.4.  Open   data   management   (including   Citizen   Profiling,   'digital   shadow'   tracing   and  tracking   1.4.3.   Trust   17  |  P a g e  
  18. 18.                                                                                                                              0205F01_INTERNATIONAL  RESEARCH  ROADMAP   1.5.   1.4.3.1.  Legal  Informatics   1.4.3.2.  Digital  Rights  Management   1.4.3.3.  Digital  Citizenship  Rights  and  feedback  loops   1.4.3.4.  Intellectual  Property  in  the  digital  era   1.4.3.5.  Trust-­‐building   Services   (including   data   processing   and   profiling   by   private   actors  for  public  services)   Future  internet  for  collaborative  governance   1.5.1.   Cloud  Computing   1.5.1.1.  Cloud  service  level  requirements   1.5.1.2.  Business  models  in  the  cloud   1.5.1.3.  Cloud  interoperability   1.5.1.4.  Security  and  authentication  in  the  cloud   1.5.1.5.  Data  confidentiality  and  auditability   1.5.1.6.  Cloud  legal  implications   1.5.2.   Pervasive  Computing  &  Internet  of  Things  in  Public  Services   1.5.2.1.  Ambient  intelligence   1.5.2.2.  Exploiting  smart  objects   1.5.2.3.  Standardization   1.5.2.4.  Business  models  for  pervasive  technologies   1.5.2.5.  Privacy  implications  and  risks   1.5.3.   Provision  of  next  generation  public  e-­‐services   1.5.3.1.  Fixed  and  mobile  network  access  technologies   1.5.3.2.  Mobile  web   1.5.3.3.  Models  for  information  dissemination   1.5.3.4.  Management  of  scarce  network  capacity  and  congestion  problems   1.5.3.5.  Large-­‐scale  resource  sharing   1.5.3.6.  Interworking  of  different  technologies  for  seamless  connectivity  of  users   1.5.4.   Future  Human/Computer  Interaction  Applications  &  Systems   1.5.4.1.  Web  accessibility   1.5.4.2.  User-­‐centered  design   1.5.4.3.  Augmented  cognition   1.5.4.4.  Human  senses  recognition     Policy-­‐making  2.0  encompasses  clearly  a  wide  set  of  methodologies  and  tools.  At  first  sight,  it  might   appear   unclear   what   the   common   denominator   is.   In   our   view,   what   they   share   is   that   they   are   designed  to  use  technology  in  order  to  inform  the  formulation  of  more  effective  public  policies.  In   particular,   these   technologies   share   a   common   approach   in   taking   into   account   and   dealing   with   the   full   complexity   of   human   nature.   As   spelled   out   originally   in   the   CROSSOVER   project   proposal:   “traditional   policy-­‐making   tools   are   limited   insofar   they   assume   an   abstract   and   unrealistic   human   being:  rational  (utility  maximizing),  consistent  (not  heterogeneous),  atomised  (not  connected),  wise   (thinking   long-­‐term)   and   politically   committed   (as   Lisa   Simpson)”.   Policy-­‐making   2.0   thus   accounts   for   this   diversity.   Its   methodologies   and   tools   are   designed   not   to   impose   change   and   artificial   structures,   rather   to   interact   with   this   diversity.   Agent-­‐based   models   account   for   the   interaction   between   agents   that   are   different   in   nature   and   values;   systems   thinking   accounts   for   long-­‐term   interacting   impacts;   social   network   analysis   deals   with   the   mutual   influences   between   people   rather   than   fully   rational   choices;   big   data   analyses   observed   behaviour   rather   than   theoretical   models;   persuasive   technologies   deal   with   the   complex   psychology   of   individuals   and   introduces   gaming   values   to   involve   more   “casual”   participants.   Moreover,   policy-­‐making   2.0   tools   allow   all   stakeholders  to  participate  to  the  decision-­‐making  process.   18  |  P a g e  
  19. 19.                                                                                                                              0205F01_INTERNATIONAL  RESEARCH  ROADMAP     1.4. Policy:  Between  politics  and  services   The  application  of  technology  to  governmental  issues  is  not  a  new  topic.  Indeed  e-­‐government  and   the   new   buzzword   of   government   2.0,   have   become   mainstream   in   recent   years:   how   and   why   a   future  looking  research  agenda  could  still  refer  to  the  2.0  paradigm  as  innovative?  The  novelty  lies  in   the  “policy”  part  of  the  definition.   So  far,  the  application  of  "2.0"  technologies  to  governmental  processes  has  focussed  mainly  on  the   usage   of   social   media   for   political   communication,   best   exemplified   by   the   Obama   campaign.   The   typical  narrative  is  that  in  the  age  of  social  media,  traditional  communication  campaigns  and  political   parties   are   unsuited   to   generate   commitment   and   action   by   citizens,   which   instead   want   to   take   active   part   in   the   campaign   and   self-­‐organize   via   social   media:   ""A   candidate   who   can   master   the   Internet  will  not  only  level  the  playing  field;  he  will  level  the  opposition."  RightClick  Strategies'  Larry   Purpuro.   A  second  area  of  strong  focus  proved  to  be  the  collaborative  provision  of  public   services  based  on   peer-­‐to-­‐peer   support   and   open   data,   best   exemplified   by   the   widely   spread   "appsfordemocracy"   contests.   The   narrative   here   is   that   government   should   act   as   a   platform   and   enable   third   parties   (and  citizens  themselves)  to  co-­‐create  and  deliver  public  services  based  on  open  government  data.     This  is  what  Goldsmith  and  Eggers  (2004)  call  "governing  by  network".   Indeed,   the   Obama   administration   clearly   shows   these   priorities,   moving   from   state-­‐of-­‐the-­‐art   campaigning   in   order   to   be   elected,   and   then   implementing   a   strong   open   data   policy   with   crowdsourcing  initiatives  to  let  citizens  create  services  based  on  these  data.   Between   "politics"   and   "public   services   co-­‐delivery",   much   less   attention   has   been   devoted   to   the   usage  of  social  technology  to  improve  public  policy.  While  politics  deal  with  the  legislative  branch,   the   Parliament,   policy-­‐making   is   mainly   the   realm   of   the   executive   branch.   Typically,   the   job   of   policy-­‐making   involves   a   great   deal   of   socio-­‐economic   analysis   as   well   as   consultation   with   stakeholders.     This  roadmap  aims  to  fill  this  gap,  by  providing  a  complete  picture  of  how  technology  can  improve   policy-­‐making.     19  |  P a g e  
  20. 20.                                                                                                                              0205F01_INTERNATIONAL  RESEARCH  ROADMAP   2. Not  just  another  hype:  the  Demand  side  of  policy-­‐making  2.0   In  the  context  of  new  technologies,  we  are  periodically  informed  about  the  emerging  wave  that  will   change  everything,  only  to  see  it  quickly  forgotten  after  years  or  even  month  in  what  Gartner  calls   “trough  of  disillusionment”.  While  some  of  this  emphasis  is  certainly  driven  by  commercial  interests,   in  many  other  cases  it  reflects  a  genuine  optimism  of  its  proponents,  who  tend  to  underestimate  the   real-­‐life  bottlenecks  to  adoption  by  less  enthusiast  people.     Movzorov   critically   calls   this   cyber-­‐utopianism   or   technological   solutionism   (Morozov   2013);   on   a   similar   note,   many   years   of   eGovernment   policy   have   revealed   the   fundamental   importance   of   non-­‐ technological  factors,  such  as  organisational  change,  skills,  incentives  and  culture.     One   way   to   prevent   policy-­‐making   2.0   to   become   yet   another   hype   in   the   Gartner   curve,   is   to   precisely   spell   out   the   challenges   that   these   new   technologies   help   to   address.   Indeed,   the   importance  of  this  demand-­‐driven  approach  based  on  grand  challenges  is  fully  embraced  by  the  new   Horizon2020   research   programme   of   the   European   Union. 6     Furthermore,   a   demand-­‐driven   approach  helps  us  to  frame  the  technological  opportunities  in  a  language  understandable  to  policy-­‐ makers,  thereby  supporting  the  awareness-­‐raising  objective  of  the  CROSSOVER  project.   When   analysing   the   demand   side,   our   first   consideration   is   that   policy-­‐making   is   more   important   and   complex   than   ever.     The   role   of   government   has   substantially   changed   over   the   last   twenty   years.  Governments  have  to  re-­‐design  their  role  in  areas  where  they  were  directly  involved  in  service   provision,   such   as   utilities   but   also   education   and   health.   This   is   not   simply   a   matter   of   privatisation,   or   of   a   linear   trend   towards   smaller   government.   Indeed,   even   before   the   recent   financial   turmoil   and  nationalisation  of  parts  of  the  financial  system,  government  role  in  the  European  societies  was   not   simply   “diminishing”,   but   rather   being   transformed.   At   the   same   time,   it   is   increasingly   recognized  that  the  emergence  of  new  and  complex  problems  requires  government  to  increasingly   collaborate   with   non-­‐governmental   actors   in   the   understanding   and   in   the   addressing   of   these   challenges7.  As  an  OECD  report  states  the  following:     “Government   has   a   larger   role   in   the   OECD   countries   than   two   decades   ago.   But   the   nature   of   public   policy  problems  and  the  methods  to  deal  with  them  are  still  undergoing  deep  change.  Governments   are   moving   away   from   the   direct   provision   of   services   towards   a   greater   role   for   private   and   non-­‐ profit  entities  and  increased  regulation  of  markets.  Government  regulatory  reach  is  also  extending  in   new   socio-­‐economic   areas.   This   expansion   of   regulation   reflects   the   increasing   complexity   of   societies.   At   the   same   time,   through   technological   advances,   government’s   ability   to   accumulate   information   in   these   areas   has   increased   significantly.   As   government   face   more   new   and   complex   problems  that  cannot  be  dealt  with  easily  by  direct  public  service  provision,  more  ambitious  policies   require  more  complex  interventions  and  collaboration  with  non-­‐governmental  parties”   This  is  particularly  challenging  in  our  "complex"  societies.  “Complex”  systems  are  those  where  “the   behaviour  of  the  system  as  a  whole  cannot  be  determined  by  partitioning  it  and  understanding  the   behaviour   of   each   of   the   parts   separately,   which   is   the   classic   strategy   of  the  reductionist  physical   sciences”.  The  present  challenges  governments  must  face,  as  described  by  the  OECD,  are  complex  as   they   are   characterised   by   many   non-­‐linear   interactions   between   agents;   they   emerge   from   these   interactions   and   are   therefore   difficult   to   predict.   The   financial   crisis   is   probably   the   foremost   example   of   a   complex   problem,   which   proved   impossible   to   predict   with   traditional   decision-­‐making   tools.                                                                                                                             6  http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=h2020     7  See  Ostrom:  http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2009/ostrom-­‐lecture.html   20  |  P a g e  
  21. 21.                                                                                                                              0205F01_INTERNATIONAL  RESEARCH  ROADMAP     2.1. The  typical  tasks  of  policy-­‐makers:  the  policy  cycle   Policy-­‐making  is  typically  carried  out  through  a  set  of  activities  described  as  "policy-­‐cycle"  (Howard     2005).   In   this   document   we   propose   a   new   way   of   implementing   policies,   by   first   assessing   their   impacts  in  a  virtual  environment.   While   different   versions   of   the   cycle   are   proposed   in   literature,   in   this   context   we   adopt   a   simple   version  articulated  in  5  phases:   -­‐ agenda  setting  encompasses  the  basic  analysis  on  the  nature  and  size  of  problems  at  stakes   are  addressed,  including  the  causal  relationships  between  the  different  factors   -­‐ policy   design   includes   the   development   of   the   possible   solutions,   the   analysis   of   the   potential  impact  of  these  solutions8,  the  development  and  revision  of  a  policy  proposal   -­‐ adoption   is   the   cut-­‐off   decision   on   the   policy.   This   is   the   most   delicate   and   sensitive   area,   where  accountability  and  representativeness  are  needed.  It  is  also  the  area  most  covered  by   existing  research  on  e-­‐democracy     -­‐ implementation  is  often  considered  the  most  challenging  phase,  as  it  needs  to  translate  the   policy   objectives   in   concrete   activities,   that   have   to   deal   with   the   complexity   of   the   real   world  .  It  includes  ensuring  a  broader  understanding,  the  change  of  behaviour  and  the  active   collaboration  of  all  stakeholders.   -­‐ Monitoring   and   evaluation   make   use   of   implementation   data   to   assess   whether   the   policy   is   being  implemented  as  planned,  and  is  achieving  the  expected  objectives.   The   figure   below   (authors’   elaboration   based   on   Howard   2005   and   EC   2009)   illustrates   the   main   phases  of  the  policy  cycle  (in  the  internal  circle)  and  the  typical  concrete  activities  (external  circle)   that  accompany  this  cycle.  In  particular,  the  identified  activities  are  based  on  the  Impact  Assessment   Guidelines  of  the  European  Commission  (EC  2009).                                                                                                                             8  A   very   important   element   in   policy   design   and   formulation   is   given   by   ex-­‐ante   evaluation.   In   this   respect   ICT   tools   for   policy-­‐making  can  play  an  important  role,  simulating  alternative  policy  options  and  impacts  before  implementing  a  policy   action   21  |  P a g e  
  22. 22.                                                                                                                              0205F01_INTERNATIONAL  RESEARCH  ROADMAP     Figure  3:  Policy  Cycle  and  Related  Activities       Traditionally,  the  focus  about  the  impact  of  technology  in  policy-­‐making  has  been  on  the  adoption   phase,   analysing   the   implications   of   ICT   for   direct   democracy.   In   the   context   of   the   CROSSOVER   project,  we  adopt  a  broader  conceptual  framework  that  embraces  all  phases  of  policy-­‐making.     2.2. The  traditional  tools  of  policy-­‐making   Let   us   present   now   what   are   the   methodologies   and   tools   already   traditionally   adopted   in   policy-­‐ making.   Typically,   in   the   agenda-­‐setting   phase,   statistics   are   analysed   by   government   and   experts   contracted  by  government  in  order  to  understand  the  problems  at  stake  and  the  underlying  causes   of  the  problems.  Survey  and  consultations,  including  online  ones,  are  frequently  used  to  assess  the   stakeholders’  priorities,  and  typically  analysed  in-­‐house.  General-­‐equilibrium  models  are  used  as  an   assessment  framework.   Once  the  problems  and  its  causes  are  defined,  the  policy  design  phase  is  typically  articulated  through   an  ex-­‐ante  impact  assessment  approach.  A  limited  set  of  policy  options  are  formulated  in  house  with   22  |  P a g e  
  23. 23.                                                                                                                              0205F01_INTERNATIONAL  RESEARCH  ROADMAP   the   involvement   of   experts   and   stakeholders.   For   each   option,   models   are   simulated   in   order   to   forecast  possible  sectoral  and  cross-­‐sectoral  impacts.  These  simulations  are  typically  carried  out  by   general-­‐equilibrium   models   if   the   time   frame   is   focused   on   short   and   medium   term   economic   impacts  of  policy  implementation.  Based  on  the  simulated  impact,  the  best  option  is  submitted  for   adoption.   The   adoption   phase   is   typically   carried   out   by   the   official   authority,   either   legislative   or   executive   (depending   on   the   type   of   policy).   In   some   cases,   decision   is   left   to   citizens   through   direct   democracy,   through   a   referendum   or   tools   such   as   participatory   budgeting;   or   to   stakeholders   through  self-­‐regulation.   The   implementation   phase   typically   is   carried   out   directly   by   government,   using   incentives   and   coercion.   It   benefits   from   technology   mainly   in   terms   of   monitoring   and   surveillance,   in   order   to   manage  incentives  and  coercion,  for  example  through  the  database  used  for  social  security  or  taxes   revenues.   The  monitoring  and  evaluation  phase  is  supported  by  mathematical  simulation  studies  and  analysis   of   government   data,   typically   carried   out   in-­‐house   or   by   contractors.   Moreover,   as   numbers   aggregate   the   impacts   of   everything   that   happens,   including   policy,   it   is   difficult   to   single   out   the   impacts   of   one   policy   ex   post.   Final   results   are   published   in   report   format,   and   fed   back   to   the   agenda  setting  phase.     2.3. The  key  challenges  of  policy-­‐makers   Needless  to  say,  the  current  policy-­‐making  process  is  seldom  based  on  objective  evidence  and  not  all   views   are   necessarily   represented.   Dramatic   crises   seem   to   happen   too   often,   and   governments   struggle  to  anticipate  and  deal  with  them,  as  the  financial  crisis  has  shown.  Citizens  feel  a  sense  of   mistrust  towards  government,  as  shown  by  the  decrease  in  voters  turnout  in  the  elections.   In  this  section,  we  analyse  and  identify  the  specific  challenges  of  policy-­‐making.  The  goal  is  to  clearly   spell  out  "what  is  the  problem"  in  the  policy  making  process   that  policy-­‐making  2.0  tools  can  help  to   solve.   The  challenges  have  been  identified  on  desk-­‐based  research  of  "government  failure"  in  a  variety  of   contexts,  and  are  illustrated  by  real-­‐life  examples.   One   first   overarching   challenge   is   the   emergence   of   a   distributed   governance   model.   The   traditional  division  of  “market”  and  “state”  no  longer  fits  a  reality  where  public  decision  and  action  is   effectively  carried  out  by  a  plurality  of  actors.  Traditionally,  the  policy  cycle  is  designed  as  a  set  of   activities  belonging  to  government,  from  the  agenda  setting  to  the  delivery  and  evaluation.  However   in  recent  years  it  has  been  increasingly  recognized  that  public  governance  involves  a  wide  range  of   stakeholders,  who  are  increasingly  involved  not  only  in  agenda-­‐setting  but  in  designing  the  policies,   adopting   them   (through   the   increasing   role   of   self-­‐regulation),   implementing   them   (through   collaboration,  voluntary  action,  corporate  social  responsibility),  and  evaluating  them  (such  as  in  the   case   of   civil   society   as   watchdog   of   government).   As   Elinor   Ostrom   stated   in   her   lecture   delivered   when  receiving  the  Nobel  Prize  in  Economics9:  “A  core  goal  of  public  policy  should  be  to  facilitate  the   development   of   institutions   that   bring   out   the   best   in   humans.   We   need   to   ask   how   diverse   polycentric   institutions   help   or   hinder   the   innovativeness,   learning,   adapting,   trustworthiness,   levels   of   cooperation   of   participants,   and   the   achievement   of   more   effective,   equitable,   and   sustainable   outcomes   at   multiple   scales”.   This   acknowledgement   leads   to   important   implications   for   the                                                                                                                             9  http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2009/ostrom-­‐lecture.html   23  |  P a g e  

×