Osimopolitika20v2

Growing up into adulthood: Gov2.0 from anecdotes to policy Politika 2.0, San Sebastian, 23rd June 2009 David Osimo - Tech4i2 ltd.

What I will try to answer today • what is web 2.0? 1. some bottom-up examples 2. from anecdotes to analisis: why they matter 3. from spontaneous to structured: what could government do 4. from structured to systemic: a new vision for government? 2

So far ICT has not fundamentally changed government • 1990s: ICT expected to make government more transparent, efﬁcient and user Supply Demand oriented • 2005+: disillusion as burocracy not much different from Max Weber’s description 3

Many projects of web2.0 in public services, but not by government Source: own elaboration of IPTS PS20 project

Relevant for key government activities Back ofﬁce Front ofﬁce Regulation Service delivery Cross-agency collaboration eParticipation Knowledge management Law enforcement Interoperability Public sector information Human resources mgmt Public communication Public procurement Transparency and accountability source: “Web 2.0 in Government: Why and How? www.jrc.es 5

Regulation : Peer-to-patent 6

Peer-to-patent: an inside look • Eighty-nine (89) percent of participating patent examiners thought the presentation of prior art that the received from the Peer-to-Patent community was clear and well formatted. Ninety-two (92) percent re Usage and impact ported that they would welcome examining another application with public participation. • • Self-regulated: need examiners want to see Peer-to-Patent implemented as reg Seventy-three (73) percent ofcontrol critical mass to participating ofﬁce “bad apples” practice. • 2000(21) percent of participating examiners stated that prior art submitted by the Peer-to-Pate users • • 9/23 applications used Twenty-one community was “inaccessible” by the USPTO. by USPTO • • 73% of USPTO the The USPTO received one third-party prior art submission for every 500 applications published in 2007. Pe examiners endorse Patent reviewers have provided an average of almost 5 prior art references for each application in the p project • pilot being extended and adopted in Japan “We’re very pleased with this initial outcome. Patents of questionable merit are of little value to anyone. We much prefer that the best prior art be identiﬁed so that the resulting patent is truly bulletproof. This is precisely why we eagerly agreed to sponsor this project and other patent quality initiatives. We are proud of this result, which validates the concept of Peer-to-Patent, and can only improve the quality of patents produced by the patent system.” — Manny Schecter, Associate General Counsel for Intellectual Property, IBM 7

Service delivery: Patient Opinion 8

Citizens monitoring government: farmsubsidy.org

UK, US: citizens providing detailed insight into gov strategies

From anecdotes to analysis Why does this matter?

Why? • Citizens and CIVIL SERVANTS already use web 2.0: no action ≠ no risks • Likely to stay as it is linked to underlying societal trends - Today’s teenagers = future users and employees - Empowered customers - Creative knowledge workers - From hierarchy to network-based organizations - Non linear-innovation models - Consumerization of ICT 12

Why?/2 Because it does not impose change (e-gov 1.0) but acts on leverages, drivers and incentives: • building on unique and speciﬁc knowledge of users: the “cognitive surplus” • the power of visualization • reducing information and power asymmetries • peer recognition rather than hierarchy • reducing the cost of collective action • changing the expectations of citizens 13

“A problem shared is a problem halved ...and a pressure group created” Dr. Paul Hodgkin director PatientOpinion.org

“it’s about pressure points, chinks in the armour where improvements might be possible, whether with the consent of government or not” Tom Steinberg director mySociety

Before citizen Government 16

After citizen information, trust, attention Government friends friends of friends public 17

Web-oriented government architecture !"# $%& UK Cabinet, “Power of information task force report” '()*+,--.*/0)-*1-231*)+456*3-7489-(*):0-;<*=>-?@30-ABBCD Robinson et al.: “Government Data and the Invisible Hand “ Gartner: “The Real Future of E-Government: From Joined-Up to Mashed-Up” 18

From spontaneous to structured: what should government do?

1 - DO NO HARM • don’t hyper-protect public data from re-use • don’t launch large scale “facade” web2.0 project • don’t forbid web 2.0 in the workplace • let bottom-up initiatives ﬂourish as barriers to entry are very low 20

2. ENABLE • blogging and social networking guidelines for civil servants • publish reusable and machine readable data (XML, RSS, RDFa) > see W3C work • adopt web-oriented architecture • create a public data catalogue > see Washington DC 21

3. ACTIVELY PROMOTE • ensure pervasive broadband ✴create e-skills in and outside government: digital literacy, media literacy, web2.0 literacy, programming skills ✴fund bottom-up initiatives through public procurement, awards • reach out trough key intermediaries trusted by the community • listen, experiment and learn-by-doing 22

Promoting e-skills • Old IT competences: ECDL • New competences: 1. digital literacy: making sense of text and audiovisual 2. media literacy: produce web content using free tools (ning, facebook, youtube, wordpress...) 3. running a server: capacity to install free tools on own server - you own the data 4. coding skills: you can create cool website for “stuff that matters to you” ★ Do we need “computational thinking”? 23

Not only spontaneous: INCA awards • Context in Flanders: very few government 2.0 project • INCA prize: 1 month, 20K euros for new applications “socially useful” • results: 35 brand new applications on: family, mobility, culture, environment • double dividend: ICT innovation and social impact 24

From structured to systemic : a new approach to e-government policy?

Obama administration • memo on transparency as ﬁrst act: transparency by default • recovery.gov as ﬂagship for reusable data • agreement with social networks • appointment of best web2.0 people in WhiteHouse staff • data.gov catalogue ★what about Europe? 27

http://eups20.wordpress.com

Let’s improve e-government policy in Europe together! david.osimo@tech4i2.com Further information: Osimo, 2008. Web2.0 in government: why and how? www.jrc.es Osimo, 2008. Benchmarking e-government in the web 2.0 era: what to measure, and how. European Journal of ePractice, August 2008. http://egov20.wordpress.com 29

Back-up slides 30

A new vision starting to take shape To sum up, transparency, which enhances accountability and choice, can be a powerful driver, a catalyst and a flagship for “transformational government”, rather than for “eGovernment” only. 6 What is new? 31

A new innovation model for public services • A new WAY to innovate public services • Continuous and incremental, • open and non hyerarchical • not only by government: civil society, citizens, civil servants • A new effective DRIVER to address the challenges of innovating public services • citizens’ ratings and reviews: democratization of voice where there is no exit possibility • more openness and transparency expected • wider availability of IT tools for innovation by citizens, civil servants, civil society 33

Common mistakes • “Build it and they will come”: beta testing, trial and error necessary • Launching “your own” large scale web 2.0 ﬂagship project • Opening up without soft governance of key challenges: - privacy - individual vs institutional role - destructive participation • Adopting only the technology with traditional top- down attitude 34

Web 2.0 is about values, not technology: and it’s the hacker’s values User as producer, Collective intelligence, Values Long tail, Perpetual beta, Extreme ease of use Blog, Wiki, Podcast, RSS, Tagging, Social Applications networks, Search engine, MPOGames Ajax, XML, Open API, Microformats, REST, Technologies Flash/Flex, Peer-to-Peer Source: Author’s elaboration based on Forrester 35

Are these services used? • in the back-office, yes • in the front-office, not too much: few thousand users as an average • still: this is much more than before! • some (petty) specific causes have viral take- up (mobile phones fees, road tax charge schemes) • very low costs of experimentation 36

Why? /2 • Citizens (and employees) already use web 2.0: no action ≠ no risks • Likely to stay as it is linked to underlying societal trends - Today’s teenagers = future users and employees - Empowered customers - Creative knowledge workers - From hierarchy to network-based organizations - Non linear-innovation models - Consumerization of ICT 37

Is there a visible impact? Yes, more than the usage: • in the back office: evidence used by US Patent Office, used to detect Iraqi insurgents • in the front office, making government really accountable and helping other citizens • but there is risk of negative impact as well 38

Web 2.0 is a set of values more than a set of technologies User as producer, collective intelligence, Values openness “by default”, perpetual beta, ease of use Blogs, Podcast, Wiki, Social Networking, Peer- Technology to-peer, MPOGames, Mash-up Ajax, Microformats, RSS/XML 39

Reminder: citizens and employees do it anyway 40

Las preguntas de hoy 1. que es la web 2.0? 2. es importante el web2.0 por las ejemplos administraciones? 3. porque? análisis 4. que hay que hacer? recomandaciones 5. y una cosa mas ... ... 41

Admitimos: las TIC no han cambiado la administración publica • 1990s: nos esperábamos que las TIC iban a hacer la administración mas Supply Demand eﬁciente y orientada al usuario • 2005+: decepcion porque la burocracia sigue siendo la que describio Weber 42

Llegan las iniciativas web2.0 en temas publicos, pero desde fuera el gobierno Source: own elaboration of IPTS PS20 project

El impacto afecta muchas areas de la administracion Back ofﬁce Front ofﬁce Regulation Service delivery Cross-agency collaboration eParticipation Knowledge management Law enforcement Interoperability Public sector information Human resources mgmt Public communication Public procurement Transparency and accountability source: “Web 2.0 in Government: Why and How? www.jrc.es 44

Regulacion : Peer-to-patent 45

Peer-to-patent: uso y impacto • Eighty-nine (89) percent of participating patent examiners thought the presentation of prior art that the received from the Peer-to-Patent community was clear and well formatted. Ninety-two (92) percent re • Auto regulado: ported that they would welcome examining another application with public participation. necesita masa critica • para evitar “manzanas Seventy-three (73) percent of participating examiners want to see Peer-to-Patent implemented as reg ofﬁce malas” practice. • 2000 contributores • • 9/23 resultados Twenty-one (21) percent of participating examiners stated that prior art submitted by the Peer-to-Pate utilizados por el community was “inaccessible” by the USPTO. USPTO • • The USPTO received one third-party prior art submission for every 500 applications published in 2007. Pe 73% de los Patent reviewers have provided an average of almost 5 prior art references for each application in the p examinadores USPTO quieren que siga • piloto es extendido “We’re very pleased with this initial outcome. Patents of questionable merit are of little value to anyone. We much prefer that the best prior art be identiﬁed so that the resulting patent is truly bulletproof. This is precisely why we eagerly agreed to sponsor this project and other patent quality initiatives. We are proud of this result, which validates the concept of Peer-to-Patent, and can only improve the quality of patents produced by the patent system.” — Manny Schecter, Associate General Counsel for Intellectual Property, IBM 46

Servicios publicos: Patient Opinion 47

Lo ciutadanos monitoran el gasto publico: farmsubsidy.org

UK, US: los ciudadanos revisan las estrategias del gobierno

Desde las anécdotas “cool”, hacia la analisis: Porque es importante?

Porque?/1 • Ciutadanos y funcionarios ya lo usan y no se puede controlar (ni en Iran): no action ≠ no risks • No es una tecnologia, es una “tormenta perfecta”: - nuevas generaciones = usuarios y funcionarios futuros - consumidores empoderados - “the rise of the creative class” (Florida) y los “knowledge workers” (Drucker) - mercados, hierarquias y redes (Williamson) - Modelos de innovacion no lineares (Rosenberg,Von Hippel) - “Consumerization” te las TIC 51

Porque?/2 La admin20 no presupone el cambio cultural (e-gov 1.0), lo crea a través de nuevos incentivos y palancas : • reduce las asimetrías de información y poder • la legitimación viene de la “peer recognition”, no de la jerarquía • reduces el coste de acción colectiva (Shirky) • utiliza recursos nuevos de los usuarios: el “cognitive surplus” • desde “ﬁlter then publish” hacia “publish then ﬁlter” • cambia las expectaciones de los ciudadanos 52

“A problem shared is a problem halved ...and a pressure group created” Dr. Paul Hodgkin director PatientOpinion.org

“it’s about pressure points, chinks in the armour where improvements might be possible, whether with the consent of government or not” Tom Steinberg director mySociety

Antes citizen Government 55

Despues citizen information, trust, attention Government friends friends of friends public 56

Web-oriented architecture !"# $%& UK Cabinet, “Power of information task force report” '()*+,--.*/0)-*1-231*)+456*3-7489-(*):0-;<*=>-?@30-ABBCD Robinson et al.: “Government Data and the Invisible Hand “ Gartner: “The Real Future of E-Government: From Joined-Up to Mashed-Up” 57

Desde el análisis hasta las recomendaciones: que hacer?

1 - NO HACER DANOS • liberar los datos publicos • no lanzar grandes proyectos proprietarios web2.0 • no prohibir el aceso a los funcionarios • dejar que ﬂorezcan las iniciativas web 2.0 59

2. “ENABLE” • publicar los datos publicos en formato standard y reutisable (XML, RSS, RDFa) > W3C iG group • adoptar web-oriented architecture • crear catalogos de datos publicos > data.gov en EEUU 60

3. PROMOVER • asegurar banda ancha pervasiva • fomentar las e-skills de funcionarios y ciutadanos: digital literacy, media literacy, web2.0 literacy, programming skills • ﬁnanciar iniciativas bottom-up con premios y procurement • escuchar y experimentar (publish then ﬁlter) 61

Desde las recomandaciones hacia una vision estrategica http://eups20.wordpress.com

Thank you david.osimo@tech4i2.com Further information: Osimo, 2008. Web2.0 in government: why and how? www.jrc.es Osimo, 2008. Benchmarking e-government in the web 2.0 era: what to measure, and how. European Journal of ePractice, August 2008. http://egov20.wordpress.com 64

Back-up slides 65

A new innovation model for public services • A new WAY to innovate public services • Continuous and incremental, • open and non hyerarchical • not only by government: civil society, citizens, civil servants • A new effective DRIVER to address the challenges of innovating public services • citizens’ ratings and reviews: democratization of voice where there is no exit possibility • more openness and transparency expected • wider availability of IT tools for innovation by citizens, civil servants, civil society 66

Common mistakes • “Build it and they will come”: beta testing, trial and error necessary • Launching “your own” large scale web 2.0 ﬂagship project • Opening up without soft governance of key challenges: - privacy - individual vs institutional role - destructive participation • Adopting only the technology with traditional top- down attitude 67

Web 2.0 is about values, not technology: and it’s the hacker’s values User as producer, Collective intelligence, Values Long tail, Perpetual beta, Extreme ease of use Blog, Wiki, Podcast, RSS, Tagging, Social Applications networks, Search engine, MPOGames Ajax, XML, Open API, Microformats, REST, Technologies Flash/Flex, Peer-to-Peer Source: Author’s elaboration based on Forrester 68

Are these services used? • in the back-office, yes • in the front-office, not too much: few thousand users as an average • still: this is much more than before! • some (petty) specific causes have viral take- up (mobile phones fees, road tax charge schemes) • very low costs of experimentation 69

Why? /2 • Citizens (and employees) already use web 2.0: no action ≠ no risks • Likely to stay as it is linked to underlying societal trends - Today’s teenagers = future users and employees - Empowered customers - Creative knowledge workers - From hierarchy to network-based organizations - Non linear-innovation models - Consumerization of ICT 70

Is there a visible impact? Yes, more than the usage: • in the back office: evidence used by US Patent Office, used to detect Iraqi insurgents • in the front office, making government really accountable and helping other citizens • but there is risk of negative impact as well 71

Web 2.0 is a set of values more than a set of technologies User as producer, collective intelligence, Values openness “by default”, perpetual beta, ease of use Blogs, Podcast, Wiki, Social Networking, Peer- Technology to-peer, MPOGames, Mash-up Ajax, Microformats, RSS/XML 72

Reminder: citizens and employees do it anyway 73

http://www.chilelogela.com	106
http://www.somosmedicina.com	77
http://www.slideshare.net	1

Osimopolitika20v2

by osimod on Jun 22, 2009

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

3 Embeds 184

Statistics

Osimopolitika20v2 — Presentation Transcript