0
Growing up into adulthood:
Gov2.0 from anecdotes to policy

  Politika 2.0, San Sebastian, 23rd June 2009

  David Osimo -...
What I will try to answer today


•   what is web 2.0?
1. some bottom-up examples
2. from anecdotes to analisis: why they ...
So far ICT has not fundamentally
          changed government


•   1990s: ICT expected
    to make government
    more tr...
Many projects of web2.0 in public services,
         but not by government
                              Source: own elabo...
Relevant for key government
                     activities
       Back office                             Front office


  ...
Regulation : Peer-to-patent




                              6
Peer-to-patent: an inside look
• Eighty-nine (89) percent of participating patent examiners thought the presentation of pr...
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 u...
Why?/2

Because it does not impose change (e-gov 1.0) but
acts on leverages, drivers and incentives:
•   building on uniqu...
“A problem shared
       is a problem halved
...and a pressure group created”

           Dr. Paul Hodgkin
     director P...
“it’s about pressure points, chinks
        in the armour where
improvements might be possible,
   whether with the consen...
Before




                      citizen

Government




                                16
After




                          citizen      information,
                                     trust, attention

Gover...
Web-oriented government architecture

  !"#                                      $%&




UK Cabinet, “Power of information...
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
• do...
2. ENABLE



• blogging and social networking guidelines
   for civil servants
• publish reusable and machine readable dat...
3. ACTIVELY PROMOTE



• ensure pervasive broadband
✴create e-skills in and outside government: digital
    literacy, medi...
Promoting e-skills

• Old IT competences: ECDL
• New competences:
 1. digital literacy: making sense of text and
    audio...
Not only spontaneous:
                INCA awards

•   Context in Flanders: very few government 2.0
    project
•   INCA p...
25
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 re...
http://eups20.wordpress.com
Let’s improve e-government
         policy in Europe together!

               david.osimo@tech4i2.com


                 ...
Back-up slides




                 30
A new vision starting to take
                                      shape




To sum up, transparency, which enhances acco...
32
A new innovation model for
               public services

•     A new WAY to innovate public services
    •    Continuous...
Common mistakes

•   “Build it and they will come”: beta testing, trial and
    error necessary

•   Launching “your own” ...
Web 2.0 is about values, not technology:
      and it’s the hacker’s values

                 User as producer, Collective...
Are these services used?

•   in the back-office, yes
•   in the front-office, not too much: few
    thousand users as an av...
Why? /2
•   Citizens (and employees) already use web 2.0:
    no action ≠ no risks
•   Likely to stay as it is linked to u...
Is there a visible impact?



Yes, more than the usage:
•   in the back office: evidence used by US Patent
    Office, used ...
Web 2.0 is a set of values more
      than a set of technologies


               User as producer, collective intelligenc...
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?...
Admitimos: las TIC no han cambiado la
       administración publica

•   1990s: nos
    esperábamos que las
    TIC iban a...
Llegan las iniciativas web2.0 en temas
publicos, pero desde fuera el gobierno
                            Source: own elab...
El impacto afecta muchas areas
               de la administracion
       Back office                             Front offi...
Regulacion : Peer-to-patent




                              45
Peer-to-patent: uso y impacto
• Eighty-nine (89) percent of participating patent examiners thought the presentation of pri...
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 ≠
        ...
Porque?/2

La admin20 no presupone el cambio cultural (e-gov
1.0), lo crea a través de nuevos incentivos y palancas :
•   ...
“A problem shared
       is a problem halved
...and a pressure group created”

           Dr. Paul Hodgkin
     director P...
“it’s about pressure points, chinks
        in the armour where
improvements might be possible,
   whether with the consen...
Antes




                     citizen

Government




                               55
Despues




                        citizen      information,
                                   trust, attention

Governm...
Web-oriented architecture

  !"#                                      $%&




UK Cabinet, “Power of information task force...
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...
2. “ENABLE”




• publicar los datos publicos en formato
  standard y reutisable (XML, RSS, RDFa) >
  W3C iG group
• adopt...
3. PROMOVER




•   asegurar banda ancha pervasiva
•   fomentar las e-skills de funcionarios y
    ciutadanos: digital lit...
Desde las recomandaciones hacia una
          vision estrategica

   http://eups20.wordpress.com
Thank you


               david.osimo@tech4i2.com


                   Further information:
Osimo, 2008. Web2.0 in govern...
Back-up slides




                 65
A new innovation model for
               public services

•     A new WAY to innovate public services
    •    Continuous...
Common mistakes

•   “Build it and they will come”: beta testing, trial and
    error necessary

•   Launching “your own” ...
Web 2.0 is about values, not technology:
      and it’s the hacker’s values

                 User as producer, Collective...
Are these services used?

•   in the back-office, yes
•   in the front-office, not too much: few
    thousand users as an av...
Why? /2
•   Citizens (and employees) already use web 2.0:
    no action ≠ no risks
•   Likely to stay as it is linked to u...
Is there a visible impact?



Yes, more than the usage:
•   in the back office: evidence used by US Patent
    Office, used ...
Web 2.0 is a set of values more
      than a set of technologies


               User as producer, collective intelligenc...
Reminder: citizens and
employees do it anyway




                          73
Osimopolitika20v2
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Osimopolitika20v2

1,178

Published on

Published in: Technology, News & Politics

Transcript of "Osimopolitika20v2"

  1. 1. Growing up into adulthood: Gov2.0 from anecdotes to policy Politika 2.0, San Sebastian, 23rd June 2009 David Osimo - Tech4i2 ltd.
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. Many projects of web2.0 in public services, but not by government Source: own elaboration of IPTS PS20 project
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. Regulation : Peer-to-patent 6
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. Service delivery: Patient Opinion 8
  9. 9. Citizens monitoring government: farmsubsidy.org
  10. 10. UK, US: citizens providing detailed insight into gov strategies
  11. 11. From anecdotes to analysis Why does this matter?
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. “A problem shared is a problem halved ...and a pressure group created” Dr. Paul Hodgkin director PatientOpinion.org
  15. 15. “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
  16. 16. Before citizen Government 16
  17. 17. After citizen information, trust, attention Government friends friends of friends public 17
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. From spontaneous to structured: what should government do?
  20. 20. 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
  21. 21. 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
  22. 22. 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
  23. 23. 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
  24. 24. 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
  25. 25. 25
  26. 26. From structured to systemic : a new approach to e-government policy?
  27. 27. 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
  28. 28. http://eups20.wordpress.com
  29. 29. 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
  30. 30. Back-up slides 30
  31. 31. 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
  32. 32. 32
  33. 33. 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
  34. 34. 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
  35. 35. 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
  36. 36. 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
  37. 37. 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
  38. 38. 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
  39. 39. 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
  40. 40. Reminder: citizens and employees do it anyway 40
  41. 41. 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
  42. 42. 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
  43. 43. Llegan las iniciativas web2.0 en temas publicos, pero desde fuera el gobierno Source: own elaboration of IPTS PS20 project
  44. 44. 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
  45. 45. Regulacion : Peer-to-patent 45
  46. 46. 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
  47. 47. Servicios publicos: Patient Opinion 47
  48. 48. Lo ciutadanos monitoran el gasto publico: farmsubsidy.org
  49. 49. UK, US: los ciudadanos revisan las estrategias del gobierno
  50. 50. Desde las anécdotas “cool”, hacia la analisis: Porque es importante?
  51. 51. 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
  52. 52. 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
  53. 53. “A problem shared is a problem halved ...and a pressure group created” Dr. Paul Hodgkin director PatientOpinion.org
  54. 54. “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
  55. 55. Antes citizen Government 55
  56. 56. Despues citizen information, trust, attention Government friends friends of friends public 56
  57. 57. 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
  58. 58. Desde el análisis hasta las recomendaciones: que hacer?
  59. 59. 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
  60. 60. 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
  61. 61. 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
  62. 62. Desde las recomandaciones hacia una vision estrategica http://eups20.wordpress.com
  63. 63. 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
  64. 64. Back-up slides 65
  65. 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
  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. 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
  69. 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
  70. 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
  71. 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
  72. 72. Reminder: citizens and employees do it anyway 73
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×