Osimopolitika20v2

  • 1,111 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,111
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
17
Comments
0
Likes
7

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Growing up into adulthood: Gov2.0 from anecdotes to policy Politika 2.0, San Sebastian, 23rd June 2009 David Osimo - Tech4i2 ltd.
  • 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. 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. Many projects of web2.0 in public services, but not by government Source: own elaboration of IPTS PS20 project
  • 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. Regulation : Peer-to-patent 6
  • 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. Service delivery: Patient Opinion 8
  • 9. Citizens monitoring government: farmsubsidy.org
  • 10. UK, US: citizens providing detailed insight into gov strategies
  • 11. From anecdotes to analysis Why does this matter?
  • 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. 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. “A problem shared is a problem halved ...and a pressure group created” Dr. Paul Hodgkin director PatientOpinion.org
  • 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. Before citizen Government 16
  • 17. After citizen information, trust, attention Government friends friends of friends public 17
  • 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. From spontaneous to structured: what should government do?
  • 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
  • 26. From structured to systemic : a new approach to e-government policy?
  • 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. http://eups20.wordpress.com
  • 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. Back-up slides 30
  • 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
  • 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Reminder: citizens and employees do it anyway 40
  • 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. 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. Llegan las iniciativas web2.0 en temas publicos, pero desde fuera el gobierno Source: own elaboration of IPTS PS20 project
  • 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. Regulacion : Peer-to-patent 45
  • 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. Servicios publicos: Patient Opinion 47
  • 48. Lo ciutadanos monitoran el gasto publico: farmsubsidy.org
  • 49. UK, US: los ciudadanos revisan las estrategias del gobierno
  • 50. Desde las anécdotas “cool”, hacia la analisis: Porque es importante?
  • 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. 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. “A problem shared is a problem halved ...and a pressure group created” Dr. Paul Hodgkin director PatientOpinion.org
  • 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. Antes citizen Government 55
  • 56. Despues citizen information, trust, attention Government friends friends of friends public 56
  • 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. Desde el análisis hasta las recomendaciones: que hacer?
  • 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. 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. 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. Desde las recomandaciones hacia una vision estrategica http://eups20.wordpress.com
  • 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. Back-up slides 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Reminder: citizens and employees do it anyway 73