The Finnish e-participation environment Project brief – in English Teemu Ropponen, project maanger [email_address]
<ul><li>The public authorities shall promote the opportunities for the individual to participate in societal activity and ...
<ul><li>” The eParticipation environment is a set of  web tools ranging from ”Like”-activism to making legislative initiat...
<ul><li>The following presentation is in three sections </li></ul><ul><li>Project overview briefly </li></ul><ul><li>Parti...
The Finnish e-participation environment Part 1: Project brief – in English
National e-participation environment (OSY) <ul><li>Enhances and enables dialog and interaction between  citizens ,  politi...
In practice: tools for, e.g. <ul><li>Planning  of participatory actions </li></ul><ul><li>Deliberative discussions </li></...
Execution <ul><li>The program runs  2010-2013 , led by Ministry of Justice </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Part of larger national S...
What’s it like? THESE ARE DRAFTS AND WILL CHANGE!
What’s it like? THESE ARE DRAFTS AND WILL CHANGE! <ul><li>Some things to note: </li></ul><ul><li>Bringing interesting cont...
Key benefits for citizens and NGO’s <ul><li>Smooth participation in current projects </li></ul><ul><li>Active doing, not j...
Key benefits for public servants and administration <ul><li>Harmonized processes – increased service level, productivity, ...
The Finnish e-participation environment Part 2: Design and implementation – co-creation, participatory design, or what?
<ul><li>Engaging the future users of the services from the very beginning! </li></ul><ul><li>Seems we can’t separate the p...
Citizens as co-developers <ul><li>Co-creation  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Involvement of Citizens, activists, NGO’s etc.  a key...
Issues Knowledge Solutions Actions Special groups Companies Media Citizens NGO’s Civil servants Researchers Politicians
Forums of listening to citizens <ul><li>Citizen panel  (30 people) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Citizens from around Finland, try...
Open communication & collaborative work <ul><li>Active communications through  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Facebook </li></ul></...
Concrete examples? <ul><li>Currently open discussion on the name/brand of the environment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>First, a c...
Bottom-up transformation leadership Some our transformation leaders from the citizen panel
The Finnish e-participation environment Part 3: Challenges
<ul><li>Challenges of creating services for all </li></ul><ul><li>Thinking about ”special issues” that shouldn’t be specia...
Some special groups to consider <ul><li>Accessibility and special groups </li></ul><ul><ul><li>accessiblity? </li></ul></u...
Some challenges  <ul><li>Summarising challenges under four themes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Access </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>...
Challenges - Access <ul><li>How do we break into the  mediascape  of people? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Think e.g. digital nati...
How do we break into people’s mediascapes? senslesss.blogspot.com meriim.blogspot.com juliasdf.wordpress.com
Challenges - Interaction <ul><li>How do we respond fast enough? And in the right ways? </li></ul><ul><li>How do we talk me...
Challenges – Culture and political culture <ul><li>Current inclusion training in many organisations minimal </li></ul><ul>...
Challenges – Technical and management <ul><li>Communicate constantly evolving processes to people properly? </li></ul><ul>...
<ul><li>So is it sounding like… </li></ul><ul><li>Citizen-centric, </li></ul><ul><li>Produsage-like, </li></ul><ul><li>Top...
<ul><li>The public authorities shall promote the opportunities for the individual to participate in societal activity and ...
Contacts for the program  <ul><li>Mikko Levämäki, program manager </li></ul><ul><li>Oili Salminen, project manager </li></...
The Finnish e-participation environment Additional slides – background, theory, etc.
Produsage? <ul><li>Open Participation, Communal Evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Fluid Heterarchy, Ad Hoc Meritocracy </li></u...
But we are online already, right? Yes, but… Services are ” fragmented” . They’re  known quite poorly . Usage and inclusion...
… int’l comparisons rank us low.  <ul><li>1. Etelä-Korea  (2.) </li></ul><ul><li>2. Australia  (5.) </li></ul><ul><li>3. E...
Others are ahead - Iceland constitution renewal online
Our gov’t support to e-democracy? Feb 4 , 2010 (previous) government ’decision ” Finland to be among the top 10 counties i...
Is e-democracy/Gov 2.0 hype? Model: Gartner Note : In short term, effects of technology tend to be overrated – but on the ...
Oh no, more services to this bunch? Greg Verdino:  http:// gregverdino.typepad.com / greg_verdinos_blog /2007/07/ social-m...
How do we break into people’s mediascapes? senslesss.blogspot.com meriim.blogspot.com juliasdf.wordpress.com
<ul><li>Virkamiehet käyttävät työssään paljon verkkoa </li></ul><ul><li>Verkkoviestinnän yleistyminen on madaltanut kansal...
Suomen e-government -konsepti Source: Finnish Ministry of Justice, SADe-Report 2009 Tänään keskustelu pääosin  tällä aluee...
Mikä muuttuu? Source:OECD
Source: Nordfors et al. 2009 ( eGovernment of Tomorrow Future Scenarios for 2020) eGovernment 2020 scenarios Päästäänkö tä...
Towards Collaborative Government? Participation Transparency Collaboration Sources: USA Gov/White House 2009, Australian G...
<ul><li>People have  higher education and more free time   than ever,  </li></ul><ul><li>As well as cheap  computing power...
<ul><li>Roles of users  => from consumers to fluid roles, switching from consumer to producer (cmp. Social media) => users...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

The Finnish e-participation environment Project brief – in English

598 views
535 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
598
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 10.11.11
  • Tässä sanomani kiteytettynä: ” Osallistumisympäristö kokoaa verkkovälineitä kevytaktivismista lakialoitteiden tekemiseen”. Jo ensi talvesta alkaen käytännössä vaikuttaminen verkossa paranee.
  • Tässä sanomani kiteytettynä: ” Osallistumisympäristö kokoaa verkkovälineitä kevytaktivismista lakialoitteiden tekemiseen”. Jo ensi talvesta alkaen käytännössä vaikuttaminen verkossa paranee.
  • Tässä sanomani kiteytettynä: ” Osallistumisympäristö kokoaa verkkovälineitä kevytaktivismista lakialoitteiden tekemiseen”. Jo ensi talvesta alkaen käytännössä vaikuttaminen verkossa paranee.
  • 10.11.11
  • Tavoite vastaa myös aikoinaan eduskunnalle tehtyäosallisuusselontekoa jossa esitettiin 4 osallisuusmuotoa: Tietoosallisuus =&gt; oikeus tiedon saamiseen ja tuottamiseen, kuuleminen , kysely ihin vastaaminen ja palvelusitoumukset. Suunnitteluosallisuus =&gt; valmisteluun liittyvää vuorovaikutusta, kuten esimerkiksi yhteissuunnittelu ja kaupunkifoorumit Päätösosallisuus =&gt; osallistumista palvelujen tuottamista tai omaa asuinaluetta koskeviin päätöksiin esim. Aluelautakunnalle valtuuston delegoima päätöksenteko Toimintaosallisuus =&gt; esim. Palvelujen tuottaminen talkoovoimin Hankkeessa tuotettavat välineet mahdollistavat 3 ensimmäisen tason saavuttamisen
  • 20.05.11
  • 20.05.11
  • 20.05.11
  • 20.05.11
  • 10.11.11
  • 10.11.11
  • 10.11.11
  • Tässä sanomani kiteytettynä: ” Osallistumisympäristö kokoaa verkkovälineitä kevytaktivismista lakialoitteiden tekemiseen”. Jo ensi talvesta alkaen käytännössä vaikuttaminen verkossa paranee.
  • 20.05.11
  • 10.11.11
  • 10.11.11
  • 10.11.11
  • Tässä muutosprojektissa siis pitää saada aikaan positiivinen onnistumisten kierre. Virkamiesten pitää innostua, mutta niin myös kansalaisten. Todellista muutosjohtajuutta, Esimerkkinä 10.11.11
  • 10.11.11
  • Tässä sanomani kiteytettynä: ” Osallistumisympäristö kokoaa verkkovälineitä kevytaktivismista lakialoitteiden tekemiseen”. Jo ensi talvesta alkaen käytännössä vaikuttaminen verkossa paranee.
  • 10.11.11
  • 10.11.11
  • 10.11.11
  • 10.11.11
  • 10.11.11
  • 10.11.11
  • Tässä sanomani kiteytettynä: ” Osallistumisympäristö kokoaa verkkovälineitä kevytaktivismista lakialoitteiden tekemiseen”. Jo ensi talvesta alkaen käytännössä vaikuttaminen verkossa paranee.
  • Tässä sanomani kiteytettynä: ” Osallistumisympäristö kokoaa verkkovälineitä kevytaktivismista lakialoitteiden tekemiseen”. Jo ensi talvesta alkaen käytännössä vaikuttaminen verkossa paranee.
  • 10.11.11
  • 10.11.11
  • 10.11.11
  • Hallinnossa, myös OM:ssä, on nyt ja on menneisyydessä ollut hyvinkin edistyksellisiä palveluita. OtaKantaa oli aikanaan suunnannäyttäjä, nykyajan hyvä esimerkki on vaikkapa Asunto-osakeyhtiälaki, joka on Facebookissa. Mutta, kuitenkin: Nykyiset palvelut ovat sirpaloituneet ympäriinsä. Ne tunnetaan huonosti , käytetään melko vähän. Osallistumiskäytännöt vaihtelevat valtavasti. 10.11.11
  • Meillä elää myytti siitä, että olemme tietoyhteiskunnan kärjessä. Olimme joskus, emme ole enää. Erilaisissa tutkimuksissa kuten YK:n E-participation indexissä, sijoituksemme ei ole likimainkaan sitä mitä kuvitellaan tai mitä sen pitäs olla. Tämä nivoutuu yhteen myös sen kanssa, että ylipäätään kuulemisessa on vähintäänkin paljon parantamisen varaa, esim, OECD:n mukaan, 10.11.11
  • ” kilpailevat” maat kuten Islanti ovat meitä edellä ja luovat Islanti 2.0:aa. Esimerkkinä olette saattaneet huomata vaikkapa perustuslakiuudistuksen, jossa on mukana kansalaisia ja jotka verkossa luo uutta perustuslakia. Erittäin kiinnostavaa tässä on huomata perustelut: ” koko kansan projekti jotta epäluulo hallintoa kohtaan hälvenisi” Ei sinänsä yllätä finanssikriisin jälkeen, hallinto on ottanut opiksi  10.11.11
  • Tän tyyppinen projekti ei voi onnistua ilman tukea ja sitoutumista johdolta. Valtioneuvoston periaatepäätös n. 1,5 vuoden takaa toteaa, että tavoitteena on, että Suomi on verkkodemokratiavertailujen 10 kärkimaan joukkoon 2010-luvun loppuun mennessä. Verkkodemokratiaan liittyvät asiat, mukaan lukien ylipäätään kansalaisten parempi kuuleminen, ovat myös vahvasti esillä nykyisessä hallitusohjelamssa. Sikäli edellytykset ovat hyvät. Tämä hankkeen taustasta, käytännöstä vähän. 10.11.11
  • 10.11.11
  • 10.11.11
  • 10.11.11
  • The Finnish e-participation environment Project brief – in English

    1. 1. The Finnish e-participation environment Project brief – in English Teemu Ropponen, project maanger [email_address]
    2. 2. <ul><li>The public authorities shall promote the opportunities for the individual to participate in societal activity and to influence the decisions that concern him or her. </li></ul><ul><li>Finnish Constitution </li></ul><ul><li>Chap. 2 - Basic rights and liberties . Sect. 14 - Electoral and participatory rights </li></ul>
    3. 3. <ul><li>” The eParticipation environment is a set of web tools ranging from ”Like”-activism to making legislative initiatives” </li></ul>
    4. 4. <ul><li>The following presentation is in three sections </li></ul><ul><li>Project overview briefly </li></ul><ul><li>Participatory design and development of the whole system </li></ul><ul><li>Issues – especially related to access for all </li></ul>
    5. 5. The Finnish e-participation environment Part 1: Project brief – in English
    6. 6. National e-participation environment (OSY) <ul><li>Enhances and enables dialog and interaction between citizens , politicians and public servants and improves e-participation possibilities – at a local and national level </li></ul><ul><li>Creates new web-based tools and practices , into a ”toolbox” that is easy to take into use – by citizens, NGO’s, government agencies and municipalities </li></ul>
    7. 7. In practice: tools for, e.g. <ul><li>Planning of participatory actions </li></ul><ul><li>Deliberative discussions </li></ul><ul><li>Several kinds of online consultation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>in e.g., drafting of laws </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Questionnaires, polls, statements </li></ul><ul><li>Citizens’ initiatives (national & local level) </li></ul><ul><li>Monitoring the work of representatives (i.e., think ”Theyworkforus.co.uk”) </li></ul>
    8. 8. Execution <ul><li>The program runs 2010-2013 , led by Ministry of Justice </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Part of larger national SADe eServices and eAdministration acceleration program run by Ministry of Finance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Partners include municipalities, ministries, Parliament </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Iterative approach – first official releases in public use early 2012 , with pilots starting during 2011 </li></ul>
    9. 9. What’s it like? THESE ARE DRAFTS AND WILL CHANGE!
    10. 10. What’s it like? THESE ARE DRAFTS AND WILL CHANGE! <ul><li>Some things to note: </li></ul><ul><li>Bringing interesting content to front page </li></ul><ul><ul><li>random comments, images </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>participation opportunties that are just about to end </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Integrating with social media </li></ul><ul><ul><li>content as well as e.g. login </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Integrating with external feeds </li></ul>
    11. 11. Key benefits for citizens and NGO’s <ul><li>Smooth participation in current projects </li></ul><ul><li>Active doing, not just being informed </li></ul><ul><li>Advanced tools for web discussions, real-time online collaboration, networking, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Tools for online drafting and submission of formal comments/statements </li></ul><ul><li>Note: NGO’s and citizens can also be draftsmen </li></ul>
    12. 12. Key benefits for public servants and administration <ul><li>Harmonized processes – increased service level, productivity, impact </li></ul><ul><li>Less overlapping information systems & personnel dependency </li></ul><ul><li>More transparency in public sector projects </li></ul><ul><li>Better decicions, more satisfied stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Better reach in inclusion activities </li></ul>
    13. 13. The Finnish e-participation environment Part 2: Design and implementation – co-creation, participatory design, or what?
    14. 14. <ul><li>Engaging the future users of the services from the very beginning! </li></ul><ul><li>Seems we can’t separate the process of building the platform and processes, from the actual e-participation activities! </li></ul>
    15. 15. Citizens as co-developers <ul><li>Co-creation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Involvement of Citizens, activists, NGO’s etc. a key success factor – during planning, building, testing, rollout… </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Gov 2.0 / Web 2.0 approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Open data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Widgets and mashups </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>=> Reuse of data and parts of functionality in/from other services on the web </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Long-term goal: an ecosystem of services – with commercial and non-profit add-on services </li></ul>
    16. 16. Issues Knowledge Solutions Actions Special groups Companies Media Citizens NGO’s Civil servants Researchers Politicians
    17. 17. Forums of listening to citizens <ul><li>Citizen panel (30 people) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Citizens from around Finland, trying to get a large variety of people and viewpoints </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Meets F2F twice a year, mainly on the internet </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Developer ecosystem (~100 people and organisations) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>E-democracy activists, ICT companies, NGO’s, poltical organisations, research institutes, etc… </li></ul></ul>
    18. 18. Open communication & collaborative work <ul><li>Active communications through </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Facebook </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Project blog </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Owela web lab (discussion platform) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Open collaboration – most documents open for commenting in development phases </li></ul><ul><ul><li>GoogleDocs </li></ul></ul>
    19. 19. Concrete examples? <ul><li>Currently open discussion on the name/brand of the environment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>First, a citizen panel discussion, now a wide open discussion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>http://otakantaa.fi/aihe/ehdota-nimeä-uudelle-verkko-osallistumisympäristölle </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Help from citizens in e.g. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Defining open data interfaces </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Views on usability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Views in communication </li></ul></ul><ul><li>We’re still in fairly early stages </li></ul>
    20. 20. Bottom-up transformation leadership Some our transformation leaders from the citizen panel
    21. 21. The Finnish e-participation environment Part 3: Challenges
    22. 22. <ul><li>Challenges of creating services for all </li></ul><ul><li>Thinking about ”special issues” that shouldn’t be special in the first place! </li></ul>
    23. 23. Some special groups to consider <ul><li>Accessibility and special groups </li></ul><ul><ul><li>accessiblity? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>multicultural? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>multilingual? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rights of non-nationals (e.g., foreign residents) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Special cases </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Digital divide </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Avoiding methods and processes of exclusion </li></ul></ul>
    24. 24. Some challenges <ul><li>Summarising challenges under four themes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Access </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interaction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Culture/political culture </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical /management </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Currently, these are more about the building and processes – as we are not live yet </li></ul>
    25. 25. Challenges - Access <ul><li>How do we break into the mediascape of people? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Think e.g. digital natives vs. digital immigrants </li></ul></ul><ul><li>How do we allow access for all – with security, privacy, etc. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>are we excluding e.g. immigrants with technologies like web banking codes? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accessbility, WCAG and other standards? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Official vs. unofficial languages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Finnish, Swedish – others? </li></ul></ul>
    26. 26. How do we break into people’s mediascapes? senslesss.blogspot.com meriim.blogspot.com juliasdf.wordpress.com
    27. 27. Challenges - Interaction <ul><li>How do we respond fast enough? And in the right ways? </li></ul><ul><li>How do we talk meaningful language? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Inclusive language for all? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Plain language to be taken seriously? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Even in the government programme </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>People are expecting social media –like fast responses </li></ul>
    28. 28. Challenges – Culture and political culture <ul><li>Current inclusion training in many organisations minimal </li></ul><ul><li>Is participation taken seriously enough? </li></ul><ul><li>Clashing communication cultures and expectations </li></ul><ul><li>This is a transformation project, not just technology! </li></ul>
    29. 29. Challenges – Technical and management <ul><li>Communicate constantly evolving processes to people properly? </li></ul><ul><li>Listening to citizens without losing focus of the big picture </li></ul><ul><li>Planned vs. emerging things vs. budgeting </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How to feed good ideas!? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>“ Eating your own dogfood” is difficult and highlights the challenges </li></ul>
    30. 30. <ul><li>So is it sounding like… </li></ul><ul><li>Citizen-centric, </li></ul><ul><li>Produsage-like, </li></ul><ul><li>Top-down & bottom up -driven </li></ul><ul><li>Ecosystem -forming </li></ul><ul><li>Co-creation of government?  </li></ul>
    31. 31. <ul><li>The public authorities shall promote the opportunities for the individual to participate in societal activity and to influence the decisions that concern him or her. </li></ul><ul><li>Finnish Constitution </li></ul><ul><li>Chap. 2 - Basic rights and liberties . Sect. 14 - Electoral and participatory rights </li></ul>
    32. 32. Contacts for the program <ul><li>Mikko Levämäki, program manager </li></ul><ul><li>Oili Salminen, project manager </li></ul><ul><li>Teemu Ropponen, project manager </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Blog: www.osallistumisymparisto.fi </li></ul><ul><li>FB: www.facebook.com / groups / osallistumisymparisto / </li></ul><ul><li>FB: www.facebook.com/Osallistumisymparistohanke </li></ul>
    33. 33. The Finnish e-participation environment Additional slides – background, theory, etc.
    34. 34. Produsage? <ul><li>Open Participation, Communal Evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Fluid Heterarchy, Ad Hoc Meritocracy </li></ul><ul><li>Unfinished Artefacts, Continuing Process </li></ul><ul><li>Common Property, Individual Rewards </li></ul><ul><li>Bruns, Axel. 2008. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond from Production to Produsage. </li></ul>
    35. 35. But we are online already, right? Yes, but… Services are ” fragmented” . They’re known quite poorly . Usage and inclusion activities range.
    36. 36. … int’l comparisons rank us low. <ul><li>1. Etelä-Korea (2.) </li></ul><ul><li>2. Australia (5.) </li></ul><ul><li>3. Espanja </li></ul><ul><li>4. Uusi-Seelanti (6.) </li></ul><ul><li>4. Iso-Britannia </li></ul><ul><li>6. Japani (12.) </li></ul><ul><li>6. USA (1.) </li></ul><ul><li>8. Kanada (11.) </li></ul><ul><li>9. Viro (8.) </li></ul><ul><li>9. Singapore (10.) </li></ul><ul><li>10. Bahrain </li></ul><ul><li>12. Malesia </li></ul><ul><li>13. Tanska (3.) </li></ul><ul><li>14. Saksa </li></ul><ul><li>15. Ranska (4.) </li></ul><ul><li>15. Alankomaat </li></ul><ul><li>17. Belgia </li></ul><ul><li>18. Kazakstan </li></ul><ul><li>19. Liettua </li></ul><ul><li>20. Slovenia </li></ul><ul><li>21. Itävalta </li></ul><ul><li>21. Norja </li></ul>23. Kypros 23. Ruotsi (9.) 25. Kroatia 26. Kolumbia 26. Irlanti 28. Kirgisia 28. Mongolia 30. Suomi (45.) 30. Israel 32. Kiina 32. Meksiko (7.) … 157. Vanuatu E-participation index (YK 2010, 2008)
    37. 37. Others are ahead - Iceland constitution renewal online
    38. 38. Our gov’t support to e-democracy? Feb 4 , 2010 (previous) government ’decision ” Finland to be among the top 10 counties in international e-democracy benchmarks”
    39. 39. Is e-democracy/Gov 2.0 hype? Model: Gartner Note : In short term, effects of technology tend to be overrated – but on the long run, the effects are underrated.,
    40. 40. Oh no, more services to this bunch? Greg Verdino: http:// gregverdino.typepad.com / greg_verdinos_blog /2007/07/ social-media-ho.html
    41. 41. How do we break into people’s mediascapes? senslesss.blogspot.com meriim.blogspot.com juliasdf.wordpress.com
    42. 42. <ul><li>Virkamiehet käyttävät työssään paljon verkkoa </li></ul><ul><li>Verkkoviestinnän yleistyminen on madaltanut kansalaisten kynnystä ottaa yhteyttä virkamiehiin </li></ul><ul><li>Virkamiehet suhtautuvat myönteisesti yhteydenottoihin ja kokevat, että verkko on siihen hyvä väline </li></ul><ul><li>Ongelmia: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Toimintamallien puuttuminen </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Keskustelukulttuurin puutteellisuus </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Kanavat ja menetelmät tunnetaan huonosti </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tahtotilan puuttuminen, resursointi </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>Virkamiesten asenteet verkko-osallistumiseen (VTT Janne Matikainen, HY, 2008)
    43. 43. Suomen e-government -konsepti Source: Finnish Ministry of Justice, SADe-Report 2009 Tänään keskustelu pääosin tällä alueella
    44. 44. Mikä muuttuu? Source:OECD
    45. 45. Source: Nordfors et al. 2009 ( eGovernment of Tomorrow Future Scenarios for 2020) eGovernment 2020 scenarios Päästäänkö tänne? Miten?
    46. 46. Towards Collaborative Government? Participation Transparency Collaboration Sources: USA Gov/White House 2009, Australian Government 2.0 Taskforce 2009, Poikola 2009 Gov 2.0 refers to modernization of the way governments engage and collaborate with citizens and involves policy shifts in culture and empowerment of citizens , harnessing the opportunities of new technologies .
    47. 47. <ul><li>People have higher education and more free time than ever, </li></ul><ul><li>As well as cheap computing power & networking </li></ul><ul><li>peer production & participation phenomena , </li></ul><ul><li>e.g., theories and concepts of: </li></ul><ul><li>Networked information society </li></ul><ul><li>Produsage </li></ul><ul><li>Crowdsourcing </li></ul><ul><li>Wisdom of the crowds </li></ul><ul><li>Intrinsic & extrinsic motivations for participation, </li></ul><ul><li>think e.g., Wikipedia, social networks & media . </li></ul>Possibilities & enablers of collaborative government? Sources: E.g., Ahlqvist et. al 2008, Benkler 2006, Surowiecky 2004, Shirky 2008, Howe 2008, Bruns 2008
    48. 48. <ul><li>Roles of users => from consumers to fluid roles, switching from consumer to producer (cmp. Social media) => users & user community effectively part of the provider (value) network </li></ul><ul><li>However, users don’t have stated strategies or goals the same way as organizations => motivation mechanisms </li></ul><ul><li>” Revenue” and ” value creation ” in collaborative e-government (& e-democracy) services – how to measure it! </li></ul><ul><li>Potential value creation outside of the services itself – e.g., through reuse of data (open API’s) </li></ul>What Makes This Difficult?

    ×