Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
The Finnish e-participation environmentProject brief – in EnglishTeemu Ropponen, project maangerTeemu.Ropponen@om.fi
The public authorities shall promote the  opportunities for the individual to participate  in societal activity and to inf...
”The eParticipation environment is a set of web  tools ranging from ”Like”-activism to making  legislative initiatives”
The following presentation is in three sections- Project overview briefly- Participatory design and development of the  wh...
The Finnish e-participation environmentPart 1: Project brief – in English
National e-participation environment (OSY) • Enhances and enables dialog and interaction   between citizens, politicians a...
In practice: tools for, e.g. • Planning of participatory actions • Deliberative discussions • Several kinds of online cons...
Execution• The program runs 2010-2013, led by Ministry of  Justice   • Part of larger national SADe eServices and eAdminis...
What’s it like?THESE ARE DRAFTS AND WILL CHANGE!
THESE ARE DRAFTS AND WILL CHANGE!What’s it like?                  Some things to note:                  - Bringing interes...
Key benefits for citizens and NGO’s• Smooth participation in current projects• Active doing, not just being informed• Adva...
Key benefits for public servants andadministration• Harmonized processes – increased service level,  productivity, impact•...
The Finnish e-participation environmentPart 2: Design and implementation – co-creation,participatory design, or what?
Engaging the future users of the services from the  very beginning!Seems we can’t separate the process of building  the pl...
Citizens as co-developers• Co-creation   • Involvement of Citizens, activists, NGO’s etc.     a key success factor – durin...
Citizens   Companies                       Special groups                                           NGO’sResearchers      ...
Forums of listening to citizens• Citizen panel (30 people)   – Citizens from around Finland, trying to get a large     var...
Open communication & collaborative work• Active communications through   – Facebook   – Project blog   – Owela web lab (di...
Concrete examples?• Currently open discussion on the name/brand  of the environment    – First, a citizen panel discussion...
Bottom-up transformation leadership Some our transformation leaders from the citizen panel
The Finnish e-participation environmentPart 3: Challenges
Challenges of creating services for allThinking about ”special issues” that shouldn’t be  special in the first place!
Some special groups to consider• Accessibility and special groups   – accessiblity?   – multicultural?   – multilingual?  ...
Some challenges• Summarising challenges under four themes   – Access   – Interaction   – Culture/political culture   – Tec...
Challenges - Access• How do we break into the mediascape of  people?   – Think e.g. digital natives vs. digital immigrants...
How do we break into people’s mediascapes?     senslesss.blogspot.com     meriim.blogspot.com25   juliasdf.wordpress.com
Challenges - Interaction• How do we respond fast enough? And in the  right ways?• How do we talk meaningful language?   – ...
Challenges – Culture and political culture• Current inclusion training in many  organisations minimal• Is participation ta...
Challenges – Technical and management• Communicate constantly evolving processes  to people properly?• Listening to citize...
So is it sounding like…Citizen-centric,Produsage-like,Top-down & bottom up -drivenEcosystem -formingCo-creation of governm...
The public authorities shall promote the  opportunities for the individual to participate  in societal activity and to inf...
Contacts for the programMikko Levämäki, program managerOili Salminen, project managerTeemu Ropponen, project managerFirstn...
The Finnish e-participation environmentAdditional slides – background, theory, etc.
Produsage?•   Open Participation, Communal Evaluation•   Fluid Heterarchy, Ad Hoc Meritocracy•   Unfinished Artefacts, Con...
But we are online already, right? Yes, but…Services are ”fragmented”.They’re known quite poorly.Usage and inclusion activi...
…int’l comparisons rank us low.1. Etelä-Korea (2.)        12. Malesia       23. Kypros2. Australia (5.)          13. Tansk...
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 in i...
Is e-democracy/Gov 2.0 hype?                 Note:                 In short term, effects of technology tend              ...
Oh no, more services to this bunch?39Greg Verdino: http://gregverdino.typepad.com/greg_verdinos_blog/2007/07/social-media-...
How do we break into people’s     mediascapes?     senslesss.blogspot.com     meriim.blogspot.com40   juliasdf.wordpress.com
Virkamiesten asenteet verkko-osallistumiseen (VTT Janne Matikainen, HY, 2008)   • Virkamiehet käyttävät työssään paljon ve...
Suomen e-government -konsepti                                                        Tänään keskustelu pääosin            ...
Mikä muuttuu?                Source:OECD
eGovernment 2020 scenariosPäästäänkö tänne?Miten? Source: Nordfors et al. 2009 (eGovernment of Tomorrow Future Scenarios f...
Towards Collaborative Government?             Collaboration            Gov 2.0 refers to modernization                    ...
Possibilities & enablers of collaborativegovernment?People have higher education and more free time than ever,As well as c...
What Makes This Difficult?Roles of users => from consumers to fluid roles, switching from consumer    to producer (cmp. So...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

The Finnish e-participation environment Project brief – in English

518

Published on

Teemu Ropponen, Project Manager, Ministry of Justice, Finland

“OSY- The Finnish eParticipation environment”,

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
518
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "The Finnish e-participation environment Project brief – in English"

  1. 1. The Finnish e-participation environmentProject brief – in EnglishTeemu Ropponen, project maangerTeemu.Ropponen@om.fi
  2. 2. 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.Finnish ConstitutionChap. 2 - Basic rights and liberties. Sect. 14 - Electoral and participatory rights
  3. 3. ”The eParticipation environment is a set of web tools ranging from ”Like”-activism to making legislative initiatives”
  4. 4. The following presentation is in three sections- Project overview briefly- Participatory design and development of the whole system- Issues – especially related to access for all
  5. 5. The Finnish e-participation environmentPart 1: Project brief – in English
  6. 6. National e-participation environment (OSY) • Enhances and enables dialog and interaction between citizens, politicians and public servants and improves e-participation possibilities – at a local and national level • 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
  7. 7. In practice: tools for, e.g. • Planning of participatory actions • Deliberative discussions • Several kinds of online consultation • in e.g., drafting of laws • Questionnaires, polls, statements • Citizens’ initiatives (national & local level) • Monitoring the work of representatives (i.e., think ”Theyworkforus.co.uk”)
  8. 8. Execution• The program runs 2010-2013, led by Ministry of Justice • Part of larger national SADe eServices and eAdministration acceleration program run by Ministry of Finance • Partners include municipalities, ministries, Parliament• Iterative approach – first official releases in public use early 2012, with pilots starting during 2011
  9. 9. What’s it like?THESE ARE DRAFTS AND WILL CHANGE!
  10. 10. THESE ARE DRAFTS AND WILL CHANGE!What’s it like? Some things to note: - Bringing interesting content to front page - random comments, images - participation opportunties that are just about to end - Integrating with social media - content as well as e.g. login - Integrating with external feeds -
  11. 11. Key benefits for citizens and NGO’s• Smooth participation in current projects• Active doing, not just being informed• Advanced tools for web discussions, real-time online collaboration, networking, etc.• Tools for online drafting and submission of formal comments/statements• Note: NGO’s and citizens can also be draftsmen 10
  12. 12. Key benefits for public servants andadministration• Harmonized processes – increased service level, productivity, impact• Less overlapping information systems & personnel dependency• More transparency in public sector projects• Better decicions, more satisfied stakeholders• Better reach in inclusion activities 11
  13. 13. The Finnish e-participation environmentPart 2: Design and implementation – co-creation,participatory design, or what?
  14. 14. Engaging the future users of the services from the very beginning!Seems we can’t separate the process of building the platform and processes, from the actual e- participation activities!
  15. 15. Citizens as co-developers• Co-creation • Involvement of Citizens, activists, NGO’s etc. a key success factor – during planning, building, testing, rollout…• Gov 2.0 / Web 2.0 approach • Open data • Widgets and mashups => Reuse of data and parts of functionality in/from other services on the web• Long-term goal: an ecosystem of services – with commercial and non-profit add-on services
  16. 16. Citizens Companies Special groups NGO’sResearchers Issues Knowledge Civil servants Media Solutions Actions Politicians
  17. 17. Forums of listening to citizens• Citizen panel (30 people) – Citizens from around Finland, trying to get a large variety of people and viewpoints – Meets F2F twice a year, mainly on the internet• Developer ecosystem (~100 people and organisations) – E-democracy activists, ICT companies, NGO’s, poltical organisations, research institutes, etc… 16
  18. 18. Open communication & collaborative work• Active communications through – Facebook – Project blog – Owela web lab (discussion platform)• Open collaboration – most documents open for commenting in development phases – GoogleDocs 17
  19. 19. Concrete examples?• Currently open discussion on the name/brand of the environment – First, a citizen panel discussion, now a wide open discussion – http://otakantaa.fi/aihe/ehdota-nimeä-uudelle-verkko- osallistumisympäristölle• Help from citizens in e.g. – Defining open data interfaces – Views on usability – Views in communication 18• We’re still in fairly early stages
  20. 20. Bottom-up transformation leadership Some our transformation leaders from the citizen panel
  21. 21. The Finnish e-participation environmentPart 3: Challenges
  22. 22. Challenges of creating services for allThinking about ”special issues” that shouldn’t be special in the first place!
  23. 23. Some special groups to consider• Accessibility and special groups – accessiblity? – multicultural? – multilingual? – Rights of non-nationals (e.g., foreign residents)• Special cases – Digital divide – Avoiding methods and processes of exclusion 22
  24. 24. Some challenges• Summarising challenges under four themes – Access – Interaction – Culture/political culture – Technical/management• Currently, these are more about the building and processes – as we are not live yet 23
  25. 25. Challenges - Access• How do we break into the mediascape of people? – Think e.g. digital natives vs. digital immigrants• How do we allow access for all – with security, privacy, etc. – are we excluding e.g. immigrants with technologies like web banking codes? – Accessbility, WCAG and other standards?• Official vs. unofficial languages – Finnish, Swedish – others? 24
  26. 26. How do we break into people’s mediascapes? senslesss.blogspot.com meriim.blogspot.com25 juliasdf.wordpress.com
  27. 27. Challenges - Interaction• How do we respond fast enough? And in the right ways?• How do we talk meaningful language? – Inclusive language for all? – Plain language to be taken seriously? • Even in the government programme• People are expecting social media –like fast responses 26
  28. 28. Challenges – Culture and political culture• Current inclusion training in many organisations minimal• Is participation taken seriously enough?• Clashing communication cultures and expectations• This is a transformation project, not just technology! 27
  29. 29. Challenges – Technical and management• Communicate constantly evolving processes to people properly?• Listening to citizens without losing focus of the big picture• Planned vs. emerging things vs. budgeting – How to feed good ideas!?• “Eating your own dogfood” is difficult and highlights the challenges 28
  30. 30. So is it sounding like…Citizen-centric,Produsage-like,Top-down & bottom up -drivenEcosystem -formingCo-creation of government? 
  31. 31. 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.Finnish ConstitutionChap. 2 - Basic rights and liberties. Sect. 14 - Electoral and participatory rights
  32. 32. Contacts for the programMikko Levämäki, program managerOili Salminen, project managerTeemu Ropponen, project managerFirstname.lastname@om.fiBlog: www.osallistumisymparisto.fiFB: www.facebook.com/groups/osallistumisymparisto/FB: www.facebook.com/Osallistumisymparistohanke 31
  33. 33. The Finnish e-participation environmentAdditional slides – background, theory, etc.
  34. 34. Produsage?• Open Participation, Communal Evaluation• Fluid Heterarchy, Ad Hoc Meritocracy• Unfinished Artefacts, Continuing Process• Common Property, Individual RewardsBruns, Axel. 2008. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond from Production to Produsage. 33
  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.1. Etelä-Korea (2.) 12. Malesia 23. Kypros2. Australia (5.) 13. Tanska (3.) 23. Ruotsi (9.)3. Espanja 14. Saksa 25. Kroatia4. Uusi-Seelanti (6.) 15. Ranska (4.) 26. Kolumbia4. Iso-Britannia 15. Alankomaat 26. Irlanti6. Japani (12.) 17. Belgia 28. Kirgisia6. USA (1.) 18. Kazakstan 28. Mongolia8. Kanada (11.) 19. Liettua 30. Suomi (45.)9. Viro (8.) 20. Slovenia 30. Israel9. Singapore (10.) 21. Itävalta 32. Kiina10. Bahrain 21. Norja 32. Meksiko (7.) … 157. VanuatuE-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 internationale-democracy benchmarks”
  39. 39. Is e-democracy/Gov 2.0 hype? Note: In short term, effects of technology tend to be overrated – but on the long run, the effects are underrated.,Model: Gartner
  40. 40. Oh no, more services to this bunch?39Greg 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.com40 juliasdf.wordpress.com
  42. 42. Virkamiesten asenteet verkko-osallistumiseen (VTT Janne Matikainen, HY, 2008) • Virkamiehet käyttävät työssään paljon verkkoa • Verkkoviestinnän yleistyminen on madaltanut kansalaisten kynnystä ottaa yhteyttä virkamiehiin • Virkamiehet suhtautuvat myönteisesti yhteydenottoihin ja kokevat, että verkko on siihen hyvä väline • Ongelmia: » Toimintamallien puuttuminen » Keskustelukulttuurin puutteellisuus » Kanavat ja menetelmät tunnetaan huonosti » Tahtotilan puuttuminen, resursointi
  43. 43. Suomen e-government -konsepti Tänään keskustelu pääosin tällä alueellaSource: Finnish Ministry of Justice, SADe-Report 2009
  44. 44. Mikä muuttuu? Source:OECD
  45. 45. eGovernment 2020 scenariosPäästäänkö tänne?Miten? Source: Nordfors et al. 2009 (eGovernment of Tomorrow Future Scenarios for 2020)
  46. 46. Towards Collaborative Government? Collaboration Gov 2.0 refers to modernization of the way governments engage and collaborate with citizens and Participatio involves policy shifts in culture n and empowerment of citizens, harnessing the opportunities of new technologies. TransparencySources: USA Gov/White House 2009, Australian Government 2.0 Taskforce 2009,Poikola 2009
  47. 47. Possibilities & enablers of collaborativegovernment?People have higher education and more free time than ever,As well as cheap computing power & networking peer production & participation phenomena,e.g., theories and concepts of:- Networked information society- Produsage- Crowdsourcing- Wisdom of the crowdsIntrinsic & extrinsic motivations for participation, think e.g., Wikipedia, social networks & media.Sources: E.g., Ahlqvist et. al 2008, Benkler 2006, Surowiecky 2004, Shirky 2008,Howe 2008, Bruns 2008
  48. 48. What Makes This Difficult?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) networkHowever, users don’t have stated strategies or goals the same way as organizations => motivation mechanisms”Revenue” and ”value creation” in collaborative e-government (& e- democracy) services – how to measure it!Potential value creation outside of the services itself – e.g., through reuse of data (open API’s)
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

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

×