• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Designing e-government services for collaboration between citizens and the public sector
 

Designing e-government services for collaboration between citizens and the public sector

on

  • 1,823 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,823
Views on SlideShare
1,805
Embed Views
18

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
32
Comments
0

1 Embed 18

http://www.slideshare.net 18

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Designing e-government services for collaboration between citizens and the public sector Designing e-government services for collaboration between citizens and the public sector Presentation Transcript

    • Designing E-government Services for Collaboration Between Citizens and the Public Sector
      T-109.4300 Network Services Business Models, lecture8.4.2010
      Teemu Ropponen, teemu.ropponen@tkk.fi
      Department of Media Technology
    • Goal of the Lecture
      To give an introductory perspective on designing services and business models in e-government cases where traditional market logics of service production and consumption may not apply.
      Present a model for analyzing such value creation, based on modifications to the STOF model.
      To get questions, comments and improvement ideas to this model from YOU – for further research and development.
    • Contents
      Background on e-government
      Collaborative e-government services – research topics & goals
      Case: Fillarikanava
      Case: KommentoiTätä
      Possibilities and difficulties in collaborative e-government
      Modifying STOF for modeling collaborative e-government services
      Cases: Fillarikanava and KommentoiTätä revisited & analyzed
      Summary
      Suggestions for further study
    • The FinnishE-governmentConcept
      Source: FinnishMinistry of Justice, SADe-Report 2009
    • Motivations
      Finland has fallen in its e-government and i-society goals.
      As much as 85% of e-government initiatives fail (11 billion USD per year investment).
      Few tools exist for service innovation and analysis in e-government.
      “Crisis of democracy“ vs. prospects of Internet technology and behaviors, push towards open, collaborative government.
      Sources, e.g., Heeks 2001, Esteves et. al 2008, Finnish Ministry of Justice 2009, UN 2008
    • ResearchQuestions & Goals
      “How to design and analyze digital services that encourage collaboration between citizens and the public sector agencies and create value to the different parties?”
      Goals:
      • Concrete suggestions to the studied cases
      • Define some guidelines regarding collaborative e-government services, on a general level
      • Give input to the development and application of STOF model and method (which were used in the Thesis)
    • TowardsCollaborativeGovernment
      Gov 2.0 refers to modernization of the way governments engage and collaborate with citizens and involves policy shifts in culture and empowermentof citizens, harnessing the opportunities of new technologies.
      Collaboration
      Participation
      Transparency
      Sources: USA Gov/White House 2009, Australian Government 2.0 Taskforce 2009, Poikola 2009
    • Social Media and the Public Sector?
      How can the public sector benefit from the rise of the social networking
      services (SNS) and social media?
      Sources: Ahlqvist et al. 2008
    • CollaborativeE-government Services
      The cases that are studied are new kind of emerging e-government services. These cases the principle of engaging citizens into the processes in an open and transparent way, enabled by the use of Web 2.0 technologies and driven by people contributing their knowledge and insight without monetary compensation, sometimes referred to as participatory economics.
      These kinds of applications could be called collaborative e-government services.
      Source: Ropponen 2010
    • Examplecases
      Fillarikanavahttp://fillarikanava.hel.fi
      ”The bike channel” is a service in which the City of Helsinki is piloting a new kind of open and direct dialogue between citizens (bikers) and the administrative workers.
      “Tell, discuss, and comment – and make Helsinki a better biking city”
      KommentoiTätä - http://flexi.tml.hut.fi/kt
      “An easy-to-use and effective web-based service (tool) for engaging document owners and their stakeholders in an open, social, constructive and deliberative commenting and discussion process”
      Key use case piloted are commenting on public documents (i.e, e-consultation), pilots with Ministry of Justice and others.
    • Fillarikanava
    • Fillarikanava
    • Ok, so what does this mean in terms of “business models”……the subject of the course, if you will.
      T-109.4300 Network Services Business Models, lecuture8.4.2010
      Teemu Ropponen, teemu.ropponen@tkk.fi
      Department of Media Technology
    • WhatMakesThisPossible?
      People have higher education and more free timethan 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 crowds
      Intrinsic & 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
    • Roles of users => fromconsumers to fluidroles, switchingfromconsumer to producer (cmp. Social media) => users & usercommunityeffectivelypart of the provider (value) network
      However, usersdon’thavestatedstrategiesorgoals the sameway as organizations => motivationmechanisms
      ”Revenue” and ”valuecreation” in e-governmentservices – how to measureit!
      Potentialvaluecreationoutside of the serviceitself – e.g., throughreuse of data (openAPI’s)
      WhatMakesThisDifficult?
    • Business Model - Definition
      “…a blueprint for a service to be delivered, describing the service definition and the intended value for the target group, the sources of revenue, and providing an architecture for the service delivery, including a description of the resources, and the organizational and financial arrangements between the involved business actors…”
      Source: Bouwman et al. 2008
    • Business Model – Definition, cont’d
      ”EASY”
      “…a blueprint for a service to be delivered, describing the service definition and the intended value for the target group, the sources of revenue, and providing an architecture for the service delivery, including a description of the resources, and the organizational and financial arrangements between the involved business actors…”
      ”COMPLEX”
      Source: Bouwman et al. 2008
    • STOF Model – No ExplanationNeeded!
      Source: Faber & De Vos 2008
    • STOF: Assessment of ValueCreation
      Source: Faber & De Vos 2008
      Q: howdoesthismodelneed to bechanged for collaborativee-governmentservices?
      Q: whatcanbefound out about the studiedcases?
    • Summary of Changes to STOF Domains
      Contentinteractions
      Content
      OpenAPI’s
      Userprofiles
      Digital identity
      Usercommunity
      Motivations
      Value (sources)
      Social capital
      Rewardmechanisms
    • CDI/CSF – UserValue
      Social
      interactions
      is a
      User
      value
      Incentives for participation
      Sense of
      community
      Sense of
      Community
      User
      Activation
    • CDI/CSF – NetworkValue
      Satisfactory
      Benefits
      Participation
      Encourage
      ment
      Participation
      Rewards
      Acceptable
      User
      Community
      External
      Value
      Creation
      Content
      Reusability
    • Service
      ContentInteraction
      Value
      source
    • Technology
      create
      Content
      ContentInteractions
      Digital
      identity
      Personal
      profile
      extends
      Open
      APIs
    • Motivation
      Organization
      User
      community
      Social
      capital
    • Finance
      Social
      capital
      generate
      Is a form of
      Value
      sources
      Value
      Value
    • Fillarikanava Revisited
    • Fillarikanava Analysis
      Missing/weaknesses:
      • Mobile context would be useful!
      • Open data & reusability
      • Sense of community (e.g., profiles) low
      • Needs more presence and feedback from civil servants
      • Integration to real processes unclear
      • Some fundamental technical features missing
      Positive/strengths:
      • Good usage statistics from users
      • High-quality input & discussions
      • Public administration participating (vs. FixMyStreet)
      • Strategic buy-in from public administration (Helsinki strategy)
      • Value network well in place, potential revenue models exist
    • Fillarikanava ValueNetwork
      Public servant
      Users
      Biker
      Users
      Associations
      Other
      Useragencies
      Developers/
      aggregators
      HKR
      Fillarikanava
      KSV
      Advertiser/
      sponsor
      HKI IT
      TASKE
      OpenStreet
      map
    • KommentoiTätä Revisited
    • KommentoiTätäAnalysis
      Missing/weaknesses:
      • Clear value proposition & target group?
      • Integration to processes?
      • Motivations for participation?
      • Competition – similar, technically better tools in the market
      • Revenue model unclear, although identifiable
      • No social elements (but may not be necessary in all cases)
      Positive/strengths:
      • An identified need exists in the government target group
      • Indications of improvement in process (efficiency) and quality of comments exist
      • Potential to beat competition in selected use cases
    • KommentoiTätä ValueNetwork
      Public
      Users
      Consulted
      Associations
      (NGO’s, businesses)
      Public servant
      Users
      Government
      Agencies as users
      KommentoiTätä
      Developers/
      aggregators
      Government
      Agencies (otherroles)
      Media
      ValtIT and other
      Gov IT organisation
      OM
      (serviceowner)
      Infra
      Provider
      KommentoiTätä – a possiblevaluenetwork
    • Summary: STOF in CollaborativeE-Gov
      STOF can be (and has been) used for analyzing e-government services. For “collaborative e-government” context, modifications are needed.
      Items not applicable as such:
      • Revenue, Profitability, some mobile-related items
      STOF is missing (or not emphasizing enough)
      • Motivations for participation
      • (User-generated) Content (vs.Data)
      • Community (vs. User/Customer)
      • Open Data and APIs (vs. Integration)
      • Value network still applicable? (vs. ecosystems)
      • Value (esp. non-monetary values) need to be thought more
    • Thanks! Questions & commentsappreciated!
      Doesthismakesense? Whatwasmissing?
      Howwouldyouimprovethismodel, presentation, thinking, etc.?
      Contact:
      Teemu Ropponen
      Teemu.Ropponen@tkk.fi
      http://somus.vtt.fi