Designing e-government services for collaboration between citizens and the public sectorPresentation 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, email@example.com 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.
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, firstname.lastname@example.org Department of Media Technology
WhatMakesThisPossible? People have higher education and more free timethan ever, As well as cheap computing power & networking
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 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
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
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)
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