Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

IPA training on web2 in gov


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

IPA training on web2 in gov

  1. 1. The Elephant and the Mouse: will web 2.0 change public services? IPA, 24 October 2008 David Osimo Tech4i2 ltd.
  2. 2. Contents • What is web 2.0 in government? • Why it matters? • What are the risks? • How to act? 2
  3. 3. What is web 2.0 in government?
  4. 4. So far ICT has not fundamentally changed government • 1990s: ICT expected to make government more transparent, efficient and user oriented • 2005+: disillusion as ICT failed to drive real change in government 4
  5. 5. The e-ruptive growth of web2.0 70 M blogs, YouTube traffic: 100M views/day doubling every 6 months Peer-to-peer largest Wikipedia: 2M articles source of IP traffic Source: Technorati, Alexa, Wikipedia, Cachelogic 5
  6. 6. Viral adoption also in public services, and not only by government Source: own elaboration of IPTS PS20 project: see
  7. 7. 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? 7
  8. 8. Regulation : Peer-to-patent 8
  9. 9. Peer-to-patent: an inside look Governance • Partnership of US Patent Office with business and academia (NY Law school) • Self-appointed experts, but participants ensure relevance and quality by tagging, ranking prior art, ranking other reviewers • Desire of recognition as participation driver • Weak authentication: blog style Usage: Started June 07. 2000 users, 32 submission in first month. Benefits • Faster processes, backlog reduction • Better informed decisions Other applications: • Functions where governments have “to make complex decisions 9
  10. 10. Cross agency collaboration case: • Based on Wikipedia software: collaborative drafting of joint reports Governance • Used by 16 US security agencies – on a super-secure intranet (not public) • Flat, informal cooperation. • Risks: too much information sharing. BUT it’s “worth it”: quot;the key is risk management, not risk avoidance.“ Usage: fast take-up, two thirds of analysts use it to co-produce reports Benefits • Avoiding silos effects (post 9-11) • Better decisions by reducing information bottlenecks Other applications: • Social services for homeless (Canada, Alaska) • Inter-agency consultation • Environmental protection and disaster management (US-EPA, earthquake in Japan) 10
  11. 11. Knowledge management case: Allen and Overy Answering key questions… …by using “Enterprise 2.0” tools: • Which articles do managers think are • Blogs and wikis for discussion and important this morning? collaboration • Which newsfeeds do my favorite • Collaborative filtering of information, colleagues use? recommendation systems, bookmarks sharing (tags, RSS feeds) • What discussion topics are hot in a project team (things you can’t • On top of this: algorithms applied to users’ attention data and behaviour anticipate)? • Who is expert/working on this specific topic/tag? Not yet spread in companies – but used by individual workers 11
  12. 12. Allen and Overy: an inside look Governance • Pilot launched on small collaborative groups – then upscaled • Fast, iterative delivery (not big IT project approach) • Strong authentication (integrated with company SSO) • Kept the wiki spirit, low control (non sensitive content) Usage: became internal standard for collaboration and sharing Benefits • Increased awareness of what others are doing – less duplication of effort • Reduction in internal e-mail sent • Better learning and knowledge creation Other applications • All knowledge-intensive areas of government 12
  13. 13. Citizens monitoring government:
  14. 14. Comment on this
  15. 15. Spinea, Italy: citizens monitoring as management tool
  16. 16. Web 2.0 is about values, not technology 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, Flash/ Technologies Flex, Peer-to-Peer Source: Author’s elaboration based on Forrester 16
  17. 17. It’s an incremental, yet disruptive innovation • Technologic: minor improvements, especially in user- friendliness • Social: diffusion of set of values which were already there (hacker’s culture) • Economic: new business models based on advertising and open source -> lower cost barriers! • Web 1.0: 200.000 personal webpages (Geocities), web 2.0: 70 million blogs • It’s a difference of SCALE 17
  18. 18. quot;the brilliance of social-software applications like Flickr, Delicious, and Technorati is that they recognize that computers are really good at doing certain things, like working with gigantic quantities of data, and really bad at, for example, understanding the different meanings of certain words, like 'depression.' They devote computing resources in ways that basically enhance communication, collaboration, and thinking rather than trying to substitute for them”.
  19. 19. It’s not about “total citizens” 1.Producing content peer-to-patent 2.Providing ratings, reviews 3.Using user-generated content 4.Providing attention, taste data 3% 10% 40% 100% of Internet users (50% of EU population) Source: IPTS estimation based on Eurostat, IPSOS-MORI, Forrester 19
  20. 20. A new innovation model in public services
  21. 21. Implications for public services • A new WAY to innovate public services – Exploiting the unique knowledge and skills of networked individual users:learners, teachers, parents, employees… – Continuous and incremental, – Open and non hierarchical, difficult to control – Lowering costs of failure and of trial and error – Building on voluntary engagement and free tools Not only by government: civil society, citizens, civil servants 21
  22. 22. Implications for public services /2 • A new effective DRIVER to address the challenges of innovating public services – citizens’ ratings and reviews: reducing information asymmetries, exposing inefficiencies through citizen-to-citizen exchanges of information – easier creation of pressure groups to make new needs emerge Based on: – a wider availability of free IT tools for citizens, civil servants, civil society (blogs, collaboration tools, geographical applications…) – a culture of public speaking, and increased expectations of openness and transparency 22
  23. 23. Why web 2.0 matters
  24. 24. • 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 24
  25. 25. Patient Opinion: an inside look Usage: 3000 comments in first 9 months, 38 health providers subscribed Benefits of ratings/reviews • Enabling informed choices (for citizens) • Understanding users needs (for hospitals) • Monitoring quality compliance for service improvement (for health funders) • “Does feedback actually work”? 25 Source: PatientOpinion blog
  26. 26. Reminder: citizens and employees do it anyway 26
  27. 27. 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 27
  28. 28. Impact on effectiveness, not efficiency • Some time savings: reduced e-mail congestion • Better peripheral awareness, better relevance • Bryolfsson: “access to information strongly predicts the number of projects completed by each individual and the amount of revenue that person generates” 28
  29. 29. Why? 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 29
  30. 30. “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
  31. 31. “A problem shared is a problem halved ...and a pressure group created” Dr. Paul Hodgkin director
  32. 32. 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 32
  33. 33. A new e-government vision? Providing services online through portals Exposing web services for re-intermediation Robinson et al.: “Government Data and the Invisible Hand “ Gartner: “The Real Future of E-Government: From Joined-Up to Mashed-Up” 33
  34. 34. A new flagship goal IMPACT: of eGovernment? Better government high eGov2.0 Reusable data INPUT: IT low high investment eGov1.0 Online services low 34
  35. 35. The risks What can go wrong? no impact and negative impact scenarios
  36. 36. No impact scenario
  37. 37. It’s just another hype • Web 2.0 business model is not solid, too reliant on advertising • Online advertising is highly sensitive to GDP growth: bubble 2.0 in waiting • Startups failing to deliver profits: Skype, Vonage Source: IPTS elaboration of U.S Census, IAB
  38. 38. Few users are proactive – and we are reaching the peak • Only 3% of citizens blogs, and growth of blogs and wikis is slowing down Source: Robert A. Rohde, wikipedia administrator • In public services, citizens are even less interested in participating/ discussing
  39. 39. It’s doesn’t matter What matters is competence and high-quality services, rather than “conversations” • In business, commercial success does not need openness (e.g. Zune developers blog while I-Pod developers are secretive) • In politics, success in the blogosphere does not translate in success in elections (e.g. Howard Dean, Barak Obama), • In public services provision, spontaneous cooperation (as “barcamp”) only rarely delivers after the initial enthusiasm (e.g. Italian Tourism Portal). • Bloggers approach is not always constructive: “the philosophers have only interpreted the world. The point is to complain about it”
  40. 40. Negative impact
  41. 41. Creating inefficiencies • Civil servants time diverted to non-core activities • Web2.0 applications are cheap, but are human- resource-intensive: against the government trend to “do less, buy more” • Excessive social control leading to increased risk aversion and immobilisation in the public sector
  42. 42. Undermining institutional credibility • Opening confrontations, rather than dialogue and increasing distrust between government and citizens • Government held accountable for bad/offensive user-generated content on the website • Blogging is not for government (UK minister discussing the pension reform)
  43. 43. Damaging societal value • Risk of populistic outcome, focus on short-term issues (beppegrillo, road tax charge) • Citizens organize anti social behaviour, and government react through increased control • Excessive social control, no privacy • Balkanisation of society • Increased exclusion: services 2.0 only for the elite
  44. 44. So what? Some suggestions and lessons learnt
  45. 45. Suggestions from web 2.0 experts • Open your data, make them available for re-use • Start from back office: knowledge intensive, collaborative culture teams • Evaluate existing usage by your employees • Subsidiarity: Partner with civil society and existing initiatives • Provide governance, but soft: policies and guidance • Listen and follow-up on users’ feedback • But no ready recipes: don’t embrace, experiment! (it’s cheap!) 45
  46. 46. Common mistakes • “Build it and they will come”: beta testing, trial and error necessary • Launching “your own” large scale web 2.0 mega- 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 46
  47. 47. Thank you Further information: Osimo, 2008. Web2.0 in government: why and how? Osimo, 2008. Benchmarking e-government in the web 2.0 era: what to measure, and how. , August 2008. Aral, Brynjolfsson,Van Alstyne, 2007, “Productivity Effects of Information Diffusion in Networks”, 47