Osimo policy 20odessa

1,762 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, News & Politics
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,762
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
923
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
19
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Osimo policy 20odessa

  1. 1. Policy 2.0: theory and practice MUNICIPAL INNOVATION LAB David Osimo Director – Open Evidence #citylabodessa 16/10/2013
  2. 2. TODAY’S TALK  Theory of policy 2.0 What  Why  How   Practices of policy 2.0 Technologies  Design  Examples 
  3. 3. WHAT
  4. 4. THE CHALLENGES OF GOVERNANCE     Detect and understand problems before they become unsolvable” Involve open intelligence in policy-making, and extract “good ideas” from it From words to action: ensure implementation and actual behavioural change Reduce time-to-impact evaluation  All this, dealing with a distributed governance model. The traditional division of “market” and “state” no longer fits a reality where public decision and action is effectively carried out by a plurality of actors.
  5. 5. A VISION: A THIRD WAY OF POLICY MAKING? + Emergent + Open + Peer2peer + Unexpected + Expert based decisions + Robust + Relevant Direct Democracy Technocracy - Social media - Populism - Unstructured discussion - Loudest voice - Black box - Closed models - Reductionism
  6. 6. A VISION: A THIRD WAY OF POLICY MAKING? Policy-making 2.0: Open and evidence based + Emergent + Open + Peer2peer + Unexpected + Expert based decisions + Robust + Relevant Direct Democracy Technocracy - Social media - Populism - Unstructured discussion - Loudest voice - Black box - Closed models - Reductionism
  7. 7. COVERING THE FULL POLICY CYCLE: IT’S NOT ABOUT CROWDSOURCING DECISIONS
  8. 8. ANTICIPATING THE UNEXPECTED: BIG AND OPEN DATA
  9. 9. POLICY DESIGN: SMART CROWDSOURCING
  10. 10. POLICY OPTIONS SIMULATION UrbanSIM case
  11. 11. TURNING POLICY IN IMPACT: APPS FOR BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE
  12. 12. SENSE MAKING IN EVALUATION THROUGH OPEN DATA
  13. 13. WEB 2.0 IS ABOUT VALUES, NOT TECHNOLOGY User as producer, Collective intelligence, Long tail, Perpetual beta, Extreme ease of use Values Blog, Wiki, Podcast, RSS, Tagging, Social Applications networks, Search engine, MPOGames Technologies Ajax, XML, Open API, Microformats, REST, Flash/Flex, Peer-to-Peer Source: Author’s elaboration based on Forrester 13
  14. 14. A NEW WAY TO DO PUBLIC INNOVATION Innovation without permission  Fast development (weekend)  Perpetual beta  Planning for emergence  Government not only a player but a platform 
  15. 15. DIFFERENT TYPES OF CITIZEN/GOV COLLABORATION Data Services Gov Gov Intrapreneurship Citizens Open Data apps Citizens Crowdsourcing Self-help
  16. 16. WHAT IS DIFFERENT?
  17. 17. BEYOND ARTIFICIAL OPPOSITIONS Planning, Top down Kublai, Rewired State, The Hub, Social Innovation Camp, Appsfordemocracy, …. #CitylabOdessa Emergent, bottom-up 1
  18. 18. WHY
  19. 19. 6 THINGS CITIZENS CAN OFFER Software development skills (OpenCamera)  Specific technical knowledge (PeerToPatent)  Experience of using public services (PatientOpinion)  Trust of other citizens (ActiveMobs)  Capillar coverage of the territory (Fixmystreet)  “Many eyes” (openspending) 
  20. 20. REMINDER: CITIZENS AND EMPLOYEES DO IT ANYWAY 2
  21. 21. POLICY TOOLS RELEVANT FOR POLICY CHALLENGES
  22. 22. LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT THE DARK SIDE
  23. 23. DESIGN FOR BART NOT FOR LISA! Hat tip: Carter and Dance, Nytimes.com 2
  24. 24. NON-TECH BARRIERS Learning lessons from 20 years of technology adoption in government: bottlenecks are cultural and organisational, not technological  Technology will not suddenly free policy-making from politicking, corruption, personal interests, short term thinking, low interest from citizens…  But it changes the power relationships, the incentives and the barriers to entry 
  25. 25. SPAM, CONFLICTS AND TROLLING High relevance Recommended for short term Recommended for long term Low relevance Typical gov initiative Typical internet focus Low conflict High conflict
  26. 26. HOW
  27. 27. LESSONS LEARNT     “There are more smart people outside government than within it” (Bill Joy) “A problem shared is a problem halved ...and a pressure group created” (Paul Hodgkin – PatientOpinion.com) “it’s about pressure points, chinks in the armour where improvements might be possible, whether with the consent of government or not” (Tom Steinberg, Mysociety.org) “many participants in the process dilute the effect of bad apples or unconstructive participants” (Beth Noveck, Peertopatent.org) 2
  28. 28. THE 7 STEPS TO SUCCESS!
  29. 29. http://daeimplementation.eu/ THE GAMIFICATION OF POLICY MAKING  Feedback + Friends + Fun
  30. 30. http://daa.ec.europa.eu/gr oup/2/content IT’S NOT JUST “ TWO-WAY” CONVERSATION  Many-to-many drives participation and action
  31. 31. http://daa.ec.europa.eu/conten t/special/crowdsourcing IT’S NOT ABOUT DIRECT DEMOCRACY  It’s about letting good ideas emerge and bad ideas be revealed
  32. 32. http://daa.ec.europa.eu/content/spec ial/towards-european-strategy-webentrepreneurs IT’S NOT ABOUT “ TOTAL OPENNESS NOW”  A continuous trend: opening up earlier, and at more granular level
  33. 33. IT’S NOT ABOUT “ TOTAL CITIZENS”  Not representative but insightful
  34. 34. A REALITY CHECK: EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF POLICY 2.0 CRITERIA  Number of participants  Involvement of decision makers  Actual usage of the output in policy-making  Media impact  Feedback by policy-makers  Actual improvement of policy quality
  35. 35. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS Do no harm  Enable  Experiment  Manage expectations  Track and evaluate 
  36. 36. PRACTICE
  37. 37. TOOLS Sentiment analysis (sentiment viz)  Commentable documents (commentneelie.eu)  Ideastorms (uservoice)  Crowdsourcing (challenge.gov)  Visualisation (openspending)  Mapping (ushahidi)  Open data (FP7 recipients)   Delivery model: custom vs off the shelf, installed vs as a service; open source vs proprietary
  38. 38. DESIGN TOOLS Friend (using social networks and peer pressure)  Feedback (seeing the impact of your action immediately): daa.ec.europa.eu  Competition (light but deep): challenge.gov  Moderation (ex-post vs ex-ante): patientopinion  Identity (anonimity?) : evasori.info  Reputation : DAA “interesting” daa.ec.europa.eu  Rules (transparency about what is accepted and what is not; how will the outcome be used) : Italy Digital Agenda  Reach-out to the community : sicamp.org   For both government and citizens!
  39. 39. CASES  https://www.diigo.com/user/osimod/citylabodessa

×