Post on 21-Oct-2014
description
1
Measuring government 2.0: why and how ���
eGovMonet final conference
David Osimo Tech4i2 ltd.
2
Structure of the talk
• The purpose of measuring
• The case for government 2.0
• The limits of government 2.0
• How to measure government 2.0
• What next
3
Structure of the talk
• The purpose of measuring
• The case for government 2.0
• The limits of government 2.0
• How to measure government 2.0
• What next
4
Benchmarking is a policy tool
• Benchmarking is part of the Open Method of Coordination. It is not a scientific but a policy tool to stimulate progress
• It should be designed and evaluated according to its policy impact
• Measurement reflects and reinforces a vision
• Benchmarking serves to make eGov non-technical
5
The sweet spot of benchmarking
Policy actionable
Understandable Robust
Impo
rtan
ce
Reliability
Expenditure
Services supply
Take-up
Efficiency impact
Effectiveness impact
Welfare and growth
Benchmarking Government 1.0
7
8
• The purpose of measuring
• The case for government 2.0
• The limits of government 2.0
• How to measure government 2.0
• What next
9
So far ICT has not fundamentally changed government
• 1990s: ICT expected to make government more transparent, efficient and user oriented
• 2005+: disillusion as burocracy not much different from Max Weber’s description
Supply Demand
10
Relevant for key government activities
Back office Front office
Regulation Cross-agency collaboration
Knowledge management Interoperability
Human resources mgmt Public procurement
Service delivery eParticipation
Law enforcement Public sector information
Public communication Transparency and accountability
source: “Web 2.0 in Government: Why and How? www.jrc.es
Maplight.org
11
Jose Alonso, W3c
14
Why does gov20 matter?
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
Different kinds of citizens’ involvement in web 2.0
Source: IPTS estimation based on Eurostat, IPSOS-MORI, Forrester
4.Providing attention, taste data
3.Using user-generated content
2.Providing ratings, reviews
1.Producing content
100% 3% 40% of Internet users (50% of EU population) 10%
“A problem shared is a problem halved
...and a pressure group created”
Dr. Paul Hodgkin director PatientOpinion.org
17
A new vision starting to take shape
Automating public services
Augmenting public services
Jose Alonso, W3C guidelines
The limits of transparency
• Most countries don’t have MySociety.org or Sunlightfoundation.org
• Government 2.0 services and websites are used by a minority of citizens
• Without attention and civic culture, transparency is unlikely to generate change
19
“with the ideal of naked transparency alone--our democracy, like the music industry and print journalism generally, is doomed. The Web will show us every possible influence. The most cynical will be the most salient. Limited attention span will assure that the most salient is the most stable. Unwarranted conclusions will be drawn, careers will be destroyed, alienation will grow.”
Lawrence Lessig, 2009. Against Transparency
It’s a gradual process: from a static to a dynamic vision
• Attention and civic culture are not fixed
• Visualisation increases participation
• Game and social dimension increases participation
• Transparency builds civic culture
21
How to get the full benefits of transparency: better
government and more democratic societies
• Open data
• Competition for innovation: INCA awards
• Teaching civic hacking
• Raising the level of the debate
• And…
22
Open data raise the level of the debate: the White House blog
And … benchmarking Gov20 Phase 1 Select 20 basic public data such as:
- beneficiaries of public funding (agriculture, research, industry etc);
- draft legislation; - MPs votes - party donations - planning applications; - air pollution data - citizens feedback / satisfaction surveys results - procurement contract assigned
Phase 2 For each type of data, assess to what extent these information are available on the web: - 0 (no information available) - 1 (description of the procedure to obtain the information
through FOI) - 2 (data available in non reusable, non-machine readable
format) - 3 (data available in machine processable format such as xml ,
csv) - 4 (data available in machine readable format and open
license) Phase 3 Generate rankings of average data availability for each country 25
Conclusion
• Benchmarking is a policy tool
• Current benchmarking reflects an old vision of eGovernment
• Transparency as new flagship goal: helps providing better government and more democratic societies –
• But only if accompanied by civic culture
What YOU can do���What EU can do
• Open public data and create a public data catalogue
• Benchmarking to encourage open data
• Participate to INCA-EU 2010: competitions to stimulate social applications
• Civic education for citizens through civic hacking
27
28
Thank you
david.osimo@tech4i2.com
@osimod
http://egov20.wordpress.com
Further information: Osimo, 2008. Web2.0 in government: why and how? www.jrc.es
Osimo, 2008. Benchmarking e-government in the web 2.0 era: what to measure, and how. European Journal of ePractice, August 2008.