ePractice midterm workshop 1

Open, mashed-up eGovernment needs an open, mashed-up ePractice

David OsimoIPTSEC Joint Research Centre

ePractice midterm workshop 2

Content

• Trends towards open, mashed-up government• Examples and implications for eGovernment• Implications for ePractice

ePractice midterm workshop 3Government on a learning curve

• Government face new needs, new challenges, new fields of regulation

• Public services provided by a plurality of actors and providers• Public data can be re-used to deliver added-value services (e.g.

gTransit, planningalerts.com)• IT trends: data and services re-usable and available across

websites (from portal to web services - Gartner)

-> move from portal-centred towards a user-centred, open, mashed-up government

ePractice midterm workshop 4

Examples of user centred, mashed-up government

ePractice midterm workshop 5

Government-generated one-stop-shop

ePractice midterm workshop 6

User-generated one stop shop

ePractice midterm workshop 7

Intermediary geo-one-stop-shop

ePractice midterm workshop 8Difficult to control

• Users have the tools and the attitude to act and “go public”.

• Public engagement happen mostly outside government websites.

• If public data are not made available (XML, open API), they can be taken (web scraping)

-> Reaching out, engaging with web2.0 is not only an opportunity for user-oriented services, but a risk management strategy

ePractice midterm workshop 9Beyond the “cool” effect

• How many people can use RSS and web services beyond web2.0 early adopters?

• Intermediaries can act as channel for non-web2 adopters but we still miss: – Clear business model; – Solid accountability model; – Guarantee of universality of service

• E-subsidiarity approach: government provides channel if market/civil society fail

• What is the acceptable mix of channels for: public information, sensitive information, or transactions?

ePractice midterm workshop 10

Lessons learnt from eGov 2.0 projects

• Public data/services available for re-use opens unexpected possibilities• Public services are provided by a plurality of actors: proprietary

platforms are not always necessary and may be damaging; collaboration happens across platform

• Users co-build services around their needs• Usability is key: short feedback loop, listen to users and react

No ready recipes: necessary to experiment, learn-by-doing, exchange experience…

Source: IPTS report “web2.0 for government: why and how?”

ePractice midterm workshop 11

Implications for ePractice

ePractice midterm workshop 12Tag-based knowledge exchange

ePractice midterm workshop 13Lessons for ePractice 2.0

• Yet another platform? Hard to compete with high-quality free services (Ning, LinkedIn, Wordpress, del.icio.us…) and existing discussions in the blogosphere

• But with key asset:– content– large audience, mostly not web2.0-savvy– data (is the Intel inside)

• Participation is hard to get– Connect to discussion/collaboration outside ePractice (blog RSS feeds out and in;

data portability, micro-formats…)– Exploit attention data to enable weak engagement– Extreme usability requires fast response, shorter feedback loops > work-intensive

ePractice can become the bridge for web2.0 non users, but is it feasible and sustainable?

Openness is useful in all scenarios

ePractice midterm workshop 14Conclusions for eGov and ePractice

• User, not government, is the centre• Attention is scarce• Services and knowledge exchange are not platform-centric• Difficult competition with commercial free services … standards are

high• Open, reusable data and services are key enablers• But don’t assume services will be created (subsidiarity)• Learning-by-doing is necessary

ePractice midterm workshop 15

Thank you

David.osimo@ec.europa.eu

ePractice midterm workshop 16

Back-up

ePractice midterm workshop 17

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

40% 100%3% of Internet users (50% of EU population)10%

Different kinds of users’ involvement in web 2.0

ePractice midterm workshop 18Building on users intelligence

1- producing content• User-generated public services

(e.g. planningalerts.com)• Sharing tips “how-to”

2. ratings, reviews• Public feedback / suggestions for

improvement• “Was this information useful for

you?”

4. Passive contributions (Attention data)

• “People who used this service also looked at”

• Users most searched terms as tag cloud on the homepage