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.