Robert Jentoft-Valenzuela, Daniel Nordstrom & Travis Shirk

3/11/2009

Web 2.0 as a KM Tool

how it can be leveraged for E-Government

Thematic Presentation Outline• What is Web 2.0?

− Tim O’Reilly’s definition and essay− Examples of technology and services

• What is KM 2.0?− KM 2.0 as a socio-technical practice (Dr. Allen’s research)

• How are Web & KM 2.0 part of Government?− Accenture Report on trends in Government

• Examples of Web & KM 2.0 in Government− Case Studies of E-Government initiatives using Web 2.0

• Controversies of Web & KM 2.0 in Government− Digital Divide, Change Management, Costs

Before Web 2.0 [3,6]

• Interactivity existed, but to a lesser extent. Below is Web 2.0 by example.

Web 1.0 Web 2.0DoubleClick Google AdSenseOfoto FlickrAkamai BitTorrentmp3.com NapsterBritannica Online Wikipediapersonal websites bloggingevite upcoming.org and EVDBdomain name speculation

search engine optimization

page views cost per clickscreen scraping web servicespublishing participationcontent management systems wikisdirectories (taxonomy) tagging ("folksonomy")stickiness syndication

Source: http://web2.socialcomputingmagazine.com

Web 2.0 Origins [2,7]

• The term was originally coined in 2003 by Tim O’Reilly

• It functions as a construct that symbolizes the dramatic changes the web has brought to society.

• Below is O’Reilly’s most cited definition of the term:

“Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an ‘architecture of participation,’ and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences.” (Library 2.0 and Beyond, 2007)

O’Reilly’s Expanded Definition [2,7]

• In 2005, O’Reilly expanding his definition of Web 2.0 in an essay for the 2005 Web 2.0 conference.

• In his essay, O’Reilly describes Web 2.0 as a set of the following seven principles:− The Web is a Platform and Software is a Service− Collective Intelligence is Harnessed− User Data is the “secret sauce”− Extinction of the software release cycle− Lightweight programming− Software above the level of a single device− Rich User Experiences

Source: http://www.tangyslice.com

AJAX-Applied• Some direct results of AJAX technology

− BitTorrent− Digg− Drupal− Facebook− MySpace− Pandora− Second Life− Wikipedia

Enterprise 2.0 [10]

• A knowledge management concept surrounding Web 2.0

• Should consist of− Authoring – Wiki, Podcasts, Blog− Extensions – Voting, Bookmarking, Filtering,

Networking, Networking Analysis− Search – 24/7 Agent− Signals – RSS− Links− Tags

Web 2.0 Communities and KM- Solving the Knowledge Sharing Problem [1]

• Knowledge Sharing is scarce due to incentive issue. − Temptation exists to free-ride off contributions of others. − Fear of such free-riders limits contributions.

• In Web 2.0 communities, an abundance of knowledge sharing exists. Why?

Dr. Allen’s Research- Web 2.0 as a socio-technical practice [1]

• Web 2.0 knowledge sharing exact opposite of traditional KM sharing.− Benefits from free-riding behavior− Contributions occur based on voluntary nature

• Socio-technical practices are diverse and cannot be lumped in an “online” construct.− Altruistic versus self-oriented motivations

Inverted Knowledge Pyramid

Citizens as Knowledge Workers

Web 2.0

National Government

State Government

Local Government (County, City, Municipality)

Citizens are more than Customers- Accenture 2009 Report [5]

• Citizens interact with the government in a myriad of ways− Limited View: Service Users and Taxpayers− High-Impact View: Customers and Stakeholders

• Accenture Study showed that citizens want a bigger say in how governments act.

• Accenture proposes model composed of four components for high-performance governments:− Better Service starts with Better Understanding− Engage. Listen. Respond.− Harness all available resources.− Be transparent. Be accountable. Ask for and act on feedback.

Better Service starts with Better Understanding [5]

• Governments must become better informed about what their citizens want and need.

• Service delivery must be responsive and aligned with those wants and needs.

Engage. Listen. Respond. [5]

• Governments must actively engage citizens to better understand their wants and needs.

• Governments must explore new ways to reach out and educate, inform and encourage participation.

Harness all available resources. [5,6,9]

• Governments must take a “joined-up” approach with non-profits, community groups, private business and citizens.

• Neighborhood Knowledge Los Angeles(1999 – 2002)

− Collaboration between UCLA and community activists− Similar approach to data as Coplink – data located in separate databases

linked into one NKLA system. Knowledge Mapping of neighborhood deterioration indicators (property tax delinquency, code violations).

− Community residents or community based organization can access this data and utilize the KM mapping functionalities that summarizes data at the neighborhood level.

− Outreach and Training has been important (Over 200 sessions) - community residents has been growing in proportion to other user groups

Be transparent. Be accountable. Ask for and act on feedback. [5,8]

• Allow citizens extensive access to information and systems. This will enhance both the economic and social value of the information.

− Obama’s transparency goal: “… to allow citizens to make use of that data to comment, derive value, and take action in their own communities.” [8]

• Both Governments and Citizens must be accountable

− “Transform the relationship between public services and customer/citizens from one of dependency to one of shared responsibility”. [5]

• Citizens must be allowed to voice their concerns and complaints.

− Accenture study showed that ability to complain about departments or services has a strong relationship (correlation of 71%) with trust and confidence.

Web 2.0 and Real Government Uses [9]

• D.C.’s City-wide Data Warehouse• Locations of crimes such as

− Theft, burglary, homicide

• National Government Spending Website

• Budget Projections

• News articles

• State spending websites

Web 2.0 and Real Government Uses [8]

• Denver, Colorado

• Mayor – John Hickenlooper− Created a Youtube channel− Features

• Commercials• Public Service Announcements• Other Clips

− Channel has 20 videos− Users can Rate/Comment/Share

• Created the channel to connect with citizens

http://www.youtube.com/user/MayorHickenlooper

Web 2.0 and Real Government Uses [8]

• San Carlos Calif.

• Carly – Computer Avatar− Came to be through budget cuts− Can give information about

• Services• Departments• Locations of where each department is

− Contains a directory of phone numbers− Citizens can reach a live person at any time to

assist them

Web 2.0 and Real E-Government Uses [5]

• Live Tucson RSS Feed

• Hot Topics

• www.tucsonaz.gov contains− Directories,BudgetSummary,Links

• New York 311 System− Service Request− Picture/Video Submission

Web 2.0 and Local E-Government [8]

• Neighborhood Watch− Immediate updates on critical issues

• Missing Children• Theft• Suspicious Activity

• Local Disaster Programs− Fast and reliable information− Easy to access− All Information in 1 place

Bill Schrier, Chief Technology Officer Seattle

Digital Divide [1]

• Physical Access versus True Access

• Findings in paper “Digital Inequality”− Focus on “Second-Level” Digital Divide− Individuals with less income, education and

autonomous Internet access use “capital enhancing” aspects of Web content less frequently

• What are “Capital Enhancing” Uses?“… uses of the Web that may enhance one’s life chances”.

− Seeking Political or Government Information online− Consulting about Health Services online− Consulting about Financial Services online− Seeking job opportunities online

Cost-Benefit Analysis [1,10]

• Lack of IT personnel within government

• Lack of funding for implementation of IT initiatives

• Should other IT initiatives take precedence over Web 2.0 applications?

• Lack of basic hardware and software platforms (i.e. some Pennsylvania state agencies still use Windows 98)

Security / Restriction Issues [10]

• Hackers could use web 2.0 tools to obtain personal data stored by government agencies

• Many agencies prohibit the access and use of web 2.0 applications (i.e. GoogleEarth, YouTube) at work.

• Based on “Inequality Study” this is problematic, since Government works won’t have the Internet Skills to work with such applications.

• This means significant additional costs for internal training.

References1. Allen, J. P. (2008). How Web 2.0 Communities Solve the Knowledge Sharing

Problem. Technology and Society, 2008. ISTAS 2008. IEEE International Symposium on Volume , Issue June 2008 Page(s):1 - 3 Retrieved January 30th, 2009 from IEEE Xplore

2. Courtney, N. (2007). Library 2.0 and Beyond: Innovative Technologies and Tomorrow’s User. Libraries Unlimited: Westport, Connecticut

3. de Kool, D., & van Wamelen, J. (2008). Web 2.0: A New Basis for E-Government?. Information and Communication Technologies: From Theory to Applications, 2008. ICTTA 2008. 3rd International Conference on Volume , Issue , 7-11 April 2008 Page(s):1 - 7. Retrieved on January 30th, 2009 from IEEE Explore

4. Hargittai, E. &Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital Inequality – Differences in Young Adult’s Use of the Internet. Communication Research. Volume 35, Number 5, October 2008. Retrieved February 11th, 2009 from Ebsco Electronic Journals Service

5. Leadership in Customer Service: Creating Shared Responsibility for Better Outcomes (2009). Accenture Institute for Public Service Value. www.accenture.com/publicservicevalue

6. Neighborhood Knowledge Los Angeles Website. http://nkla.ucla.edu

References Continued7. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the

Next Generation of Software. Retrieved February 24th, 2009 from http://www.oreillynet.com

8. Sander, T. (2008). Government 2.0: Building Communities with Web 2.0 and Social Networking. Folsom: e.Replublic, Inc. Retrieved January 30th, 2009 from http://www.digitalcommunities.com

9. Stephenson, D.W. (2008). Let My Data Go: How Activists Can Transform Government Through Public Data. The Huffington Post, July 15th, 2008 Retrieved March 3rd, 2009 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/w-david-stephenson/let-my-data-go-how-activi_b_112870.html

10. Weiss, T. (2008). State, Local Governments Slow to Tackle Web 2.0 – Manpower and budget constraints often hold back public-sector IT projects. Computer World, June 23, 2008. Retrieved March 3rd, 2009 from EBSCO Host Academic Search Complete

11. Hinchcliffe, D. (2007). The state of Enterprise 2.0. ZDNet. October 22nd, 2007. Retrieved March 8th 2009 from http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=143