StateoftheeUnion

Government2.0andOnwards

Editedby

JohnGøtzeChristianBeringPedersen

Forewordby

DonTapscott

21Gov.net

2

GØTZE&BERING

TABLEOFCONTENTS

6 Foreword:Government2.0:RethinkingGovernmentand

DemocracyfortheDigitalAgeDonTapscott

1ί Introduction JohnGøtze&ChristianBeringPedersen

SECTIONI:GOVERNMENT2.0άα Gov2.0:APromiseofInnovation

TimO'Reilly

31 Government2.0:FromtheGoveratiAdhocracytoGovernmentwiththePeopleMarkD.Drapeau

4Ϋ TheEmergenceofGov2.0:FromGovLooptotheWhiteHouseSteveRessler

4α StructuredCrowdsourcing:HarnessingExternalExpertiseinGovernment DanDoney

6Ϋ Governmentinthe21stCentury:AState'sPerspective DavidG.Fletcher

71 LookingtotheFuturebyLearningfromthePast SteveRadick

αγ Government2.0,e‐GovernmentandCulture StephenCollins

9α AShortHistoryofGovernment2.0:FromCoolProjectstoPolicyImpactDavidOsimo

1Ϊγ WaitingforGovernment2.0:WhyDoPublicAgenciesTakesoLongtoEmbraceSocialMedia? AlexandraSamuel

3

STATEOFTHEEUNION

12έ 3ReasonsGovernmentIsn’tReadyFor2.0Yet ArielWaldman

SECTIONII:OPENINGGOVERNMENT1άβ DataTriggersTransformation

W.DavidStephenson

14έ ThePowerofGovernmentInformation RichardAllan

16Ϋ TheEmperor’sNewNakednessorHowTrueTransparencywillSaveGovernmentalProjectsfromUtterFailure TommyDejbjergPedersen

1ΰγ AgainstTransparency:ThePerilsofOpennessinGovernment LawrenceLessig

1βγ Objectivity,Transparency,andtheEngagementwithDemocracy DavidWeinberger

SECTIONIII:DEMOCRATIZINGGOVERNMENTΫγΰ Democracy2.0

MichaelFriis

2Ϊα FocusingonCitizens JoanneCaddy

2Ϋα e‐ParticipatoryPlanning:NecessityandAdvantage RolfLührs,BengtFeil&HaraldRathmann

23έ WashingtonGoestoMr.Smith:GlimpsesoftheFutureofAmericanDemocracy?MattLeighninger

24Ϋ PeoplePowercanRebootaNation LeeBryant

4

GØTZE&BERING

SECTIONIV:CO‐CREATION,INNOVATION&VALUES25Ϊ PublicAdministration:LetThereBeE‐Unification,Againand

AgainOlovÖstberg

2ία Co‐ProductionofPublicServicesandPolicies:TheRoleofEmergingTechnologiesTonyBovaird,ElkeLöffler&JamesDowne

2αί OpenValueCreationasaStrategicManagementApproachPhilippS.Müller

28έ ReapingtheBenefitsofGovernment‐ledChange:EngagingthePublicinCreatingValuefromInvestments ChrisPotts

29Ϊ E‐GovernmentAwards:FivePropositionsonAdvancingtheirValueKimNormannAndersen,HanneSørum&RonyMedaglia

CLOSINGSECTION

3Ϊέ Government2.0andOnwardsJohnGøtze&ChristianBeringPedersen

31Ϊ Index

5

STATEOFTHEEUNION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSFirstofallwewouldliketothankthecontributingauthorsforjoin‐ing this project. We are particularly grateful to Don Tapscott forwritingtheforeword.WewouldalsoliketothankGaryDoucet,ExecutiveDirectorwithintheGovernmentofCanada,forinspiringcommentsandsuggestions.ThanksalsotoFreelancer.comusersDemetrisandAlex forhelpingwithproofreadingandindexcreation.The cover image is createdwith the greatWordle.net service.Thisparticularwordleisbasedonalltextinthebook.WethankForbes.comandTheNewRepublic forpermissionstousematerialfromTimO’Reillyresp.LawrenceLessig.

JohnGøtzeandChristianBeringPedersen,editorsCopenhagen,November2009

_____________________________________________________

AllcontentispublishedunderaCreativeCommonsAttribution‐Noncommercial‐ShareAlike3.0DenmarkLicense

Contentisavailableonlineat21gov.net.

6

GØTZE&BERING

FOREWORD

GOVERNMENT2.0:RETHINKINGGOVERNMENTANDDEMOCRACYFOR

THEDIGITALAGE

DonTapscottChairman,nGenera

This is a time of great peril and great promise for government.Aroundtheworld,governmentsarereelingunderthestrainsofthefinancial meltdown and global economic crisis. Plummeting taxrevenues, bank bailouts and infrastructure investments made tokeep national economies from the brink of collapse have drainedgovernment coffers, causing in turna crisis in the fundingofbasicoperations. And in many parts of the world democracy itself is

7

STATEOFTHEEUNION

stalled,withlowvoterturnoutsandcynicalpublicattitudestowardsgovernment.The irresistible force for cutbacks ismeeting the immovableobjectof public expectations about what government should be and do:they should be better, providing better services, healthcare, safetyand stability for our troubled economies. So while cost controlmeasuresmaybenecessary,theyareclearlyinsufficient.Wecannolongertinkerwithgovernment–weneedtoreinventit.Theideaof“reinventinggovernment”datesbackmorethan15years.AsOsborne andGaeblerwrote in their landmark 1992 book,Rein‐venting Government, we need governments which are catalytic –steering and sparking action rather than doing things themselves;community‐owned–empoweringratherthanserving;andmission‐driven, results‐oriented and customer‐focused. Governments, theysay,shouldinjectcompetitionintoservicedelivery;focusonearningratherthanspending;shiftfromhierarchytoteamworkandpartici‐pation;andfocusonpreventionratherthancure.In this spirit theUS federalgovernment initiated theNationalPer‐formanceReviewledbyVicePresidentAlGorein1993.Ateamde‐veloped a report and a set of accompanying documentswhich ad‐dressedkeyissuesofreinvention.Sincethen,bymostaccounts,pro‐gresshasbeenslowinimplementingtheapproachesdeveloped.Inrecentyears,governmentsinEuropeandotherpartsoftheworldhave embraced “citizen‐centric” approaches to service delivery andemphasized inter‐agency collaboration. Some governments haveevenextendednewrolestocitizens,community‐basedorganizationsandprivatebusinessesinabidtoreducecosts,harnessnewcompe‐tenciesandleverageuntappedsourcesofinnovation.Despite significant progress, transforming the deeper structures ofgovernment isprovingtobean intractablechallenge.Deepandre‐silienttraditionscombinetofrustrateprogress,includingconflictingtimeframesandmotives,alackofincentivestoinnovateinthesys‐

8

GØTZE&BERING

tem, and deeply engrained cultural and institutional legacies. Butjustasnewwavesofinnovationarewashingovertheprivatesector,the imperative toharnessnewmodelsofcollaborationand innova‐tionisarrivingonthedoorstepofgovernmentseverywhere.Today, in addition to the global economic crisis, four forces arebringingtheurgencyofpublicsectortransformationtothefore:

ATechnologyRevolution–Web2.0.Thestatic,publish‐and‐browse Internet is being eclipsed by a new participatory Webthatprovidesapowerfulplatformforthereinventionofgovern‐mentalstructures,publicservicesanddemocraticprocesses.TheInternetisnolongerjustaplatformforwebsites–thepresenta‐tion of content. It is becoming a global platform for collabora‐tion.ADemographicRevolution – theNetGeneration. The firstgenerationtogrowupimmersedindigitaltechnologies iscom‐ing of age and emerging as amajor force in today’s world – ageneration that thinksdifferentlyabout the roleofgovernmentinsocietyandwilldemandincreasinglyspeedy,responsive,andcustomizable public services. The children of the post‐WWIIgeneration (sometimescalled thebabyboom)are the firstgen‐eration to come of age in the digital age. Aged 13‐30, this NetGeneration learns, works, plays, communicates, shops and cre‐atescommunitiesdifferentlythantheirparents.Asconsumersofgovernment services, youngpeoplehaveverydifferentexpecta‐tions aboutwhat governments shoulddo andhow they shouldoperate.Moreover, their immersion in the interactive world oftheInternetanddigitaltechnologyhastrainedthemtobeactiv‐ists–notpassivereaders,viewersorvoters.A Social Revolution – Social Networking. Online collabora‐tion is exploding and citizens increasingly self‐organize topeerproduceeverythingfromencyclopediastooperatingsystems,toadvocacy campaigns, to stop globalwarming.With 300millionpeople on Facebook, collaboration and social networking are a

9

STATEOFTHEEUNION

phenomenonthatnopoliticianorpublicofficialcanaffordtoig‐nore.Sadly,ratherthanembracingsocialmediaandtoolsasthenew operating system of government,many governments havebeendoing theopposite–banning theuseof these tools.Gov‐ernments inmanyparts of theworld for examplehavebannedFacebook.AnEconomicRevolution–Wikinomics.Masscollaborationischanging how enterprises innovate, orchestrate capability andengagewith the rest of theworld.Networked businessmodelspioneered intheprivatesectorholdpromise forthepublicsec‐tor, but the unique public sector environmentmeans the chal‐lengesof implementationaredifferent.While theneedsofciti‐zens cannot be met by market forces alone, the principles ofWikinomics – openness, peering, sharing and acting globally –provideapowerfulmanifestoforpublicsectortransformation.Ifgovernments are to ensure their relevance and authority, theymustmovequicklytomeetrisingexpectationsforopenness,ac‐countability,effectivenessandefficiencyinthepublicsector.

Forseveralyears,mycolleagueAnthonyD.WilliamsandIhavehadthepleasureofleadingamulti‐millionEuroresearchprogramcalledGovernment 2.0. The program is funded by governments inNorthAmerica, Europe and Asia and has been identifying best practicesandlighthousecasesregardingtheInternet‐enabledtransformationofgovernmentanddemocracy.Theprogramprovidesevidence thatanewkindofgovernmentor‐ganization is emerging in response to these challenges—one thatopensitsdoorstotheworld;co‐innovateswitheveryone,especiallycitizens;sharesresourcesthatwerepreviouslycloselyguarded;har‐nesses thepower ofmass collaboration andbehavesnot as an iso‐lateddepartmentorjurisdiction,butassomethingnew:atrulyinte‐gratedorganization.Thebreakthroughenabledbynewtechnologiesisfoundincollaborative,cross‐organizationalgovernancewebsthatleavebehindoutmodedsilosandstructures.

10

GØTZE&BERING

Government2.0isanideawhosetimehascome.

RethinkingE‐GovernmentThere are vast new opportunities to improve the performance andeffectivenessofgovernmentbyharnessingthepowerofinformationtechnology, particularly the Internet. However, our research hasshown thatmanygovernmentsat theNational,RegionalandLocallevelsaremerelyscratchingatthesurface.In the private sector, the first era of theNetwas “brochure‐ware",followed by companies trying to sell products and services online.Similarly, the firstgovernmentWebsitessimplyprovidedstatic in‐formation,followedbyeffortstoprovideelectronicdeliveryofexist‐inggovernmentservices–pavingthecowpath.Today still, e‐gov initiatives aremired in old thinking such as thecreationof “governmentportals", “joined‐upgovernment”and“onestopgovernment”.Assuchtheyaremissingthemuchbiggeropportunitytochangetheway governments orchestrate capability to create and deliver serv‐ices – ultimately changing the division of labor in society for eco‐nomicandsocialdevelopmentandsocialjustice.Untilnow,governmentsweremodeledafterthecommandandcon‐trolindustrialorganizationsthatdominatedthelandscape.IfitwasgoodenoughforGM,itwasgoodenoughforbureaucrats.Butinthedigitaleconomy,mammothvertically integrated industrialcorpora‐tionshavestartedtounbundle.Today’smostsuccessfulcorporationsaren’t justspeededupversionsoftheoldindustrialbehemoths.In‐steadweareseeingtheriseofthebusinessweb,amuchmoresuppleandeffectiveformofwealthcreation.Anequallydramaticinnovationisstartingtohappenthroughoutthepublic sector, paralleling the new forms of commercial value crea‐tion.Justascustomersintheprivatesectormovefrompassivecon‐

11

STATEOFTHEEUNION

sumers toactive,value‐addingparticipants insuccessfuldigitalagebusinessmodels,thereisasimilartransformationingovernance.Partnerships between government and external organizations thatwere previously impossible are beginning tomaterialize.Using theInternettosharepower,forgenewrelationships,partneronservicedelivery–theseareinitiativesthatdeliverabiggerbangforthetax‐payerandcreatetheopportunityforinjectingprivatesectorinnova‐tion.Icall thesenewmulti‐stakeholdernetworks,governancewebs.Thebigwinsarenotachievedsimplybytakingthestatusquoonline,butinstead by transforming the industrial age model into digital agegovernance.Thedigitalageallowstheage‐oldquestionof“whodoeswhat”tobeansweredmorecreativelythaneverbefore.“Public”valuenolongerneeds to be provided by government alone. It can be provided byany combination of various public agencies, the private sector, acommunity group or citizens themselves, using the Internet as amechanism for collaboration,processmanagementandconductingtransactions.Theresult isgreatervalueand lowercost for thecus‐tomersofgovernment.InWashington, theObamaadministrationcodifies this thinking inits “Government as Platform” initiatives. Excitement is in the airabout the potential for new, innovative information services to becreatedwhendataismadeavailablethroughopengovernmentandtransparencyinitiatives.Startingwiththeirwidespreaduseinpoliti‐cal campaigns, Web 2.0 services are starting to tap governmentdatasets and provide new communications and content services atthelocallevel.Thesenewmodelschangethewaygovernmentsorchestratecapabil‐ity tocreateanddeliver services–ultimatelychanging thedivisionoflaborinsociety.

12

GØTZE&BERING

RethinkingDemocracyFar‐reachingchangesareunderway,beyondthebusinessofgovern‐ment,tothenatureofgovernanceitself.TheGeneva‐basedWorldEconomicForumhaslaunchedaboldnewset of initiatives to provide leadership in redesigning the world’sinstitutions. One of dozens ofGlobal Agenda Councils, each com‐prisedof leading thinkersona topic, is aCouncil onTheFutureofGovernment. This Council noted that democracy is strong in theworldbecauseofadeep‐seatedhumandesireforfreedom.Buttherearemanystormwarningsofdangerduetofourfactors:

• Collapse. Basic democratic institutions are at risk and indanger of failing part due to the economic crisis in poorcountries. The best predictor of democratic survival is percapitaincome.

• Capture(byinterestgroups).Forexample,theSECwascap‐tured by the investment banking community leading theeconomic crisis of 2009. In developing countries, democra‐cies have been captured by military, organized crime ortribes.

• Competition. There are fairly stable authoritarian regimesthatmakethecasethatdemocracyisinferior.

• Constraints. The current economic crisis shows that na‐tional governments anddomestic regulation are inadequatetodealwith the challengesof theglobal economy.There isalsoadangerofprotectionismandisolationism.

Throughoutthedevelopedworldthereisanadditionalcomplicatingfactor.WiththeexceptionoftheUnitedStates,youngpeoplearenotengagedinthedemocraticprocess.Youthvotingisdangerouslylow,and inmany countries declining, asmany young people are alien‐ated from their governments and don’t see how they can make adifference.Further,unliketheirparentswhogrewupbeingthepas‐

13

STATEOFTHEEUNION

sive recipients of television, theyhave comeof age interacting andcollaboratingusingdigitaltechnologies.In the traditional form of democracy enjoyed by previous genera‐tions,citizenslistenedtospeeches,debatesandtelevisionads.Theygavemoneyandvoted.Butwhenitcametohavinginputintopolicyandrealdecisions,theywererelegatedtothesidelines.The Internet enables anewmodelofdemocracy–oneappropriateforTheNetGeneration.Havinggrownupdigital,theyexpecttocol‐laboratewitheveryone– includingpoliticians.Theywant tobe in‐volved directly: to interactwith them, contribute ideas and scruti‐nizetheiractions,notjustduringelections,butastheygovern.Andthey will insist on integrity from politicians; they will know veryquicklyifapoliticiansaysonethinganddoesanother.BarackObamaunderstood thisandenabledcitizens, largelyyouth,toorganizeasocialmovementthatbroughthimtopower.Nowhe’sembracing these same principles to change the way governmentoperatesandengagesitscitizens.Ultimatelythispromisestochangethenatureofdemocracyandtherelationshipbetweencitizensandthestate–forthebetter.Thefirstwaveofdemocracyestablishedelectedandaccountableinstitutionsof governance, but with a weak public mandate and an inert citi‐zenry.Thesecondwaveisbeingcharacterizedbystrongrepresenta‐tionandanewcultureofpublicdeliberationbuiltonactivecitizen‐ship.CallitDemocracy2.0.Allof thisrequires leadership.Whichiswhythebook“StateoftheeUnion”issoimportantandtimely.JohnGøtzeandChristianBeringPedersenhaveassembledastellarcastofthinkersandpractitionerswhoarepioneeringthenewpossibilities fornewparadigmsingov‐ernment and governance. Beginning with thoughtful definitionalpapersaboutGovernment2.0,thebookexploresthetopicof“Open

14

GØTZE&BERING

Government” which as much as any topic is central to the newthinking. It thendelves intothe issuesofdemocratizationandciti‐zenengagementwithstimulatingandsatisfyingcontributionsbasedonrealworldexperience.Every government leader, every elected official and every govern‐mentemployeeshouldreadthisbookandgetinvolvedinoneofthemostexcitingchallengesofourtimes–transforminggovernmentforeffectiveness, relevance and success, enabled by a newmedium ofcommunications and required for the emerging citizens of the 21stcentury.Thestakesareveryhigh.

DonTapscottToronto,November2009

Don Tapscott (@dtapscott) is Chairman of nGenera Insight and ExecutiveDirector of their research program “Government 2.0: Wikinomics Govern‐ment and Democracy.” Don is the author of many books, includingWiki‐nomicsandGrownUpDigital.Hisnextbook(March2010),withAnthonyD.Williams,isasequeltoWikinomics.

15

STATEOFTHEEUNION

#1

INTRODUCTION

JohnGøtzeLecturer,CopenhagenBusinessSchool

ChristianBeringPedersenConsultant,DevoteamConsulting

Inhis famousGettysburgAddress onNovember 19, 1863,AbrahamLincolnstatedthat“governmentofthepeople,bythepeople,forthepeople,shallnotperishfromtheearth”.In the sameNovember days, but 146 years later, the 5th EuropeanMinisterial e‐Government Conference1 will be held in the city ofMalmöinsouthernSweden.EUMemberStateministersresponsiblefore‐GovernmentwillmeetontheeveoftheConference,November18, 2009, toagreeonaMinisterialDeclaration thatwill setout thepath for the field of e‐Government up until 2015. The Swedish EUPresidency and the European Commission will then present thesignedMinisterialDeclarationjointlyonthefirstdayoftheconfer‐enceundertheheadingTeamingupfortheeUnion.PerhapsitwouldbefittingfortheEuropeanministerstoreviewtheGettysburg Address statement, and for them to consider whether

16

GØTZE&BERING

this is still the quintessential statement about government –of, byandforthepeople–orwhetherthetimehascomeforsomerethink‐ing?Therearemanyotherprepositionsonecoulduse,inadditiontothese three fineones, butwe suggestone inparticular, and that iswith:governmentwiththepeople.This ideadoesnotcomeoutof theblue.Weareactuallymorede‐scribingthezeitgeistof2009.Thebook'stitle,StateoftheeUnion,isofcourseaplayonwordsandcontexts.Firstandforemost,thereisareference to ‘TheStateof theUnion', theannualaddresspresentedbythePresidentoftheUnitedStatestoCongress.Thisaddressnotonly reports on the condition of the nation, but also allows thePresidenttooutlinehis legislativeagendaandnationalprioritiestotheCongress. Ina similarway, thisbook isbothabout thecurrentstateofgovernmentandaboutwaystodealwiththefuturestateofgovernment.TheeUnionpartofthetitleisareferencetotheminis‐terconference,TeamingUpfortheeUnion.Thebook'sreferencetothe eUnion, however, is not limited to any particular geographical'union'.WithcontributionsfromEurope,NorthAmericaandAustra‐lia,thebook'sperspectiveisinternational.Thesubtitle,Government2.0andOnwards, indicates that the focusismoretowardsthefuturethanthepast.Government2.02iswithoutdoubt a concept that hasmade a breakthrough in government of‐fices, vendor circles,media and, albeit slowly, in academia. In lateSeptember2009,GartneranalystAndreaDiMaioargued3 thatGov‐ernment 2.0 is rapidly reachingwhatGartner calls the “peakof in‐flated expectations”, with maximum hype around it. This is thehighest point in their classichype cycle,whichmeans thedreaded“trough of disillusionment” is coming up, and that there is still alongwaytothe“plateauofproductivity”,wheremeasurablevalueisdelivered.Government 2.0 is oftentimes understood as socialmedia andweb2.0 in government, or “how government ismaking use of web 2.0technologiestointeractwithcitizensandprovidegovernmentserv‐

17

STATEOFTHEEUNION

ices,”4 but in our view it ismore than that.AsDonTapscott et al5write:

Thetransitionto ‘Government2.0'andgovernancewebsbe‐gins with opening up formerly closed processes, embracingtransparencyandrenovatingtiredrules that inhibit innova‐tion.Butthatismerelythebeginning....anewbreedofpub‐licsectororganizationisemerginginresponsetothesechal‐lenges:One that opens its doors to theworld; co‐innovateswitheveryone,especiallycitizens;sharesresourcesthatwerepreviouslycloselyguarded;harnessesthepowerofmasscol‐laboration;andbehavesnotasanisolateddepartmentorju‐risdiction,butassomethingnew–atrulyintegratedorgani‐zation.

Government 2.0 therefore fundamentally challenges the way gov‐ernmentworks,andperhapsinparticular,howgovernmentisman‐aged. Being complex enterprises, governments – whether federal,national,regionalorlocalgovernments–aregenerallycharacterizedexactlyasGaryHameldescribes6modernenterprises:theyhave21st

Century, Internet‐enabled business processes, mid‐20th‐centurymanagement processes, all built atop 19th‐century managementprinciples.HamelcallsforManagement2.0,andarguesthatitisallaboutmanagementinnovation–newwaysofmobilizingtalent,allo‐catingresources,andformulatingstrategies.Althoughhisfocusisonprivate companies,hismessage is clearlyalso relevant inagovern‐mentcontext.ManywouldarguethattheUSsawmanagementinnovationinprac‐tice when, as one of his first actions in office, President ObamaonJanuary 21, 2009, issued a Memorandum on Transparency andOpenGovernment7, inwhichhe instructed thatgovernmentshouldbe more transparent, participatory and collaborative. The ObamaAdministrationhassince launchedtheOpenGovernment Initiative8ledbytheWhiteHouseOfficeofScience&TechnologyPolicy,andhiredlawprofessorBethSimoneNoveckasDeputyChiefTechnologyOfficerforOpenGovernment. JustasObamasetanewstandardfor

18

GØTZE&BERING

using the internet in the election process (e‐campaigning), his ad‐ministration's recent initiatives such as the IT Dashboard9 anddata.govaresettingnewstandardsforinternet‐supportedopengov‐ernment.Theopengovernmentagendaatlarge,internationally,hasofcoursebeenaroundforquiteanumberofyears,probablyaslongasdemoc‐racy has been around10. Sweden'sFreedom of the Press Act of 1766countsfortheearlylegislationinthefield,andallaroundtheworld,many 'Sunshine laws' (Freedom of Information legislation11) havefollowedsincethen.Foryears,opengovernmenthasbeenakeyhallmarkofdemocraticpractice, and is by many considered the perhaps most importantpillar in awell‐functioning democracy.Open and transparent gov‐ernment is certainly an important area of concern for developingdemocracies,withcorruptionandcoercion,butindeedalso,always,ofconcernforso‐calleddevelopeddemocracies.Assuch,opengov‐ernment has also seen its share of skepticism and controversy. InYes, Minister, the wonderful satirical British sitcom from 1980, SirArnold Robinson, Cabinet Secretary, explains about open govern‐ment:“Mydearboy,itisacontradictioninterms:youcanbeopenoryoucanhavegovernment.”Transparencyis indeedasomewhatambivalentconcept12. Ithas,soto speak, an obvious light side, but also a sometimes very visibledark side. Transparency is related not only to enlightenment andfreedom,but also to surveillance and control. Thebest example ofthe latter is perhaps the socio‐optical architecture of illuminationthatJeremyBenthamusedin1785,whenhedesignedPanopticon13,aprisonthatallowsanobservertoobserveallprisonerswithoutthembeingabletotellwhethertheyarebeingobserved.Heinvented,sotospeak,CCTV(surveillancecameras)longbeforethevideocamerawasinvented.In philosophic terms, the public sphere is the place where lightcomesfrom,namelythelightthrownonthingswhentheytakeplace

19

STATEOFTHEEUNION

inpublic. Ina 1958 lecturecalledMan inDarkTimes,politicalphi‐losopherHannahArendt14talkedabouthertimesasadarkeningorobscuringofthelightfromthepublicsphere,andthewithdrawalofthegeneralpublicfromthepublicworldbasedonthe“well‐foundedangerthatmakesyouhoarse”,angertowardsa'system'thatdoesnotlisten;a systemwith freedom frompolitics, rather than freedom totake part andmake praxis (action). The same argument, but nowfrom a social and cultural perspective, was in 1961 put forward byEnglishculturecriticRaymondWilliams15:

“Ifman is essentially a learning, creatingand communicat‐ingbeing,theonlysocialorganisationadequatetohisnatureisaparticipatorydemocracy,inwhichallofus,asuniquein‐dividuals,learn,communicateandcontrol.”

CarolePateman,2009‐2010President‐ElectoftheAmericanPoliticalScienceAssociation16, inherearlycareer(1970)formulatedatheoryof participatorydemocracy17 basedon the argument that participa‐tion fostershumandevelopment, enhancesa senseofpolitical effi‐cacy,reducesasenseofestrangementfrompowercenters,nurturesaconcern forcollectiveproblemsand,not least, that itcontributestotheformationofanactiveandknowledgeablecitizenrycapableoftaking an active interest in governmental and managerial affairs.TheseareallgoodargumentsforclimbingArnstein's ladderofpar‐ticipation18 – from non‐participation over tokenism (e.g., consulta‐tion)tocitizenpower.Overthepast40years,boththeoryandprac‐ticeofdemocracyhavecontinuedtoclimbup–butsometimesalsodown–thatladder.Tim O'Reilly coined the concept architecture of participation19 todescribe thenatureof systems that aredesigned foruser contribu‐tion, noting that the Internet and theWorldWideWeb have thisparticipatoryarchitectureinspades,forexampleinbigopensourceprojects.Asheexplainsinthisbook,timehascomeforgovernmenttoembracethearchitectureofparticipation.

20

GØTZE&BERING

Weknowthereisalotofvalue20forallkindsofcompaniesinadopt‐ing co‐creation, the practice of developing systems, products, orservices through collaboration with customers. But we are indeedalsoseeingatrendingovernment'sadoptionofco‐creationandpar‐ticipatory collaboration, for example at the US Patent Office whoembraced user‐generated content with their Peer‐to‐Patent Pro‐gram21.There aremany ways to interpret the famous quote from ThomasJefferson,“informationisthecurrencyofdemocracy”,butitcertainlyimplies that government data is valuable. And something of valuecanbemade intoacommodity.TheEuropeanDirectiveon the re‐use of public sector information ('the PSI Directive'22) meant thatcertain government data should be regarded as a commodity thatgovernmentcansell totheprivatesector.Notallgovernmentdata,ofcourse, theEUpromised thosewithprivacyandotherconcerns.But government, the public sector as such, has lots of data, andsurelysomeofitcanbeexhibitedandsoldtothosewhowantit,theunderlying logicsaid.Examplesaregeographical information,envi‐ronmentaldata,certainstatisticsandawholelotofdataresidinginthemanygovernment ITsystems,databasesandarchives.ArecentGartner survey for the Danish National Telecom and IT Agency23predictedaneconomicpotentialofalmost€100mforDenmarkaloneinlettingpublicandprivateactorshaveaccesstogovernmentdata,which arguably could spur awave of innovation as private compa‐niescompetetobuildservicesontopofthevaluabledata.Other research24 shows that public sector information and govern‐mentdatahasahugesocioeconomicvalue,butalso that theEuro‐peanPSI‐approach(cost‐recovery)maynotbethemostoptimalwaytomaximizethevalue.Perhapsgivingitallawayforfree25isabetteralternative? It depends on how, and for whom you measure thevalue. The challenge is in the reaping and sowing of value, thatsometimes,some(government)mustmakeinvestmentsinorderforothers (business, citizens) to benefit, get value, from. Indeed, gov‐ernmentneedsanarchitectureoffruition26.

21

STATEOFTHEEUNION

IntroducingtheContributionsThecontributionstothebookcomefromthought‐leadersonthreecontinents. Among the contributors you'll find battle‐hardenedpractitioners with many years of experience, writing about whatworksandwhatdoesnotwork.Manyofthecontributorshavebeenworkingwithe‐Governmentformanyyears,andarenotfazedbythecurrentattentionto“government2.0”.Theircontributionsarebasedon what they have experienced and done, not on buzzwords andhype.In structuring the book's contributions, we took inspiration in theObamamemo– that government shouldbe transparent,participa‐tory and collaborative – and endedup sorting the contributions inthreerelatedsections:“OpeningGovernment,”“DemocratizingGov‐ernment” and “Co‐Creation, Innovation & Values,” each with fivechapters.Beforewegettothese,andtogetintothecontext,wehaveasubstantial “Government2.0”sectionwithtenchaptersaswellastheforewordbyDonTapscott.The Government 2.0 section begins with a contribution from Mr.Web2.0,TimO'Reilly,whoarguesthatGovernment2.0isapromiseof innovation. Washington‐based researcher and writer MarkDrapeaufollowsupandarguesthatGovernment2.0isaboutmovingfromwhathe calls the “goverati adhocracy,” to “GovernmentWiththePeople.”ThenfollowsthreedifferentexamplesofGovernment2.0 inaction.The first example is the hugely successful social networking siteGovLoop, a “Facebook for feds,”which is described by its founder,SteveRessler.Thesecondexampleisaboutcrowdsourcinginaspe‐cific area, asDanDoney from theUSOfficeof theDirectorofNa‐tional Intelligence introduces BRIDGE, the Intelligence Commu‐nity's testbed for new community and analysis tools. The third ex‐ampleisabouttheStateofUtah,whichisrecognizedasoneoftheabsolute leading US States when it comes to e‐Government. StateCTO, David Fletcher, describes how Utah deals with Government2.0.

22

GØTZE&BERING

Havingnowseena fewexamplesofGovernment2.0 inaction, it istimetotakeacloselookattheconcept.“IstheconceptofGovern‐ment 2.0 really all that new?” asks Steve Radick from Booz AllenHamilton. Inspiredby theCluetrainManifesto,hepresentsTwentyThesesforGovernment2.0.TheGovernment2.0agenda isnot justonthetable in theUS,andthe following chapterswill take the reader around theworld. FirststopisAustralia.StephenCollinsfromAcidLabsintroducestheAus‐tralianGovernment 2.0 agenda, anddiscusseshow it relates to thetraditional e‐Government agenda.He also analyzes the cultural is‐suesaroundGovernment2.0.NextwecometoEurope.DavidOsimofromTech4i2givesanoverviewoftheprogressivestructuringofweb2.0 in government, and calls for Public Services 2.0. Returning toNorthAmerica,nowtoCanada,AlexandraSamuelfromSocialSignalasks,“whydopublicagenciestakesolongtoembracesocialmedia?”and distills emergent opportunities and best practices for govern‐ments,seekingtotapthepowerofsocialmedia.Closingthissection,from San Francisco, digital anthropologistArielWaldman suggeststhreereasonsgovernmentisn’treadyfor2.0yet.Readyornot,governmentischanging.Thefollowingsection,Open‐ing Government, deals with the changes induced by the transpar‐ency and openness agenda. The section opens with governmentstrategistW.David Stephenson,who argues that timehas come tomakegovernmentdatafreelyavailableandusable.Hepresents fiveprinciplestoguidetheprocessofdemocratizingdata,anddiscussesthestrategicshiftthatwillbeneeded,sincedatatriggerstransforma‐tion.The same logic can be found in thework of theUKGovernment’sPowerofInformationTaskforce;theyrecentlyrecommendedsweep‐ingreformstohowthecivilservicepublishes,managesandengageswithinformation.TaskforceChairRichardAllendescribesthePowerof Information agenda and its impacton theway inwhich theUK

23

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Government works with public sector information and internet‐enabledinnovation.Another dimension in opening government is in the way govern‐ment projects are handled, especially when they have IT compo‐nents.TommyDejbjergPedersenfromDanishGeekHousearguesfora fully transparentapproachtogovernmentprojects, rightdowntothecodelevel.Picking up on transparency, Lawrence Lessig from Harvard LawSchoolarguesthattheageoftransparencyisuponus,forgoodandforworse.He looks intotheperilsofopenness ingovernment,andargues thatwe arenot thinking critically enough aboutwhere andwhentransparencyworks,andwhereandwhenitmayleadtocon‐fusion,ortoworse.DavidWeinberger fromHarvardBerkmanCenterforInternet&So‐cietyputsforwardtheclaimthattransparencyisthenewobjectivity,and discusses the challenges governments face, as hyperlinkedtransparencybecomesthenorm.At this point, it should be clear to the reader that there is muchmore to be said aboutwider democratic issues, and this is exactlywhatthenextsection,DemocratizingGovernment,dealswith.MichaelFriis,FounderofFolketsTing,awebsitecoveringtheDanishparliament(“Folketinget”),discussesDemocracy2.0andhowwecangoaboutbuildingwebsitesthatsupportandstrengthendemocracy.JoanneCaddy fromtheOECD identifiesaneed forgovernments toshiftfromtheirtraditional“government‐as‐usual”toabroadergov‐ernanceperspectivewhichbuildsonthetwinpillarsofopennessandinclusion todeliverbetterpolicyoutcomes andhighqualitypublicservicesnotonlyfor,butwith,citizens.Rolf Lührs, Bengt Feil andHarald Rathmann fromGermanTuTechInnovationdiscussthefieldofspatialplanning.Theyarguethatelec‐

24

GØTZE&BERING

tronic tools canprovidemanyadvantagesover the traditional ana‐loguewayoforganisingformalparticipation.Matt Leighninger from the Deliberative Democracy Consortiumfindsthattoday'scitizensarebetteratgoverning,andworseatbeinggoverned, thaneverbefore.Weneed,he argues, to recast the rela‐tionshipbetweencitizensandgovernment.LeeBryantfromHeadShiftintheUKarguesthatitistimetotakeaseriouslookathowwecanleveragehumantalent,energyandcrea‐tivitytobeginrebootingthesystemtocreatesustainable,affordable,long‐termmechanismsforpublicengagement.Inthelastsection,Co‐Creation,Innovation&Values,thecontribu‐tionscoverarangeof issuesrelatedtothecollaborativeandmana‐gerialaspectsofgovernment.The sectionopenswithOlovÖstberg fromMidSwedenUniversity,who looks at the challenge the Swedish Government faces as theyaimtoreclaimworldleadershipinthee‐Governmentrankingcircusby2010.Hearguesthatthemainchallengeforgovernmentistobe‐comebetteratbecomingbetter,together.From theUK,Tony Bovaird, Elke Löffler and JamesDowne exploreuser co‐production and community co‐production, two verydiffer‐enttheoreticalstrandsincurrentthinkingonco‐productionofpub‐licservicesandpublicpolicy.PhilippS.MüllerfromSalzburg‐basedCenterforPublicManagementandGovernancearguesthatopenvaluecreationhasbecomeamain‐stream strategic management approach, and that in order to fullyutilize open value creation, radical transparency is necessary. Hepresentsaframeworkforthisapproach.CorporatestrategistChrisPottspointsoutthatgovernmentmustbemuch more transparent about investments in government‐led

25

STATEOFTHEEUNION

change.Heanalyzes thevaluedimensionofgovernment ITprojectportfoliosandtheimportanceoftransparency.ResearchersKimNormannAndersen,HanneSørumandRonyMeda‐glia look closer at how the e‐government portfolio is recognizedthroughvariousawards.Theyputforwardfivepropositionsonhowtoincreasethevalueofe‐governmentawards.Inthetransparent,participatoryandcollaborativespirit, thebook'scontent (over 75,000 words) has been published under a CreativeCommons license (“Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike 3.0Denmark”). Thismeans that you can use it, share it, and remix it,butmustalwaysgiveattributiontotheauthors,andyoumaynotuseit for commercial purposes.All content is available at ourwebsite,21Gov.net,whereyoucanalsofindmorematerialandparticipateindebates.Just a note on the book's references: There aremany references toweblinks(URLs),andwillnotetheselinksarealltoj.mp(forexam‐ple,http://j.mp/21gov).Thisisfullyintentional:Weusethepopularj.mp URL‐shortening service, which many twitters and others areusingtoavoidhavingtowritetheall‐too‐oftenmuchtoolonglinkswefindeverywhereontheweb.JohnGøtze,PhD,(@gotze)isalectureratCopenhagenBusinessSchoolandtheITUniversityofCopenhagen,andanindependentconsultantaswellasapartner in enterprise architecture consulting firmEAFellows.He spent tenyearsworkingingovernmentinDenmarkandSwedenone‐governmentpro‐grams.Hisisaco‐editorofCoherencyManagement–ArchitectingtheEn‐terpriseforAlignment,AgilityandAssurance.ChristianBeringPedersen(@bering)isanenterprisearchitect,workingwithrequirement specification, system documentation, technical standards, IT‐governance and collaboration tools. He works for Devoteam Consulting,guidingpublicandprivatesectorcustomersintheirworktogetmoreoutoftheirITinvestments.

26

GØTZE&BERING

1Seehttp://egov2009.se2DiggingintothehistoryoftheconceptGovernment2.0,itisabitunclearwhoactuallycoinedtheconcept,butDeloitte'sWilliamEggerspublishedabookcalled“Government2.0"inlate2004.http://j.mp/MpUUM

3http://j.mp/efu1I4http://j.mp/4wwC8z5GOVERNMENT2.0:TransformingGovernmentandGovernancefortheTwenty‐FirstCentury,byDonTapscott,AnthonyD.WilliamsandDanHerman.2008nGeneraCorporation

6Hamel,Gary(2007)TheFutureofManagement.HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.7MemorandumonTransparencyandOpenGovernment,seehttp://j.mp/PsWI18http://j.mp/CyuQS9http://it.usaspending.gov/10http://j.mp/HxSCN11http://j.mp/PpoEL12http://j.mp/3zRQ6u13Foucault,Michel(1980)TheEyeofPower.Power/Knowledge:SelectedInterviewsandOtherWritings1972‐1977.Ed.ColinGordon.Harvester.

14HannahArendt'scritiqueofmoderncultureisrelatedtoRichardSennett's,OscarNegt's,ThomasZiehe'sand(other)branchesofcriticaltheory,suchastheworksofWalterBenjaminandT.W.Adorno.

15Williams,Raymond(1961)The Long Revolution. Columbia University Press.16http://j.mp/1BLO6t17Pateman,Carole(1970)ParticipationandDemocraticTheory.CambridgeUniver‐sityPress.

18Arnstein,SherryR.“ALadderofCitizenParticipation,"JAIP,Vol.35,No.4,July1969,pp.216‐224.

19http://j.mp/nQ5TY20Prahalad&Ramaswamy(2004)TheFutureofCompetition:Co‐CreatingUniqueValuewithCustomers.HarvardBusinessPress.

21BethSimoneNoveck(2009)WikiGovernment.HowTechnologyCanMakeGov‐ernmentBetter,DemocracyStronger,andCitizensMorePowerful.BrookingsInsti‐tutionPress.

22ThePSIdirectivewasapprovedbytheCouncilofMinisterson27October2003,andMemberStateshadtoimplementtheDirectiveintonationallawby1July2005.http://j.mp/3NxK2p

23http://j.mp/eCdd324http://j.mp/4kwWpL25http://j.mp/16Yjx26Onfruition,seeChrisPotts'contributionhere,andalsohisfruITionStrategy®http://j.mp/EQA2T

27

#2

GOV2.0:APROMISEOFINNOVATION1

TimO'ReillyFounderandCEO,O'ReillyInc

Over thepast 15 years, theWorldWideWebhas created remark‐ablenewbusinessmodelsreshapingoureconomy.AstheWebhasundermined old media and software companies, it has demon‐strated the enormous power of a newmodel, often referred to asWeb2.0.Now,anewgenerationhascomeofagewiththeWebandiscom‐mittedtousingitslessonsofcreativityandcollaborationtoaddresschallengesfacingourcountryandtheworld.TheFacebookCausesapplicationhasmorethan60millionregistereduserswhoarelev‐eraging the power of social networks to raise money for charity.Meetup.comhelpsinterestgroupsformedontheWebgettogetherinperson–andaremarkablenumberofgroupsdosoforcivicpur‐poses. A quick search turns up nearly 20,000meetups devoted tocleaning up local parks, streets and neighborhoods. Twitter andYouTubehaveplayedmajorrolesinhelpingorganizepoliticalpro‐tests in Iran's recent election. Everyblock and Stumblesafely take

28

O'REILLY

government crime statistics and turn them into public safetyapplicationsfortheWeboriPhone.Thelistgoeson.Meanwhile, with the proliferation of issues and not enough re‐sources to address them all, many government leaders recognizethe opportunities inherent in harnessing a highly motivated anddiverse population, not just to help them get elected, but to helpthemdoabetter job.Byanalogy,manyarecallingthismovementGovernment2.0.President Obama exhorted us to rise to the challenge: “Wemustuse all available technologies andmethods toopenup the federalgovernment,creatinganewleveloftransparencytochangethewaybusiness is conducted in Washington, and giving Americans thechance to participate in government deliberations and decision‐makinginwaysthatwerenotpossibleonlyafewyearsago.”There is a new compact on the horizon: Government maintainsinformation on a variety of issues, and that information shouldrightly be considered a national asset. Citizens are connected likeneverbeforeandhavetheskill setsandpassiontosolveproblemsaffecting them locally as well as nationally. Government informa‐tionandservicescanbeprovidedtocitizenswhereandwhentheyneed it. Citizens are empowered to spark the innovation thatwillresultinanimprovedapproachtogovernance.This is a radical departure from the old model of government,whichDonaldKettlsoaptlynamed“vendingmachinegovernment.”We pay our taxes; we get back services. And when we don't getwhatweexpect,our“participation”islimitedtoprotest‐‐essentially,shakingthevendingmachine.Inthevending‐machinemodel,thefullmenuofavailableservicesisdeterminedbeforehand.Asmallnumberofvendorshavetheabilitytogettheirproductsintothemachine,andasaresult,thechoicesarelimitedandthepricesarehigh.

29

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Yetthereisanalternatemodelwhichismuchclosertothekindofgovernmentenvisionedbyournation'sfounders,amodelinwhich,asThomasJeffersonwroteinalettertoJosephCabel,“everyman…feels that he is a participator in the government of affairs, notmerely at an election one day in the year, but every day.” In thismodel,governmentisaconvenerandanenabler—ultimately,itisavehicleforcoordinatingthecollectiveactionofcitizens.Sofar,youmayhearechoesofthedialogbetweenliberalsandcon‐servatives thathas sodominatedpoliticaldiscourse in recentdec‐ades.Butbiggovernmentversussmallgovernmentisinmanywaysbesidethepoint.Toframethedebateintermsfamiliartotechnolo‐gists, the question is whether government is successful as a plat‐form.If you lookat thehistoryof thecomputer industry, themost suc‐cessful companies are those that build frameworks that enable awhole ecosystemof participation fromother companies large andsmall. The personal computer was such a platform. So was theWorldWideWeb.Butthisplatformdynamiccanbeseenmostviv‐idlyintherecentsuccessoftheAppleiPhone.Whereotherphoneshave a limitedmenuof applications developedby the phonepro‐vider,andafewcarefullychosenpartners,Applebuiltaframeworkthat allowed virtually anyone to build applications for the phone,leadingtoanexplosionofcreativitywithmorethan50,000applica‐tions appearing for the phone in less than a year, andmore than3,000newonesnowappearingeveryweek.This is the right way to frame the question of “Government 2.0.”Howdoesgovernment itselfbecomeanopenplatformthatallowspeople inside and outside government to innovate? How do youdesign a system in which all of the outcomes aren't specified be‐forehand, but instead evolve through interactions between thetechnologyprovideranditsusercommunity?The Obama administration's technology team has taken the firststepstowardrethinkinggovernmentasaplatformprovider.Oneof

30

O'REILLY

the first acts by Vivek Kundra, the national CTO, was to createdata.gov, a catalog of all the federal government'sWeb services2.TheSunlightFoundation'sApps forAmericaContest (modeledonthesuccessfulAppsforDemocracyprogramthatKundraranwhileCIOofWashington,D.C.) isseekingtokickoff thevirtuouscircleofcitizeninnovationusingthesedataservices.Ratherthanlicensinggovernmentdatatoafewselect“valueadded”providers,whothen licensethedatadownstream,the federalgov‐ernment(andmanystateandlocalgovernments)arebeginningtoprovideanopenplatformthatenablesanyonewithagoodideatobuildinnovativeservicesthatconnectgovernmenttocitizens,givecitizens visibility into the actions of government and even allowcitizenstoparticipatedirectlyinpolicy‐making.That'sGovernment 2.0: technologyhelping build the kind of gov‐ernmentthenation'sfoundersintended:of,forandbythepeople.TimO'Reilly(@timoreilly)isthefounderandCEOofO'ReillyMedia,apre‐mier computer book publisher. O'Reilly Media also hosts conferences ontechnologytopics.TimischairingtheupcomingGov2.0SummitwithRich‐ardO'Neill, founderandpresidentofTheHighlandsGroup.Tim'sblog,theO'ReillyRadar,“watchesthealphageeks”andservesasaplatformforadvo‐cacy about issues of importance to the technical community.1ThisarticleoriginallyappearedonForbes.comonAugust10,2009.Reprintedwithpermission.

2Webservices,asopposedtostaticgovernmentWebsites,providerawgovern‐mentdata,allowingthirdpartiestobuildalternateservicesandinterfacestogovernmentprograms.

31

#3

GOVERNMENT2.0:FROMTHEGOVERATIADHOCRACYTO

GOVERNMENTWITHTHEPEOPLE

MarkD.DrapeauAssociateResearchFellow,NationalDefenseUniversity

Duringthe2008electionsintheUnitedStates,then‐candidateBa‐rackObama'scampaignmadeexcellentuseofnewmedia,notonlyto raise an unprecedented amount of money, but also to markethimas the candidate thatwouldbring change to the country. In‐spiredbythis,citizensprominentlyusednewmedialikeYouTube,FlickrandTwittertosharetheirexperiencesduringObama’sinau‐gurationweekcelebrationinWashington,D.C.AndafterPresidentObamatookoffice,hisfirstorderofbusinesswastorevealamod‐ernWhiteHousewebsiteand to issueamemo1directing theFed‐eralgovernmenttobemoretransparent,participatoryandcollabo‐rative.But the wheels of government do not turn merely because thePresident gives an order – even when that order comes from aleaderaspopularasObama.Disagreementsbetweenpeopleinthe

32

DRAPEAU

ExecutiveandLegislativebranchesoverpolicy,strategyandtacticscandelayprogressformonths,ifnotyears;nottomentionoutsidepressure from think tanks, special‐interest groups and super‐empowered individuals. Engaging in spiriteddebate is the core ofdemocracy,butsometimesitfeelslikeparticipatinginanationwidetrafficjam.Aninterestingby‐productofleadersencouraginggovernmenttobemoretransparent,participatoryandcollaborativeisthatpeopleareincreasingly, if inadvertently, takingmatters intotheirownhands.Encouraged by high‐profile uses of social software, governmentemployees previously hidden in “pockets of excellence” have usedpersonalblogs,microsharingandothernewcommunicationstech‐nologiestopromotetheirideaswithwideraudiencesthaneverbe‐fore, in the process circumventing to some extent their normalchains of command. And outsiders who have become enthusiastsregardingchangingthewaythegovernmentoperates,haveincreas‐inglybeensharingtheirideas,hostingeventsandcreatingwebsitesandapplicationsthatusegovernmentdatatohelppeople.Theseevangelists foratransparent,participatoryandcollaborativeGovernment 2.0 are a group of people I previously dubbed2 theGoverati. They are aunique and empoweredbandof insiders andoutsiders using an understanding of government, a passion fortechnology and a gift for communication in order to change gov‐ernanceandhelppeople.Whatsets theGoveratiapart fromotherspecial‐interestgroupsthatwanttolobbyorchangegovernmentistwo things. First, the technologies they are encouraging the gov‐ernmenttousearetheverythingsthatenablethemtocommuni‐cate their messages better to their audience, increase their reachand gain recognition for their work. Practicingwhat they preach,they endorse technologies they use themselves (and criticize onestheydislike).Theirpersonalpassions feedbackontotheirmissioninapositiveway,andtheirmessagescomeacrossasmoreauthenticbecauseofit.

33

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Second, the Goverati are a loosely organized groundswell lackingformal organization or a designated leader. There are catalystswithin the movement, to be sure; but while some persons haveemergedastemporarythoughtleaders,manyofthemdisagreewitheachotherovervariousissues,andnooneclearlyleadsthetribebythemselves. Nevertheless, modern communication technology hasenabledthedecentralized3Goveratitonetworkwitheachotherandempowered them to become very effective at educating peopleaboutthetopicofGovernment2.0anditspotential.AsauthorRob‐ert Waterman, Jr. would say, the Goverati is an “adhocracy” – ahighly‐adaptive organization4 cutting across normal bureaucraticlines tocaptureopportunities, solveproblemsandget results.Ad‐hocraciescanbeseenaseverythingbureaucraciesarenot,andtheyareperhapswhatisneededmostatatimewhentheworldisgrap‐plingwithmanyseriousissues.An interesting sub‐phenomenon, perhaps crucial to the growinginfluence of the Goverati adhocracy, is that while somemembershave decades of experience in government, technology, or both,others have relatively little. Nevertheless, some fresh thinkers inthis area, typically in their 30’s, have become extraordinarily tal‐entedatusing social technology to spread their viewsor innovateusingpilotprojects.Cynics sometimes judge thispatternas abuseof intellectual personal branding, or even annoyingly viral self‐promotion;regardless,anewclassofinfluencers5hasrisenfromthebureaucratic ooze to network and partner with experienced andprominentleaders.Inperhapsthebest‐knownexampleofarelativelyyoungmemberofthe Goverati having amajor impact, an informal Government 2.0social network named GovLoop was developed by a U.S. govern‐mentemployeeinhissparetimeonthepopularplatformNing.Inthe span of a just one year6 it gained over 12,000members at alllevels of government, in and outside of the U.S., and its rate ofgrowth seems tobe accelerating as excitement aboutGovernment2.0spreads. Itsmembership includesadvisorsat thehighest levelsoftheObamaAdministration.Incredibly,GovLoopwasmadepos‐

34

DRAPEAU

sible simply because one passionate, empowered young personfilledavoid thatemployees felt theyneeded,but that thegovern‐mentleftempty.Nowmembersofthegovernmentaresomeof itsbiggestfans.There is, however, pushback on the ideals ofGovernment 2.0, formany different reasons ranging from lack of understanding aboutemerging technologies, to ordinary resistance to change within avery large bureaucracy. It is often said that battles in governmentareusuallywonbythemostpersistentparty;decentralizedorgani‐zationsliketheGoveratihavetheabilitytoworkonmanythingsatonce,adaptquicklytochangingsituations,replenishmembersandevenleaderswhomovealongtootherpassions,andreinforcetheirinfluencebyusingsocialmediatospreadtheir ideas. Increasingly,large(over500attendee)eventslikeGovernment2.0Camp,PublicDemocracyForumandGov2.0Summit–formallyorganizedinde‐pendent of the government, but with their participation – areviewedasopportunitiesfornetworkingandhearingthebestideas.Whereas the government previously held events to tell citizensabout what it was doing, the government now more often findsitself in the position of taking advice from a subset of those verycitizenswhohavemorereachwiththeirthoughtsthaneverbefore.Andthereisnothingwrongwiththismeta‐pattern–whodeclaredthat government had to have all the answers? Citizens are smarttoo.Governmenttakingtheleadfromcitizensaboutthebenefitsofus‐ingsocialsoftwareisalsohappeningonamoreindividualscale,asgovernmentleadersintheU.S.andelsewherecontinuetoembracenewmediatools,bothpersonallyandprofessionally.Theexamplessetbyseniorleadersatthetopofthehierarchyaretricklingdownthroughout government, empowering others to start new projectsorreviveoldonesshelvedasunimportantinamorestovepipedera.Oneexcellentnewexampleofthis isBRIDGE,anunclassifiedU.S.intelligence community virtual environment debuted7 in 2009 toallowanalyststonetworkwithsubjectmatterexpertsoutsidegov‐ernment.Not so longago,collaborationbetween intelligenceana‐

35

STATEOFTHEEUNION

lystsandoutsidersonnationalsecuritychallengesinanonlineen‐vironmentwouldhavebeenunthinkable tomany;now, open col‐laborationisbecomingthedefaultplacetostartnewprojects.Web‐based social networking innovations like GovLoop andBRIDGE may result in the public‐facing parts of government ap‐pearing more personable. At a time when citizens are thinkingaboutgovernmentmorethanever,thiscanalmostcertainlyonlybeagoodthing.AsevidencedbytheGoverati,however,thisisapart‐nership of sorts – the governmenthas the ability to bemoreper‐sonabletowardscitizens,andcitizenshavetheabilitytomoreeas‐ily tell the governmentwhat they think. The technology tomakethispossible is available.Decisionsaboutwhowill takeadvantageof it, andwhenandhowtoutilize it, varyconsiderably.This two‐waystreetisfraughtwithobstacles.In the not‐so‐distant future, when a citizen is asked to name anindividualgovernmentemployee,theidealendstateshouldbethata person working in a micro‐niche of interest to them (finance,farming,health, and soon) immediately comes tomind.Unfortu‐nately, interestingand talentedpeopleworking inside thegovern‐ment are often not known to the public despite the great impor‐tanceoftheirworktoeverydaylife.Thisstateofaffairsismostlyavestige from the days when communications were controlled byprofessionally trained public relations staff dealing with main‐streammedia.Thiswasunderstandable–equipmentwasexpensive,channels were few, and citizens trusted authenticated, officialsourcesfortheirinformation.Butthismediastructurethatworkedwell forhalfacentury isnowoutdated.Reversingtheobscurityofpublicservants8 shouldbeaprincipalgoalofanopen,transparentgovernment.In theWeb 2.0 world9 where the Internet is used as a platform,everyindividual isempoweredtobenotonlyaconsumerof infor‐mation, but a producer of it. Publishedwords, pictures and videoare searchable, discoverable, sharable, usable and alterable. Thebloggers formerly known as kids in their parents’ basements have

36

DRAPEAU

morphed into a powerful society class of listeners, questioners,writers, editors, publishers and distributors; some bloggers haveeven become household names. Interestingly, this is beginning tohappennotonlyoutsidethegovernment,butwithinit.Take“Blog‐ger Bob” from the U.S. Transportation Security Administration’sblog – true, he isn’t as famous as TomClancy, but he’s been em‐poweredbyhisorganizationtowritewithapersonalviewpointthatshowcasesthepersonalityofahumanbeingratherthanthecoarse‐nessofofficialjargon.Thedeveloped global citizen is not an empty vesselwaiting to befilledwithpress releases andgovernmentwebsiteupdates.Evenasophisticatedgovernmentwebsite liketheWhiteHouse’scanonlyexpect toattracta subsetof citizensa subsetof the time,becausetherearesimplytoomanyavenuesofinformationflowingtowardsthesepeopleformerlyknownasacaptiveaudience.Nomatterhowcompelling the government information, they are not waiting tohearaboutit.NoraretheynecessarilywaitingtohearfromtheNewYorkTimes,BBC,oranyothermainstreamorganization.Fromthegovernment’s viewpoint, rather thanassumingcitizens are eagerlyawaitinggovernmentinformation,itismoreproductivetoimaginethem as interwoven networks of individuals having conversationsoverdinnerwiththeirfamilies,intheirworkplacecafeteriaandonsocialmediawebsites.Suchonlineandofflinesocialnetworksare increasinglyan impor‐tant and powerful force in the lives of adults.10 Butwhile govern‐ments have to some degree embraced newmedia in the form ofpublishingofficialblogsandreadingcomments,orutilizingTwitterandFacebooktoaccumulate“fans”andanswerquestions,theyap‐pear inmany cases less adept at deploying individuals to becometrustedmembersofmicronichecitizennetworksbasedaroundthetopicsonwhichtheywork.AskingpeopletotuneintoalivenewschatonFacebook isnotmuchdifferent fromasking themto tuneintoatelevisednewsconference.Come‐to‐usisnotbeingreplacedbygo‐to‐them,andyettrustedpeoplewithincommunitiesofinter‐

37

STATEOFTHEEUNION

esthavebecomefiltersforthemultimediavyingforcitizens’atten‐tion.Bureaucracies cannot have conversations with citizens; only indi‐vidual peoplewhoworkwithin thebureaucracy can. Ideally, suchpeoplehavingconversationscanbecome“lethallygenerous”trustedcommunity members.11 How does one know if someone hasachievedthatstatus?Ipositthatsuchlethallygenerouscommunityleaders are known to the community by name. In other words,when a citizen who is passionate about environmental issues, orhealth care reform, or veterans’ benefits, is asked to name a gov‐ernment staffer working on those topics, they should be able toanswer,becausethatstafferisalsoatrustedmemberoftheircom‐munityofinterest.Anecdotally, fewgovernmentemployeesconsider“marketing”partoftheirjob,andsimilarlymostcitizensdon’tthinkof“lobbying”aspartoftheirs.Butwheneverypersoncanbeawriter,publisher,anddistributor,everyonecannotbeimmunefromtheseresponsibilities.Granted, both private sector companies and government agencieshaverulesaboutwhatyoucanandcannotwriteaboutyourjob,andnot everyone wants to participate. Butmany people have alreadychosentoopt‐intopublishingblogsusingWordPress,belongingtosocialnetworkslikeFacebook,andsharingreal‐timeexperiencesonTwitter. The key question is, how do organizations channel suchpreexistingsocialcommunicationtalentsoftheirworkforceforbet‐ternetworkingbetweengovernmentandcitizens?Social capitalwithin large organizations should be harnessed, notpunished. Such people engaged in communities of interest mayverywellbemoreintouchwithgrassrootsconversations12thanthepublic affairs office of an agency, which traditionally tend moretowardsunidirectionaloutwardinformationflow.Theseemployeesmay also already be trustedmembers of a community of interest,flushwithknowledgeandgenerouswithassistance.It’sdifficulttothink of good reasons to not use such pre‐adapted social engage‐menttothegovernment’sadvantage.

38

DRAPEAU

Government“socialambassadors”shouldbefullyaccessible,trans‐parent, authentic, and collaborative leaders that inspire people tocooperate and engagewith their government andwith eachotherfor the sake of common concerns. As part of theirmissions, gov‐ernment brand ambassadors should conduct community‐basedresearchtobetterunderstandthegrassrootsinterestsoftheaverageperson,whicharesometimesmisunderstoodoroverlooked.Listen‐ingtoandparticipatinginonlineconversationsisquicklyreplacingpolling as a way to understand what communities of interest areactuallyinterestedin.With government social ambassadors using new media to moreeffectively reachout to communitiesof citizens, andwith citizensusing those same tools to lobby13 their government, a two‐waychannel of information flow may slowly become a “governmentwith the people”.While governments certainly face challenges inusingsocialtechnologies,expertsestimatethatthebenefitsofusingthese tools to engage the public outweigh the negatives.14 Socialtechnologiescanmakenetworkingandengagementwiththepublicsimpleandpowerful,make informalresearch faster, identify influ‐encers in usefulmicro‐niches, providemechanisms for combatingnegative publicity and measure public sentiment to help informpublicpolicyandimprovegovernance.Dr. Mark Drapeau (@cheeky_geeky) is a scientist, consultant and writerwhocanbecontactedthroughhiswebsite(http://markdrapeau.com),listinghis publications andother activities.Hehas aPh.D. in biological sciencesfromtheUniversityofCaliforniaandheldpostdoctoral fellowshipsatNewYorkUniversityandtheNationalDefenseUniversity.1WhiteHouseMemorandumFortheHeadsofExecutiveDepartmentsandAgen‐cies.TransparencyandOpenGovernment.Jan.22,2009.See:http://j.mp/DVta

39

STATEOFTHEEUNION

2 Government2.0:TheRiseoftheGoverati,ReadWriteWeb,Feb.5,2009.See:http://j.mp/kmNG

3 OriBrafmanandRodBeckstrom,StarfishandtheSpider:TheUnstoppablePowerofLeaderlessOrganizations,Penguin,2006.ClayShirky,HereComesEverybody:ThePowerofOrganizingWithoutOrganizations,Penguin,2008.

4 RobertH.Waterman,Jr.,Adhocracy,W.W.Norton&Co.,1993. 5 Interestingly,thisphenomenonmayberesponsibleforthefast‐growinginfluenceoftheGoverati.Accordingtoanewresearchpaper(Hai‐TaoZhangetal.,Effec‐tiveLeadershipinCompetition,2009preprint:http://j.mp/pMijh),relativelyfewnewleaderswithinalargegroupcanshiftthebalanceofpowerbydistributingtheirideasbroadlyandretainingallegianceswell.Socialmediacanfacilitateex‐actlythatwhenusedwell.

6 MarkDrapeau,Celebratethe‘SummerofGov’inWashington,DCandSanFran‐cisco,Examiner.com,July10,2009.See:http://j.mp/4v1r55

7 BRIDGEwasfundedbytheDeputyDirectorofNationalIntelligenceforAnalysis.InformationabouthowBRIDGEishelpingtheU.S.IntelligenceCommunityconnectwithoutsidesubjectmatterexpertswhounderstandemergingtechnolo‐giescanbefoundhere:http://about.bridge‐ic.net/index.html

8 MarkDrapeau,HowSocialMediaCouldTransformGovernmentPublicRelations,PBSMediaShift,Jan2009.See:http://j.mp/Env1

9TimO’Reilly,WhatIsWeb2.0:DesignPatternsandBusinessModelsfortheNextGenerationofSoftware,Sept.30,2005.See:http://j.mp/aa1sP

10AmandaLenhart,SocialNetworksGrow:FriendingMomandDad,Jan.14,2009.See:http://j.mp/I6kV

11 Theterm“lethallygenerous"withregardtosocialmediausagewascoinedbyauthorShelIsraelandmeansthatratherthanadoptingacommand‐and‐controlstrategy,someoneseekingtobeathoughtleaderinacommunityshouldpartici‐pateinitsconversationsandaddthemostvaluepossible.See:http://j.mp/1usndH

12 Goodonlinecommunitymanagerstendtohaveauniquecombinationofskillsincludingthoseofamagazineeditor,orchestraconductor,teacher,andparent.SimonYoung,Whatdoyouneedinacommunitymanager?June5,2009.See:http://j.mp/kE5kw

13 TherecentWhiteHouseexperimentcalledthe“OpenGovernmentInitiative"isagoodexampleofhowsocialtechnologiesareempoweringcitizenstocontributetothegovernmentpolicymakingprocess.ItwasdirectedbytheOfficeofScienceandTechnologyPolicy.See:http://j.mp/KXTBh

14 MarkDrapeauandLintonWellsII,SocialSoftwareandNationalSecurity:AnInitialNetAssessment,DefenseandTechnologyPapers,NationalDefenseUni‐versity,April2009.See:http://j.mp/TJLA4.JamesJayCarafano,SocialNetwork‐ingandNationalSecurity:HowtoHarnessWeb2.0toProtecttheCountry,Heri‐tageFoundationBackgrounder,May18,2009.See:http://j.mp/XKlee.

41

#4

THEEMERGENCEOFGOV2.0:FROMGOVLOOPTOTHEWHITEHOUSE

SteveResslerFounder,GovLoop.com

A revolution is happening in government as the result of a newgenerationofgovernmentemployees,theriseofWeb2.0technolo‐gies, and theObama administration's focus on transparency, par‐ticipation,andcollaboration.OftencalledGov2.0,thisnextgenera‐tionofgovernmentismarkedbytheprinciplesofopenness,trans‐parencyandcollaboration,andtheideathatthevoicesofthemanyaresmarterthanthevoiceofone.While this movement has been brewing for a few years, Gov 2.0tippedinlate2008intheUnitedStatesandhassweptWashington,D.C.Excitementaboutthegovernment'suseofWeb2.0technologybegun as agencies saw theObama campaignutilizeweb 2.0 tech‐nologiessuchasthesocialnetworkmyBarackObama,FacebookandTwitter, to bring together a community ofmillions of citizens to‐wardsacommongoal.This excitement continued during the Presidential Transition pe‐riodas thevariousTransition teamscontinued toutilizenewme‐dia,fromYouTubevideosfromthevariousTransitionteams,totheGoogle Moderator Open for Questions sessions to a modernchange.govwebsite.

42

RESSLER

ThiscontinuedasPresidentObamamoved intohisnewrole.OneofPresidentObama'sfirstactsinofficewastoissueadirectivecall‐ingforamoretransparent,collaborativeandparticipatorygovern‐ment.LeadersfromtheOfficeofManagementandBudgetandOf‐ficeofScienceandTechnologyPolicysolicited input to thememofromallfederalemployeesthroughtheOMBMAXwiki.The first White House New Media team was formed headed byMaconPhillips from theObamacampaign teamwithdetails fromgovernmentinsiderssuchasBevGodwin.Theyhavebeenworkingthrough new challenges based on rules created decades ago, buthave already launched the “Ask thePresident” contestwhere theyreceivedhundredsofthousandsofsuggestionsfromcitizens.Addi‐tionally, newmedia directors are being put in place at themajorcabinetagencies.TheGeneralServicesAdministrationhasledanumberofinitiativesin the space. They have worked with web 2.0 providers such asYouTube, Facebook andMySpace to sign Terms of Service agree‐mentsallowingfederalagenciestoutilizethesenewtools.TheFed‐eralWebManager Committee has formed the Social Media Sub‐council, co‐chaired by Jeff Levy of US Environmental ProtectionAgency and Joyce Bounds of US Department of Veterans Affairs,focusing on sharing lessons learned via their blog,wiki andwebi‐nars with web 2.0 companies such as Facebook, YouTube andO’ReillyMedia.Governmentagencieshavebegunusingsocialmediatoolsforvari‐ous events. Forboth thePeanutButterRecall and theH1N1 virus,agencies such as HHS, CDC andDHS utilized Twitter, Facebook,blogsandwidgets toensure thatgovernment informationreachedthecitizenswheretheyinteracted.TherearemanyothersexamplesincludingHilaryClinton’sDigitalTownhalloftheAmericas.At thegrassroots level,agroupofknowledgeable insiders is form‐ing, connecting and spreading information across social networks

43

STATEOFTHEEUNION

suchasGovLoopandTwitter.TheGovernment2.0Club,modeledafter thepopular SocialMediaClub,was launched inMarch 2009and provides furthermechanism for branding events and sharingwisdom.Theyrecentlyheld the firstGov2.0Barcamp,whereover500membersofthegovernmentcommunitymetandsharedideasonmakingGov2.0happen.Andnon‐profitorganizations likeTheSunlightFoundationaredevelopingapplicationsandhostingeventsin aneffort tomakegovernmentmore transparent andultimatelymoreaccountabletothepublic.Silicon Valley has started paying attention and moving into D.C.Tim O’Reilly (founder of O’Reilly Media and creator of the termWeb 2.0) recently launched the Gov 2.0 Summit and has shiftedfocusontheimportanceofopengovernmentwiththeideaof“gov‐ernment as platform”.Tim O’Reilly argues that government doesnotneedtojustserveasavendingmachineservingupservices,butinstead should be set up as a platformmuch like Apple with theiPhoneandallownon‐profits,citizensandstart‐upstobuildon‐topof government core functions.Additionally, governmentLuminar‐iessuchasCraigNewmark(founderofCraigslist)havebegunshow‐ingupatvariousgovernmentconferencesandtryingtoconnecttheGeekstoWonks.One of the most successful examples of Government 2.0 is Gov‐Loop.com, an online community created for and by governmentemployees,whichhasbroughttogethermorethan17,500membersofthegovernmentcommunity.Dubbedbysomeasa“FacebookforGovernment,” GovLoop brings together government employeesfrom theU.S. and other nations to discuss ideas, share best prac‐ticesandcreateacommunitydedicated to thebettermentofgov‐ernment.Inonlyayear,GovLoophasbeguntosmashtheage‐oldsilosthatexistedbetween federal agencies and facilitatingdialogue thathasneverexistedbeforebetweenstate, localandinternationalgovern‐ment agencies.Members range fromCIOs,WhiteHouse politicalappointees,dozensof citymanagers tobrilliantgovernment inno‐

44

RESSLER

vators all across levels of government. Since its launch, GovLoopmembers have written over 1,500 blogs, started 1,200 discussions,postedover450events,shared4,000+photosandcreatedover200videos.The creation of a new way for government to connect and solveproblemshascaughtfire,andGovLoophasbeenrecognizedbyitspeers,including,bywinningtheprestigiousFederal100award.Most importantly GovLoop members have started connecting inways to improve government.Theopen, accelerated flowof infor‐mation on GovLoop has led to the rapid replication of ideas andbestpracticesacrossalllevelsofgovernment,assistinginimprovedgovernmentoperationsandperformance.Forexample,aCaliforniaCityAttorney'sOfficewasable tosetupan official government social media presence in a matter of daysinsteadofmonths,byleveragingthebestpracticesandexperiencesofthestateofMassachusetts,whichwassharedonGovLoop.Inanotherexample,theOfficeofPersonnelManagementwaslook‐ing for feedback in improving federal internship programs andreachedouttotheNationalAssociationofSchoolsofPublicAffairsandAdministration(NASPAA).NASPAAandGovLoopcombinedtohostanonlinedialoguewheretheyreceivedover40ideasfromcur‐rent and former internship recipients with real concrete ways toimprovetheinternshipprograms.Additionally,GovLoopmembershavealready:

• Developed a burgeoning “Acquisition 2.0” movement toemployinnovativeacquisitionmethods

• Been the leading source of government input into theObamaAdministration’sOpenGovernmentMemo

• EstablishedarepositoryofbestpracticesonitemsincludingSocialMediaPolicies,GovernmentHiringandGovernmentTwitterUse

45

STATEOFTHEEUNION

• Brought together international government leaders fromacrosstheglobeincludingCanada,UnitedKingdom,Brazil,andAustralia

• Createdthe first‐everTweetbooksummarizingall themes‐sagesonTwitterattheOpenGovernmentandInnovationsConferenceintoaconcisee‐bookforreadersworldwide

• Launchedatop‐ratedpodcastGov20Radio.comwithguestslike Tim O'Reilly (founder of O’Reilly media) and CraigNewmark(founderofCraigsList.com).

Further, government agencies across the world have started col‐laboratingat apeer‐to‐peer level that is rarely seen.OnGovLoop,approximately 10% of the membership is international with hun‐dredsofmembersfromCanada,U.K.,Australia,NewZealand,Bra‐zil, Spain, amongmanyothercountries. Ithasbeen fascinating toconnectwithpeople likeStephenCollinsofAustraliawhoisakeypart of the Australians Gov 2.0 Taskforce (see Stephen Collins'chapter), andHelioLeiteTeixeirawho is building theburgeoningGov2.0movementinBrazil.Despiteculturaldifferences,therearemanysimilaritiesacrosstheglobeintheadoptioncurveofGov2.0andithasbeenofgreatvaluetobringthethoughtleaderstogether.In traditional situations, best practices around e‐government aresharedatconferenceswhereonlya fewselectcountriesanda fewrepresentatives can attend. GovLoop has fostered peer‐to‐peer in‐formation sharing at the international level amongst both leadersandattheworkinglevel.Personally, ithasbeenamazingtowatchtheecosystemofgovern‐mentdevelopatGovLoop.Peoplethatwouldhavenevermetinreallife based on geography, agency and type of work are really con‐nectingandlearningfromeachother.Forexample,intheAcquisi‐tion2.0GovLoopgroupsomeofthetopparticipantsrangefromaGSA employee, DOD IT program manager, CEO of a social net‐workingplatform and aUSDAGraduate School trainer.Addition‐ally, ithasbeguntobringgovernmentinnovatorstogether–when

46

RESSLER

youseeagreenGovLoop“BureaucratsNeedNotApply”lanyardinthehallway,youknowalike‐mindedinnovatorisinyourpath.Thebeautyofgovernment is thatweareall in it togetherandweare not competitors. If an international, federal, state or localagencyisworkingonaproblem,thereisnodoubtanotheragencyhasalreadyresearchedtheproblemandfoundasolution.Withthepowerof sites likeGovLoop,employeescan learn fromeachotherrather than reinvent thewheel. In the end, they are learning andworkingtogethertocreateafaster,quicker,cheaper,andmoreef‐fectivegovernment.Whilethetippingpointmayhavebeenreached,Gov2.0stillhasalongwaytogo.Thecurrentexamplesaremainlyearlyadoptersandmanygovernmentagenciesarestill justdippingtheirtoesintothespace.Additionally, with these new technologies and new genera‐tion of government employees, there is a huge cultural shift thatmust take place moving from a hierarchical‐based structure to anetworked approach where good ideas rise and are implementedregardless of where they came from.However, it is clear that insolving government problems, we should leverage the wisdom ofthemillionsof citizens,governmentemployees,and theirpastex‐periences.Steve Ressler (@govloop) is the founder of GovLoop.com, a “Facebook forGovernment” which connects and foster collaboration among over 11,000members.InSeptember2009,GovLoopbecameanoperatingdivisionwithinGovDelivery,aproviderofgovernment‐to‐citizencommunicationsolutions.Steve is also the co‐founder of YoungGovernment Leaders, a professionalorganizationofover2,000governmentemployeesacrosstheU.S.Stevere‐ceived the 2007 and 2009 Federal 100Award for his service in the govern‐mentITcommunity.

47

#5

STRUCTUREDCROWDSOURCING:HARNESSINGEXTERNALEXPERTISE

INGOVERNMENT

DanDoneyCTO,StrategicEnterpriseSolutions,

USOfficeoftheDirectorofNationalIntelligenceWeb 2.0 technologies provide an environment where individualscancollaboratetocreate,share,organize,editorcommentonWebcontent. Through the network effect, where many (often small)individualcontributionsprovidegreatcollectivevalue,technologieslikewikis,blogs,socialnetworkingandmediasharingapplicationshave transformed the internet unleashing the creativity of themasses and facilitating theworldwide spread of ideas and experi‐encesinaninstant.But, harnessing the network effect to support themission of gov‐ernmentagencieshasprovenamoreelusivechallenge.Thecompli‐catedanduniquenatureofinternalenvironmentsdesignedtosup‐port a mission can be difficult to blend with rapid evolution oftechnologies on the openweb. Leveraging popularWeb 2.0 tech‐nologiesdirectlyonthewebcanhavemissionbenefits,butwilladdto “knowledge fragmentation”, theconditionwhereknowledgeex‐pressedbytheusersinanenterpriseisspreadacrossdisconnected

48

DONEY

applications, which can result in loss of collective awareness andcan create unacceptable security conditions. But when Web 2.0technologiesarebrought“inhouse”,thepowerofthenetworkcanbereduced,possiblychangingthevalueofthetoolfundamentally.Failuretointegratenewtoolswithexistingenterprisetechnologiesdevelopedtosupportanorganization’s specificmission,oruniqueworkflows, can forceazero sumgame forcingusers tochoosebe‐tween collaboration and their “day job”. Technologieswith incon‐sistentsecuritymodelscanresult inasimilar tradeoffbetweense‐curityandopenness.New approaches are emerging to strike the balance between thecoordination needed to support an enterprise mission and theopenness required to tap into the network effect.More than justWeb 2.0 tools, Gov 2.0 refers to ambitious, network effect‐basedefforts underway to boost public sector efficiency, make govern‐mentmoreresponsiveandspurinnovationinagencies.SuccessesofPeer‐to‐Patent1attheUSPatentOfficeandelsewherepointtothepotential for transformational impact on a government agency’smissionbytappingintothepowerofthenetwork.To realize unleash this potential, agenciesmust address 4 funda‐mental challenges that are underscored by Gov 2.0 approaches.First,greatercoordinationbetweenCIO,CFO,andmissionmanag‐ers is required to unfetter newGov 2.0 paradigms for acquisition,governance,organizational structuring,humanresources,etc.Sec‐ond,inculcatingpervasivechangerequiresaplatformofenterpriseservicesthatinfuseexistingtoolsdesignedforthemissionwithGov2.0 principles without wholesale replacement, while at the sametime providing a mechanism to integrate new tools that changeorganizational paradigms. Most importantly, agencies need topropagatenewstandardsandservicesthatensurethatsecurityandsharingcomplementratherthancompeteasgoalsenablingproduc‐tivity gainswithout compromising security. Finally, agenciesmustadopt practices that enable them to rapidly adapt at the pace oftechnologychange.

49

STATEOFTHEEUNION

We’lltakeacloselookatoneGov2.0initiativecalledBRIDGE2thatenables the understandably insular US intelligence community totapintoinnovationonthewebwithoutsacrificingenterprisesecu‐rity needs. This environment extends theWikimodel, which hasenabledenduserstoeasilycontributetextualcontentenmasse,totechnologyproviders.Thismodelenables innovatorstocontributetechnologies that enhance the intelligencemission in amatter ofdays through a “virtual sandbox”, where all players – academics,integrators,innovatorsandagencies–caninteractonnewapplica‐tionswhilestillprotectingintellectualproperty.It is importanttoemphasizeBRIDGEisnotaWeb2.0tool. It isaprocess for discovering, leveraging, and transitioning tools. Oftenthebiggestchallenge forgovernmentagencies is to recognize thattheprocessismoreimportantthanthetool.ToembraceGov2.0istoavoidthetemptationtoattempttobuildthe killer app and instead focus on processes that provide a plat‐formfordisruptive technologies, theones theydidn’tknowtoaskfororbuild,tothrive.Whenyouletathousandflowersbloom...

EfficientDiscoveryOrganizations struggle to remain aware of, let alone harness, therapidly evolving state of the art in information technology. Largeorganizationsoftenestablish researchelements todevelopcuttingedge technologies that meet their unique mission needs. But, nomatterhowwell funded and staffed these elementsmaybe, thereare always more innovators outside an organization than inside.Failure to tap into outside sources can leave an organization at acompetitivedisadvantage.Onechallenge fororganizations iswadingthroughamyriadofal‐ternatives to find the best solution to mission challenges. Tradi‐tionalacquisitionprocessesoftenimplementselectioncriteriathatdon’talignwiththeactualneed,employjudgeswhodon’trepresenttheneedsofusersordon’thavetheexpertiserequiredtofilterpo‐

50

DONEY

tentialsolutions,andsetrequirementsthatunnecessarilyconstrainthesetofpotentialsolutions.Theresultispooradoptionratesandadecreaseintheprobabilityofdiscoveringdisruptivetechnologies,thosethatcomefromoutsideexpectedsolutiontrajectories.With‐out reform, the process strictly regulates dialogue with vendors,prevents the dissemination of promising ideas and unnaturallyseparatestheenduserfromtheinnovator.Inthepastfewyears,agrowingnumberoforganizationshavecon‐ceivedofmethodstoovercometheselimitationstomoreefficientlytapintotheexpertiseofthewealthof innovatorsacrosstheglobe.There is an impressive list of “crowdsourcing” success stories ascompaniesdevelopcreativeways to tapexternal innovation.Someprominent examples: The Netflix Prize, the DARPA Grand Chal‐lenge,AppsforDemocracy.Ineachcase,theorganizationopenedachannel to enable innovators to participate in solving importantmissionchallenges.Tosucceed, thecompetitionmustbecarefullydesignedandbeopentoabroadsetofparticipants.Incentivestruc‐tures drive participation but competitive forces result in self‐selection with only innovators who believe they have a crediblechance of recouping investment participating. No arbitrarymeas‐uresofperceivedvaluepreventunexpectedapproaches fromcom‐petingorevenwinning.Whentheprize isproperlyset toaccountforthedifficultyofthechallengeandtherisktakenbyparticipants,theorganizationshostingtheprizehaveseentremendousreturnoninvestment.BRIDGE takes a similar approach to selection. Providers can offersolutions to challenges that are explicitly expressed or implied inthespace.Participationisopentotechnologyprovidersfromacrossgovernment,academiaandindustry.The“prize”forparticipants istheopportunity todeploy technologies that showpromise tomis‐sion settings and reap thebenefits of license revenue that ensues.Toparticipate,technologiesmustmeetaminimumsetofspecifica‐tionsforenterprisedeployment.Theyaredesignedtobeeasilymet,so asnot to constrainparticipationby resourcesor approach.Butthisminimumbarrierisenoughtodiscourageparticipantswhodo

51

STATEOFTHEEUNION

notbelievetheircapability is likelyto impacttheintelligencemis‐sion,whichhelpstoseparatethewheatfromthechaffinthesolu‐tionlandscape.BRIDGEprovidesadirectconnectionbetweentheenduserandthetechnology provider. As with the internet, end users in the spaceultimately decide which technologies “win” by “voting with theirfeet”.Thisalsocreatesasettingthatminimizesgovernmentriskbyenablingagencymanagers toevaluate technologiesbeforeacquisi‐tion in a “try before you buy” setting. The result is ameritocracythatreflectstechnologycapabilityandusabilitywiththebestideasfor the mission rising to the top. Technologies that have higheradoptionratesandgreaterimpactonthemissionareselected.

CreatingaplatformforinnovationBut formany organizations, government agencies specifically, thecomplicated and unique nature of internal environmentsmake itdifficult to expressneeds inaway that lend themselves to crowd‐sourcing.TheUSintelligencecommunityisnoexception.Giventheclosednatureof the intelligencemission, tapping intoexternal in‐novationisadifficultchallenge.Theneedforsecrecyresultsinhighmarket frictionseparatingthecreativesolutionproviders fromna‐tional security challenges. Inmanycases, articulatinganeedpub‐licly can signal vulnerability. Outside innovations may appearpromisingbutmaynotconformtostandardsnecessaryforsecurity,integratewithexistinginfrastructureorfitnaturallywithprocessesspecifictothemission.Thisfriction(thecostoftechnologydiscov‐ery, evaluation, accreditation, and integration) results in a lag be‐tweenthetechnologiesavailabletoagileadversariesandthosethatareavailabletoanintelligenceanalystintheworkplace.Tominimizethebarriersthatstifleinnovation,BRIDGEprovidesanunclassifiedaccess controlledenvironment accessible tousers andtechnologyproviders via the internet.This frameworkenables ap‐plicationproviderstohosttheirownsolutionswhileconnectingtothe “virtual platform”without third party involvement. It exposes

52

DONEY

coreservicesthatemulateintelligencecommunitymissionsettingsenablingproviderstomash‐upwithoneanotherandleverageexist‐ingserviceswithoutbeingforcedto“reinventthewheel”.Providerscandevelopagainsttheserviceendpoints,getdirectfeedbackfromusers resulting shorterdevelopment spiralsand reduce the time ittakestotransitiontoproduction.Theseendpointsinstantiatesecu‐rity and sharing best practices, providing a forcing function thatpushestechnologiesindirectionsthatsupportenterprisegoals.Asaresult,promising tools canbeplucked from this environmentandquicklyintegratedintoclassifiedmissionenvironments.This creates a technology pipeline which follows the iPhone AppStoremodel by providing a lowbarrier‐to‐entry platform that en‐ables tech providers to easily expose capabilities to users, so thatthey can discover/use next generation capabilities that have valuetotheirmissionevenwhilethecapabilitiesarestillinbeta.iPhoneappshaveproliferatedexplosivelysince its inceptiondueto itsac‐cessibility, clear specifications for participation and an active userbase (buyers). These conditions are necessary for crowdsourcingand have unleashed the creativity of thousands of innovators.BRIDGEisbeginningtoseethesameeffect.At the intra‐agency level, BRIDGE provides an App Store‐like de‐centralizedrepositoryofbigideasandinnovations.ThroughaSOAframework, this repository facilitates technology reuse, reducingduplication of effort while giving agencymanagers access to bestpractices.

PropagatingEnterpriseStandardsPerhaps the most important factor in harnessing the undirectedpower of the network effect is the careful selection and enforce‐mentofenterprisestandards.Tomeetenterprisegoals,CIOsspendsignificanttimeandresourcescreatingelegantenterprisearchitec‐tures and extensive service guidelines. All too frequently, theseguidelinesare impractical,unclearorunenforceable.Forcedtode‐cidebetweencomplianceandmissionimperatives,missionmanag‐

53

STATEOFTHEEUNION

ers often ignore these guidelines, creating a “black market” fortechnologies which perpetuates fragmentation and prevents thespread of best practices. The promise and ease of enterprise de‐ploymentofWeb2.0 technologieshasexacerbated thisproblem inmany cases by widening the gap between new technologies andlegacy mission systems. The pace of technology change and thediversityof capabilitiesdemandamoredecentralizedapproach toenterprise IT governance. In a way that parallels governance inmarketeconomies,CIOsestablisha small setofgroundrules thatfacilitate informedchoicesofmanagers rather thanmandatingso‐lutions.The first step towards propagating enterprise best practices is toensurethatitiseasyformissionmanagers(ultimatelythedecisionmakerwhodecideswhattechnologytobuyorimplement)toiden‐tify technologies that conform. Many CIOs establish enterpriseguidelinesthroughreferencearchitecturesbutstopshortofestab‐lishing a mechanism to verify application conformance. A “rule”creates a mechanism to verify conformance to the guideline. Toshapeenterprisepractices,arulemustbeenforceable,practicalandpartofacquisitionorimplementationdecisions.Guidelineswithoutaruleareoftenignoredsincetheycanbeambiguouslyinterpreted,vendors claimcompliance since there isnoway toverify, and im‐plementations may be incompatible, ultimately giving missionmanagers no mechanism to filter (and no benefit from filtering)potentialsolutions.BRIDGEintroducestheconceptofaconformanceendpoint,awebservice interface that implements the rule. Applications that con‐sumetheservicecanbeverifiedtoconforminastandardway,mak‐ingiteasyforprovidersandevaluatorstovalidatecompliance.Mis‐sionmanagersareprovidedaconformancechecklist for technolo‐gies enabling them tomake informed decisions on a technology’simplementationofstandardsand integratabilitywithexistingmis‐sionsystems.

54

DONEY

Establishing rules that shape acquisition decisions gives CIOs apowerful mechanism for driving technologies towards enterprisestandardsthrougha lighttouch. It isequivalenttosteeringwithacanard,asmallcontrolsurfacetowardthefrontoftheairframe.Infront,acanardhasthesamesteeringeffectasamuchlargersurfaceneartherear.ForITgovernance,theeffortrequiredtoshapetech‐nologies before acquisition and integration ismuch less than thatrequiredonce theyare implemented inmission systems.Themis‐sioncriticalnatureofoperationsmakesitalmostimpossibletore‐shape solutions once implemented. By enforcing standards as abarriertoentry,techprovidersaremorelikelytoembedthemintocoreofferings reducing the likelihood thata thirdparty integratorwillneed tomakemodifications toensureconformancewitheachnewrelease.Rulesdrivedownthecostofintegrationandcoordination.But,theycome at the expense of innovation. Additional rules increase thebarriertoentryfornewtechnologiesandmaycreateabarrierthatkeepscreativeideasout.Beforeestablishingarule,theorganizationshouldcarefullyconsidertheimpactoninnovation,thepracticalityof implementation, the scope of its enforcement and its perma‐nence. Rules that can’t be met practically, are not uniformly en‐forced or are frequently changedwill be ignored. Toomany ruleswillreduceagilityandcauseanorganizationtofallbehindthestateoftheart.Theoptimalsetofrulesforanorganizationdependsonthebalancebetween theneed for enterprise coordinationand thevalueofagility.Thisbalancewilldependonthecomplexityof theorganization,thediversityofthemissionandotherfactors.

TheSixSimpleRulesSincestrikingthisbalancefortheintelligencemissioniscentraltotheBRIDGEapproach, itwouldbeworthwhile toexplore thespe‐cificrulesforBRIDGEingreaterdetail.Technologyparticipationisgoverned by the 6 Simple Rules, a set of standards which ensurethattechnologiesinthespaceworktogether–sharinginformationfreelyandsecurelyacrossapplicationboundaries.

55

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Ashasbeendocumented,intelligenceanalysishassufferedfromananalyticenvironmentthatisveryfragmented.Adirectconsequencehasbeenthatdecisionmakers(andanalysts)havefounditdifficultto know what is collectively known about a particular topic. Thecomplexityofthemissionrequireshundredsofspecializedtoolstosupportawidevarietyofanalyticchallengesanddatasources.Butthe large number of tools – and the fact that insight expressedthroughanalysis ina tool isdifficult to leverage ifyoudon't regu‐larlyusethattool–hascreated“toolchaos,”anexcessivefragmen‐tationof insight.Additionally,most analytic insight (hunches, ex‐perience,processesandsourceassessments)isnotcapturedandisentirely lostwhenananalyst leaves, retiresor evenchanges roles.Web 2.0 tools have been implemented to increase knowledgeworker productivity by capturing and reusing knowledge workerinsight.But these techniques tools aredisconnected frommissionsystemssolvingsomeproblemswhilecreatingothers.The6SimpleRuleswere established to create a framework that brings thenet‐work effect to all toolsmakes standalone tools collaborative, andcollaborativetoolsbetter–creatingaconnectedenterprise.The rules do not specifywhat technologies will meet intelligenceanalysts’ needs, but rather how technologies (existing and future)can be modified to enable integrated analysis. Establishment oftheserulesandpropergovernanceenablesmanytools toworkto‐getherinaradicalnewenvironmentforsharing/linking/layeringofinsight consistentwith the vision of theODNIAnalytic Transfor‐mation (AT) initiative.The6SimpleRules: 1)WebUser Interface,2)UnifiedAuthentication,3)ActivityLogginginaCommonFormatto a Service, 4) Access Aware Applications, 5) Discover‐able/LinkableArtifactsand6)CoreCapabilitiesAvailableviaWebServices.Theserulescreateanumberofenterprisebenefits:Rapid transition of capabilities: Establishing the rules through ac‐cessible web service conformance endpoints provides technologyproviders clear specifications to create capabilities that are moreeasily integrated into existing intelligence community environ‐

56

DONEY

ments. Web service enabled capabilities in conformant tools aremore accessible – providing an environment that supports newcombinations of capabilities after stand‐up. The Simple Rules re‐duce thecostof transition to thegovernmentand the riskassoci‐atedwithdevelopmenttothetechnologyprovider.Enhancedsecurity:TheSimpleRulesprovideforamoresecureen‐vironment through commonauthentication, access aware applica‐tions and auditing of activity in a common format that can beminedtoidentifymaliciousbehavior.Enhanced sharing: Pulling group associations, communities of in‐terest(COI)andsocialnetworkdataoutof individualapplicationstousecollectivelythrough“accessaware”applicationsenhancestheutilityof thesegroupings– since theymaybeexpressedonceandused frequently for trusted sharing of insight. Having a commonserviceforexposingaffiliationsconnectsWeb2.0“friendslists”withformallyestablishedgroupsenablingdeeperawarenessandsharing.Aneasytouseaccesscontrolframeworkenablesenduserstodrawtheir own boundaries for dissemination appropriate to their mis‐sion.Broadavailabilityof tools:Differentmissionneedsresult inawidevarietyofITinfrastructuresanddesktopconfigurations.Thesedif‐ferenceslimitthedistributionoftools,increaseaccreditationcosts,result in uneven analytic toolsets, prevent usage convergence to‐wardsbest of breed technologies and add to the fragmentationofinsight. The Simple Rules distill integration requirements to theessential components to give compliant applications the broadestdistributabilityacrossthecommunity.Therulewhichrequireswebuserinterfacesisanexample.Oneofthefewenterprisewidesimi‐larities is the availability of web browsers to analysts. Recent ad‐vances intherichness,speed,andinteractivityof informationpre‐sented in a browser have closed the gap in functionality betweenwebanddesktopapplications.Asaresult,thereisagrowinglistofcapabilitiespresentedviaawebinterfacethathavenearenterprise‐

57

STATEOFTHEEUNION

widereach.Thereareveryfewdesktopapplications(MicrosoftOf‐ficeexcepted)thatcanmakethisclaim.Context shared across tool boundaries: One tool can leverage thefactthatananalysthasexpressedinterestinaspecifictarget/topicin a different tool – without directly integrating with that tool.Through SimpleRule compliant applications that log activity in acommon format, context can be shared across tool boundaries(withoutexpensiveapptoappintegration)alleviatingtheneedforan analyst to restate needs, priorities and interests repeatedly foreachapplicationrequiredtodohis/herjob.Morepowerfultechnologies:SinceSimpleRulecomplianttechnolo‐giescanbemorereadilycombined,technologyproviderscanfocuson extending core competencieswhile leveraging the strengths ofother services resulting in quicker development cycles and lighterweight, recomposable applications that combine best of breedcomponents.TheSimpleRulesalleviatetechnologybarrierstoinformationshar‐ing enablingmore effective analysis: Fragmented Insight, LimitedDiscovery, Prohibitive Integration Costs, Bloated Tools and Reac‐tiveSecurity.

SupportingPerpetualBetathroughTechnologyAvailabilityLevelsMany technology companies have implemented developmentstrategies thatenable themtocontinuouslyupgrade theirproducteven while deployed. Consumers are willing to accept reasonablerisk in a “perpetual beta”model in exchange for rapidly adaptingtechnologiesthatremainattheedgeofthestateoftheart.BRIDGEhasadopted thismodel for technologydevelopment.Theenvironmentisopentotechnologiesthatarestillmaturing.Devel‐operscanleverageexistingservices,mash‐upnewcombinationsofservicesandgetdirectfeedbackfromusersenablingshorterdevel‐

58

DONEY

opmentspirals.Userscantryoutthesetechnologies,workdirectlywithtechnologistonanalyticchallengesandshapethetechnologiesofthefuture.Earlyinteractionwithendusersisoneofthebiggestfactorsinsuccessfuldeploymentoftechnologies.Butsupportingavarietyoftechnologiesatvaryinglevelsofmatur‐ityinthesameenvironmentcomeswithrisks.Ifusersdon’thaveameans to distinguish between reliable tools and technologies thatareunstableastheyrapidlyevolve,theycanbecomefrustrated.Forthisreason,BRIDGEassignstechnologiesinthespaceaTechnologyAvailabilityLevel (TAL)rating.TALsrange from1‐4(development,alpha,betaandcoreservice.Technologiesinthespacearerequiredto prominently display their TAL to users. This enables users todistinguishbetweendeveloping technologiesandapplications thathavebeenverifiedtobestable.TALsareassignedbytestingagainst3dimensions:conformancetothe Simple Rules, stability as established by random availabilitytests,andcommitmenttoremaininthespace.To“graduate”fromBRIDGE to mission settings, applications must progress to thehighestTALlevel.

ExpertiseOutreachAnaccesscontrolledbutlowbarriertoentryenvironmentthatac‐cepts risk is also well suited for expertise outreach. BRIDGE pro‐videsanenvironmentforintelligencecommunityanalyststoreachouttoexpertiseelsewhereinfederal,stateandlocalgovernment,inacademia, and industry. BRIDGE employs a “web of trust” accesscontrol model that enables users in the space to let others in bytaking responsibility for them through sponsorship. These userscan,inturn,letothersintothespaceinthesameway.Inthisway,allusers inthespacearepartofa trustchain.Thismodelenablescommunitiestoformandmorphquickly–permittingcrossorgani‐zation, attributable conversations in an access controlled environ‐ment, providing access to minds outside traditional intelligencecircles–ananalyticforcemultiplier.

59

STATEOFTHEEUNION

This complements the tool discovery and role of BRIDGE sinceevaluation(especiallyofWeb2.0tools)requiresavibrantenviron‐mentfullofactivity.Accesstocuttingedgetechnologiesdrawsus‐ers.Activeusers create the conditionsnecessary to evaluate tools.Thisactivityandthechallengesrepresenteddrawsinnovators.Thisisnetworkeffectatwork.Themoreusersandtechnologistspartici‐pate,thebettertheenvironmentgets.Instantiating Enterprise 2.0 or Gov 2.0 requires more than thestandupofWeb2.0tools.Itrequiresprocessesthattapintorapidlydevelopinginnovationsoutsidetheorganizationwhilegentlyshap‐ing them into capabilities that support the unique mission. Newapproaches to technology discovery, evaluation, integration andgovernanceprovidethismechanismgivingCIOsthecontrolneededtomeetenterprisegoalswithoutprovidinganunnecessarybarrierto innovation. These approaches unfetter innovators, provide aplatform for them to connect, and facilitate interactionswith endusersresultingintechnologiesthatcantransformanagency’smis‐sioneffectiveness.DanDoneyisCTOatStrategicEnterpriseSolutionsintheUSOfficeoftheDirectorofNationalIntelligence,andatechnicaladvisortotheintelligencecommunity on information sharing, collaboration and enterprise architec‐ture.HeisleadingaGov2.0initiativecalledBRIDGEdesignedtoovercomebarriers intechnologyadoptionthroughanewgovernanceframeworkthatenhances technology discovery and evaluation,while streamlining accredi‐tation and integration. He comes from a research background where hisfocushasbeenontheapplicationofnetworkeffect(Web2.0)andcomplexadaptive system approaches to information foraging and sensemaking insupporttheintelligencecommunitymission.1BethSimoneNoveck(2009)WikiGovernment.HowTechnologyCanMakeGov‐ernmentBetter,DemocracyStronger,andCitizensMorePowerful.BrookingsIn‐stitutionPress.

2FormoreaboutBRIDGE,seehttp://about.bridge‐ic.net/

61

#6

GOVERNMENTINTHE21STCENTURY:ASTATE'SPERSPECTIVE

DavidG.FletcherChiefTechnologyOfficer,StateofUtah

Ingovernment,weare currentlyonabridge to anew future.Notonly has theway thatwe are and cando things changed, but thevery nature of what we do is also evolving at a rate never beforeexperienced.Overthepast15years,governmenthasfeltaseriesofwavesthatcontinuetoimpactwhatitdoesand,infact,whatit is.These impacts are reaching down into every level of governmentand providing newopportunities at the same time that old struc‐turesarebeginningtoerodeandfindthemselvesincapableofmeet‐ingnewdemands.StategovernmentsintheU.S.findthemselvesatthe center of this surge, trying to respond to citizens, legislators,elected officials, businesses, the federal government, local govern‐ment and education. This chapter will discuss these impacts andhowthestateofUtahhasrespondedtothembyunderstandingandleveragingtechnologytoparticipateinthisneweraofgovernment.Forthoseinvolvedatastatelevelinpromotingchange,government2.0 isboth local andglobal.Technologycreates anopportunity toprovide new experiences and improved service for local constitu‐

62

FLETCHER

ents. At the same time government workers, including technolo‐gists, are able to participate in the much broader experiment ofgovernment,whichisnotonlynational,butglobal.Collaborationatthislevelhasneverhappenedtothisdegree.ManagersinUtahareabletotapintotheexperiencesofEurope,AsiaandLatinAmericainrealtime,andlearnfromthoseexperiences.Thosewholeveragethe global evolution in e‐government stand the most to benefitfromitbyapplyingitslessonsonadailybasis.There aremanyways that local and state government canbenefitfromwhatisreallyaglobalrevolution.InUtah,wehavefocusedonhowwecanmaximizethesebenefits.Someofthekeyareaswherewehavebenefited include 1) Improvedmanagement,2)Morepar‐ticipation andbetter collaboration, 3) Integrationof services for abetter user experience and 4)More interest in the future and theopportunitiesitpresents.

UsingTechnologytoManageAlthough Utah has consistently been ranked as one of the bestmanaged states in theU.S., it faces agrowingnumberof complexissues just likemost governments.Thesehave included the reces‐sionsandconsequentbudgetcontractionsof2001‐03and2007‐09,leadershipchangesingovernorsandlegislators,newdemandsfromcitizens and businesses, etc. Government 2.0 helps us view suchchanges as opportunities, and not just as problems or challenges.New online platforms are providing ways to manage governmentdifferently. In somecases,whennew servicesor regulatoryopera‐tionsarebeingdevelopedinUtah,theyarebeingdoneentirelyon‐line,particularlywhenthere isnotanexistingagencyalreadyper‐formingthefunction.Tobesuccessful,personneloverseeingthesenewprocessesmustunderstandnotonlyhowbusinesscanbeper‐formedonline,butalsowhattheramificationsareforstakeholders.Managersneedtobecarefultounderstandtheirconstituents,whatthey are doing online and how government services and informa‐tion can serve these constituents in a virtual environment that isincreasinglycomplexandnoisy.

63

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Citizens are busy people. They have more distractions than everbefore.There isa lot thatgovernmentcando,notonlytostream‐linetheirinternaloperations,butalsotohelpcitizensperformthefunctions that theymay be required to perform. Government 2.0requires interaction. It is no longer about providing informationandstaticformsthatcanbeprintedoffsotheusercanthenmailitinordeliver itbyhand.Throughouta lengthytransition,andpar‐ticularlywithnewservices,thegovernmententityshouldconsiderfacilitatedinteractionavailable24x7.Thatmeansthattheremustbechannels for feedback and response if government is really to im‐prove and provide the greatest benefit. It also requires that gov‐ernmentbeagileatshiftingresourcestothesenewchannelsinor‐dertorespondinanacceptableway.With mounting economic challenges, most political leaders arefocusingonways tomakegovernmentmore efficient.The secondstageof e‐government,whichwas transactional innature andputgovernment services online, candeliver efficiency, but in order todo so, itmust be nurtured to ensure a high degree of utilization.Whentheonlinechannelbecomestheprimarychannelfordeliver‐ingtheseservices,orinsomecases,theonlychannel,theeconomicimpact is very significant. Collaborative government can helpachievethequantitativegoalsthatgovernmenthasfortheadoptionof services.When these goals aremet and themetrics are sharedwith policy makers, digital government will move on to the nextstage of maturity which is multi‐dimensional in nature and willoffer citizensmorechoiceandmore involvement,whilemaintain‐ing a high level of fiscal responsibility. Collaborative governmentmeans that government is more personal and more direct, whilealso beingmore immediate and responsive.At the same time, to‐day'stoolsmakeitpossibletohavealargerreachthaneverbefore.Asgovernmentsbecomemoredigitallymatureinthewaythattheyofferservices,themostmundaneoftheseservicescanbecomeeveneasiertouseandlessintrusiveinthelivesofcitizens.

64

FLETCHER

Governmentsthatarestillfairlylowonthee‐governmentmaturitycurve andwhowish to participate in the benefits of collaborativegovernment shouldnot try to bypass the benefits of transactionaland service‐oriented e‐government1.Without a solid base ofwell‐utilized e‐services, it will be difficult for a government to sustainprogress.However, collaborative government can provide creativemechanismstosupportandbuildupabaseofe‐servicesasdemon‐stratedbyWashingtonD.C.withtheirAppsforDemocracycontest.If governmentwants to achieve its greatest potential, itmust un‐derstandtheneedsanddesiresof itscitizens,whichmeansthat itneeds constant collaboration and feedback. It must be agile andflexibleinrespondingtothatfeedback.

CollaboratingLikeNeverBeforeOpportunities for government to interact with its citizenry nowabound everywhere.Twitter, Facebook,MySpace, Slideshare, You‐Tube,Swivel,UStream,Vimeo,GoogleandYahooGroups,Friend‐Feed, SecondLife are all among a fast growing list of digital plat‐formswherecitizensarechoosingtospendagrowingpercentageoftheirtime.Manygovernmententitiesarechoosingtointeractwiththeir citizens within these virtual spaces and finding unexpectedresults. For example, in Salt LakeCity,Utah, over 300,000 peoplehadsignedon to the localFacebooknetworkby2009.Publicoffi‐cialslikeGovernorGaryHerbertandAttorneyGeneralMarkShur‐tleffhavediscoveredthathavingapresenceonthesesitesismuchlikehavinganopendoorpolicyforcitizensalthoughit iseasiertomanage and quicker to respond to. Others, like state representa‐tivesSteveUrquhartandJohnDougall,havediscoveredbloggingasawaytosharepublicopinionsaboutthelegalprocessandlawsthatthey are proposing. Their blogs have become highly interactivepublicforumswherecitizenscanregistertheirviewsaboutimpor‐tant issuesandgenerallyreceiveadirectresponse for thesepublicofficials. RepresentativeUrquhart even set up a publicwiki calledPoliticopia as hewas seeking away to encourage greater politicaldialogue among Utah's constituents. The wiki became a new e‐democracyinitiative,servingasacontinuousvirtualtownhall.

65

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Perhaps themost ambitious experiments were undertaken by theUtah Senate majority, which established a blog‐centric website,SenateSite.com,with thepurposeofopeningupgovernment,par‐ticularly the lawmaking and budget setting process. The websitefeatures a growing number of web 2.0 experiments, including aSenate Radio channel using GCast, live streaming video with US‐tream,aYouTubeChannel,Facebook site andTwitter feedsalongwithphotosharingonPicasa.EvenduringthetimewhentheLegis‐lature is not in session (10months out of the year), this site stillreceives thousandsofmonthlyvisits tohear the senatorsmost re‐centcommentsandactivities.Asgovernmentbecomesmoreopenand makes more information available, corresponding activity inthe private sector and from individual citizens has also increased.Manymorepeoplearerealizingthattheycanhaveadirectchannelto their legislators which has resulted in a proliferation of blogs,chatsandwebsitesinvolvedincivicdialogue.Although many government workers in Utah experimented withbloggingin2002,manywerenotwillingtocontinuewithanexer‐cisethatrequiredasignificantamountofefforttomaintainandlikeelsewhere,manyblogswentsilentafteraperiodoftime.Participa‐tioninmicrobloggingservices,particularlyTwitter,islesstimecon‐sumingandmoremeasurable.Agenciescanseehowmanyarefol‐lowingtheirpostsandjustasimportantly,whoisfollowing.InthecaseofUtah,thishasresultedinasignificantincreaseincollabora‐tionbetweengovernment,thetraditionalmediaandtheeducationcommunity,aswellasamoreinformedandinvolvedpublic.

IntegratingServiceAcrossGovernmentThestateofUtahhasrecognizedthat itdoesnothavethebudgetthatwouldberequiredtodoeverythingit isaskedtodoorwouldlike todo through traditionalmeans.Web2.0offers theopportu‐nity to begin looking at government differently and accomplishsome of these things in new ways.What has resulted is that thedoorsofgovernmenthavebeenthrownwideopen.Peoplearereal‐

66

FLETCHER

izingthattheynolongerhavetobecontenttobeimpactedbygov‐ernmentagencies,butthattheycanhavetheirownimpactonthesocialcompactknownasgovernment.In order to facilitate use by citizens, governments have been dis‐cussingwaystodeliverservicesbasedontheuserperspectivesuchas life events or communities of interest formany years. This hasresultedinthecreationof“crossagencyportals”,especiallybystateandfederalgovernmentalorganizations.Utah has created an architecture that leverages both local andglobalinfrastructure.Localinfrastructureprovidesstabilityforlargescale data management. Global infrastructure provides flexibilityand collaborative capabilities. Combined effectively, the organiza‐tion canmove forward in a dynamicway that supports growth ofknowledge,servicecapabilitiesandinnovation.

LookingForwardtotheFutureThe future provides many opportunities for changing the face ofgovernment.Newtechnologiesareemergingeveryday,evenbeforewe can implementmany of those that are becomingmainstream.Governmentneedsawaytosiftthroughthemultitudeoftechnolo‐gies, programs, widgets and ideas to identify those which reallymatter and can be implemented within their structure and envi‐ronment in a way that will make an impact. Becoming part of aglobal discussion about government effectiveness and innovationhashelpedUtahmoveforward.Many technologies are very exciting and relevant, but the coststructure to implement themmay be prohibitive within the timeframe when they could really make a difference. Sometimes, thecostmaybeacceptable,butthecomplexityandabilityoftheorga‐nization to implement themmaymean that the organizationwillloseotheropportunitieswhichmaybeequallygreatorgreater. InUtah, a governance structure was implemented that allowed foragilityandflexibility.Strategicplanninghasbecomeadailyprocess

67

STATEOFTHEEUNION

asweevolveandincorporatenewopportunitiespresentedbytech‐nological advances. Social networks enhance the organization'sabilitytoidentifythebestoftheseopportunities.Government2.0 isnowan integratedpartofgovernmentalopera‐tions formanystateandfederalgovernments.Othersare justget‐tingstarted.Thosewhoareat the leadingedgeare ready tomoveforward to an increasingly multidimensional form of online gov‐ernment,whichwilllikelyinvolvethesemanticweb,virtualworlds,augmentedrealityandincreasedsocialparticipation.DavidFletcher(@dfletcher)istheChiefTechnologyOfficerfortheStateofUtah.Heoverseesthestate'sdigitalgovernmentinitiativeswhichresultedinthestatebeingnamedasthe#1digitalstateintheUnitedStatesin2008bythe Center for Digital Government, and the state's portal, Utah.gov, wasnamedasthe#1stateportalinboth2007and2009.Davidmaintainsablogone‐governmentathttp://davidfletcher.blogspot.com.1eGovernmentMaturity,PhillipJ.Windley,Ph.D.,http://j.mp/Lq3DB

69

#7

LOOKINGTOTHEFUTUREBYLEARNINGFROMTHEPAST

SteveRadickAssociate,BoozAllenHamilton

Webster's Dictionary defines democracy as “government by thepeople”.Formorethan200years,it'stheonewordthathasdefinedtheUnitedStatesgovernment.Startingasearlyas1775withcolonialassembliesandCommitteesofCorrespondence,thephilosophyofa“governmentof thepeople, by thepeople”hasbeen reinvigoratedbyaneweraoftechnologiesdesignedtofacilitateopenness,trans‐parencyandpublicparticipation—Government2.0.While the principles have remained the same, the methods ofcommunication have andwill continue to evolve. Newspaper andtelevision changed the way we receive information, email and theInternet changed the way we communicate, and social media ischangingthewaywebuildcommunities,bothonlineandoff.“Gov‐ernment 2.0” has become the latest and greatest buzzword, withthousands of evangelists gathering in grassroots events1, high‐profile conferences2, and full‐scale social networks3. Agencies anddepartments from across the government are eager to realize thebenefits,startingblogs,creatingYouTubechannelsandestablishing

70

RADICK

Twitteraccounts.Government2.0hasalsobeengrabbingheadlinesin traditional media, including the New York Times4 and WallStreetJournal5.ButistheconceptofGovernment2.0reallyallthatnew,orisitjustthenextsteptowardrealizingavisionfirstlaidoutmorethan200yearsago?Takealookatthefollowingheadlines:

“TalkingtoClinton,ViaComputer”

Callitatownmeetingincyberspace.That'swhatPresidentClintonistryingtohold,incooperationwithCompuServe,oneofthecountry'slargestcomputerizedin‐formationservices.

TheBergenCountyRecord,NeilReisner,July29,1993

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

“WhiteHouseCorrespondenceisShiftingtoElectronicMail”

WantafulltranscriptofPresidentClinton'slatestspeechonhous‐ingorwelfare?Justtapinacommandonyourhomecomputer.

Want theWhiteHouse toknow instantlywhatyou thinkofMr.Clinton's economicplan?Call the “WhiteHousecomments line”andpunchinaresponseonyourtouch‐tonephone.

TheDallasMorningNews,RichardBerke,April18,1993

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

71

STATEOFTHEEUNION

“GovernmentExpandsitsClaimontheWeb”

InthebravenewworldimaginedbythevisionariesonVicePresi‐dent Gore's “Reinventing Government” team, one day studentswill apply for and receive college loans online, police officers atcrimesceneswilltapintocomputerizedfingerprintfilesandtrav‐elerswill submitpassport applications from the comfort of theirlivingrooms.

WashingtonPost,BarbaraJ.Saffir,March18,1997

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

“ServicingCitizenswiththeInternet”

One thing emerged clearly froma federalwebmaster conferenceNorthernVirginiathisyear:WorldWideWebsitesarebecominganimportantpartofthegovernment'sstrategytosheditsbureau‐craticimageandprovidefasterpublicservice.

WashingtonPost,GabrielMargasak,April21,1997

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

“UnderstandingtheITRevolution”

Amongthemoreprofoundeffectsoftherevolutionininformationtechnologyand,with it, theWorldWideWeb,are theglobal in‐terest and effort in reinventing government and the pursuit ofbusinessprocessre‐engineeringactivitiesatthenationallevel.

WashingtonTechnology,JohnMakulowich,May7,1997

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

72

RADICK

Sound familiar? Today’s stories aboutGovernment 2.0 sound verysimilar to the stories told 10‐to‐15yearsagowhen thegovernmentfirststartedusingtheInternet.InreadingthroughtheseandotherarticlesfromInternetarchives,Iwas reminded that thechallenges thegovernment is facing in im‐plementing socialmedia are the same challengeswe faced in im‐plementing email, Web sites, and even the telephone.While thetools and technology will always change, the fundamental chal‐lenges of changing government culture are remarkably consistentovertime.Government2.0(circa1995) Government2.0(presentday)Peoplewillspendalldayonemailnotdoinganywork

PeoplewillspendalldayonFace‐booknotdoinganywork

ViruseswillinfectoursystemssowehavetoblocktheInternet

Virusesandspywarewillinfectoursystemssowehavetoblocksocialnetworks

Peoplecan'tprogramaVCR,butweexpectthemtoknowhowtologintoCompuServe?

ThissocialmediastuffisforGen‐erationY–wecan'texpectBabyBoomerstologintoTwitter

Thepubliccansenduselectronicmail

ThepubliccancommentdirectlyonourblogandFacebookpage

GovernmentagenciesarecreatingWebsitesbutblockingemployeeaccesstotheInternet

Governmentagenciesarecreatingprofilesandchannelsbutblockingemployeeaccesstosocialnetworks

TheNationalScienceFoundationpromotesgovernment‐wideInter‐netdevelopmentandhosts“web‐masterworkshops”

MembersofGovLooporganizetweetupsandattendSocialMediaClubevents

GovernmentagencieshireWebprogrammersbythetruckloadtocreateWebsites

Governmentagenciesarecreatingentireteamsdedicatedtosocialmedia

GovernmentwillbeabletrackthesitesIvisit

GovernmentwillbeabletotellexactlywhoIamandcollectin‐formationonmyprivatelife

73

STATEOFTHEEUNION

It is easy to get so caught up in the vision of President Obama'sTransparency and Open Government that we forget the mistakes(andsuccesses)of thepast.Wecanallbenefit fromlookingattheexperiences of our innovationpredecessors to avoid the samepit‐falls, take advantage ofmissed opportunities, and set realistic ex‐pectationsforourselves.Irecentlywentbackintimemyselfandre‐readtheCluetrainMani‐festo6,afantastic,ground‐breakingbookpublished10yearsago.Inthe technologyworld, a decade is a lifetime. Ten years ago, therewasnoFacebook,noTwitterandnoYouTube.Tenyearsago,emailand the Internet were transforming the government. Ten yearslater, the principles and concepts laid out in the CluetrainMani‐festocontinuetonotonlyberelevant,butalmostpropheticintheirapplicationtotoday’sgovernment.TheCluetrainlaidout95thesesthatdescribedthenewglobalcon‐versationtakingplaceviatheInternet.Herearemy20theses7(I'mnotnearlyasambitiousastheCluetrainauthors)forcarpetbaggers,gurus, civil servants, contractors and anyone else interested in to‐day’sGovernment2.0.

1. TherisksofsocialmediaaregreatlyoutweighedbytherisksofNOTdoingsocialmedia.

2. YourGovernmentagency/organization/group/branchisnotunique.Youdonotwork in aplace that just can't just usesocialmediabecauseyourdataistoosensitive8.Youdonotwork in an environment where social media will neverwork.Yourchallenges,whileuniquetoyou,arenotuniquetothegovernment.

3. Youwillworkwithskepticsandotherpeoplewhowant tosee socialmedia failbecause the transparencyandauthen‐ticitywillexposetheirweaknesses.

74

RADICK

4. Youwill workwith people whowant to get involvedwithsocialmediaforallthewrongreasons.Theywillseeitasanopportunity to advance their own their careers, to makemoremoney,ortoshowoff.Thesepeoplewillbemoredan‐geroustoyoureffortsthanthebiggestskeptic.

5. Younger employees are not necessarily any more knowl‐edgeableaboutsocialmediathanolderemployees.Stopas‐sumingthattheyare.

6. Beforegoingoutandhiringanysocialmedia“consultants”,assumethatthereisalreadysomeonewithinyourorganiza‐tionwhoisactivelyusingsocialmediaandwhoisverypas‐sionate about it.Find them,use them, engage them.Thesearethepeoplewhowillmakeorbreakyourforayintosocialmedia.

7. Mistakescanandwillbemade(alot).Stoptryingtocreatesafeguards to eliminate the possibility ofmistakes and in‐steadconcentrateonhowtodealwiththemwhentheyaremade.

8. Information security is a very real and valid concern. DoNOTtakethislightly.

9. Policiesarenotwritteninstone.Withjustification,passionand knowledge, policies and rules can and should bechanged. Sometimes it's as easy as asking, but other timeswill require a knockdown, drag‐out fight.Both are impor‐tant.

10. Behumble.Youdon'tknoweverythingsostoptryingtopre‐tendthatyoudo.It'soktobewrong.

11. But be confident.Know what you know and don't backdown.Youwillbechallengedbyskepticsandotherswhodo

75

STATEOFTHEEUNION

not care and/or understand socialmedia.Do not let themdiscourageyou.

12. Therearetruesocialmediachampionsthroughoutthegov‐ernment.Findthem.Talktothem.Learnfromthem.

13. Government 2.0 isnot anewconcept.It's getting somuchattentionnowbecausesocialmediahasgivenavoicetotheambitious,theinnovativeandthecreativepeoplewithinthegovernment.

14. Socialmediaisnotaboutthetechnologybutwhatthetech‐nologyenables.

15. Socialmedia is not driven by the position, the title or thedepartment; it's driven by the person9.Stop trying to pi‐geon‐holeintooneteamordepartmentandinsteadthinkofaway to bring together people fromacross your organiza‐tion.

16. Instead of marketing your social media capabilities, skills,experience,platforms,software,etc.tothegovernment,whydon't you try talking with them?An honest conversationwillbe remembered for far longer thanaPowerPointpres‐entation.

17. Today'semployeeswillprobablyspendfiveminutesduringtheworkdaytalkingtotheirfriendsonFacebookorwatch‐ing the latest YouTube video.Today's employees will alsoprobably spendanhourat 10:00atnightansweringemailsorrespondingtoawork‐relatedblogpost.Assumethatyouremployeesaregoodpeoplewhowanttodotherightthingandwhotakeprideintheirwork.

18. AgencySecretariesandDepartmentHeadsarebigboysandgirls.Theyshouldbeabletohavedirectconversationswith

76

RADICK

their workforce without having to jump through hoops todoso.

19. Transparency, participatory, collaborative – these termsdonotreferonlytotheendstate;theyrefertotheprocessusedtogetthereaswell.It'soktohavedebates,argumentsanddisagreements about the best way to go about achieving“Government 2.0.” Diverse perspectives, opinions and be‐liefsshouldbeembracedandtalkedaboutopenly.

20. It'snotenoughtojustallownegativefeedbackonyourblogor website; you also have to do something about it.ThismightmeanengaginginaconversationaboutwhypersonXfeels this way or (gasp!) making a change to an outdatedpolicy.Don't just listen towhat the public has to say, youhavetoalsocareaboutittoo.

When the Continental Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin asthenation’sfirstPostmasterGeneral in1775, itcouldtakeupto14days tocarrya letter fromNewYorktoPhiladelphia.WhenPresi‐dent Obama appointed Aneesh Chopra as the nation’s first ChiefTechnology Officer more than 200 years later, people across theworld could have real‐time conversations via wireless phone, mi‐croblogsorvideoconferences.Whilethetechnologysupportingourgovernment can and will evolve, the principles of participation,transparency and collaboration are timeless.Today’s technologymaymake it easier to realize these principles, the people and theprocessesbehindthetechnologywilltrulydetermineifthiswillbearevolutionaryphaseinourhistory,orjustanevolutionarystep.

77

STATEOFTHEEUNION

*thanks to Rick Levine, Christopher Locke, Doc Searls and DavidWeinberger for inspiringme andmany otherswith their book,TheCluetrainManifesto.Steve Radick (@sradick) is Associate at Booz Allen Hamilton. As one ofBoozAllen’s socialmedia andGovernment 2.0 leads, Steveworkswith thefederal government to integrate social media strategies and tactics intoorganizationalstrategies.Heblogsabouthisapproachtosocialmediaandhis experiences working with his government clients on his blog, “SocialMediaStrategery,”locatedatwww.steveradick.com.1Government2.0CampwasanunconferenceaboutusingsocialmediatoolsandWeb2.0technologiestocreateamoreeffective,efficientandcollaborativeU.S.governmentonalllevels(local,state,andfederal).Itwasattendedbymorethan500governmentemployees,contractorsandmedia.http://j.mp/troW

2Gov2.0Summit,anewgovernmenttechnologyconferenceco‐producedbyO'ReillyMediaandTechWeb,washeldinSeptember2009inWashington,DC.http://www.gov2summit.com/

3LaunchedinJune2008,GovLoopisthe“Facebook"forGovernment,andboastsmorethan14,000membersasofSeptember2009.http://www.govloop.com/

4"Government2.0MeetsCatch22,"bySaulHansell,TheNewYorkTimes,March17,2009.http://j.mp/19tzVJ

5“WTF?MilitaryWeb2.0ReportActuallyMakingSense",byNoahShachtman,Wired,April10,2009.http://bit.ly/AmYyq

6TheCluetrainManifesto,writtenbyRickLevine,ChristopherLocke,DocSearlsandDavidWeinberger,wasfirstpublishedin1999.

7“TwentyThesesforGovernment2.0,CluetrainStyle",bySteveRadick,SocialMediaStrategery,February15,2009.http://j.mp/PSLAq

8IntellipediaisasecurewikibuiltontheMediaWikiplatformavailabletoemploy‐eesofthe16agenciesintheIntelligenceCommunityandothernational‐securityrelatedorganizations.Itwascreatedtoenableopencommunicationandcollabo‐rationacrossfirewallsandindividualagencies.http://j.mp/3ckFU

9“SocialMediaisDrivenbythePerson,NotthePosition",bySteveRadick,SocialMediaStrategery,January18,2009.http://j.mp/rpY3

79

#8

GOVERNMENT2.0,E‐GOVERNMENTANDCULTURE

StephenCollinsFounder,AcidLabs

“Everydystopiaisautopiaturnedinsideout…Theproblemisn’t in thebasic idea, it’s in thearroganceof implementa‐tion.It’sintheideathatwewillgetitrightthefirsttime.”‐StevenLloydWilson1

Government2.0ismorethanjuste‐Governmentwithanewname.e‐Government in Australia has largely focused on delivery of ser‐vicesandprogramsviaonlineorconnectedmeans—anadmirableagendathathasinlargepartbeensuccessfulinthe10orsoyearsithasbeenapriority.Butonlinedelivery is justapartofwhatGov‐ernment2.0offers.Mypersonalview is thatGovernment2.0 isanunhelpful term.AswithEnterprise2.0andWeb2.0beforeit,itsomewhatunintention‐allyputstechnologyinpeople’smindsandcreatesvisionsofsome‐thinglarge,expensiveandcomplexthatwillbedonetogovernmentratherthanbygovernmentandmissesthepointabouttheground‐

80

COLLINS

swell culture andpractice change supportedby technology that isarguably the more substantial and world‐changing aspect of thething.TimO’Reilly,oneoftheco‐creatorsofthetermWeb2.02,andnowpassionateGovernment2.0advocate,describes3Government2.0asrequiringa shift toplatformthinking,wheregovernmentprovidestheplatformforamazingthings tohappen—thinkhighways, theInternet,GPS (alloriginallycreatedbygovernment)—andbuildsservicesonit,butalsoopensitupinorderforcitizensandbusinessto build their own applications, products and services. Ones notconsideredorevendreamedofbygovernment,butusingtheinfra‐structureanddataprovidedbygovernment.Still, this description focuses on the tools and technology. I thinktheendgameTimismovingtowardsissystemsthinking—consid‐eringgovernmentandallthethingsitdoesasapartofmuchlarger,contextualpuzzle.Ifwefocusonthetoolsandtechnology,weriskbecomingobsessedwithminutiaethathidetherealpossibilities.To my mind, the tools and technology are the scaffolding uponwhichGovernment2.0canbebuilt—acriticalpartof thewhole,butnot theanswer inandof itself.Rather, forGovernment2.0 tosucceed,we should focuson themodelsdeliveredby2.0 thinking— lightweight, agile, responsive over reactive, prepared to makesmallmistakes,open,collaborative—andthefactthatatitsheart,it’saboutpeople.So, let’s beginwith a useful definition, the definition used by thevery activeAustralianGovernment 2.0 community4 that has gath‐eredonGoogleGroupstodiscussthesubject.I’vechosenthisdefin‐itionnotjustbecauseIhadahandinmakingit,butalsobecauseIthinkit’soneofthemostbalancedoutthere:

Government 2.0 is not specifically about social networkingortechnologybasedapproachestoanything.Itrepresentsafundamental shift in the implementationofgovernment—

81

STATEOFTHEEUNION

toward an open, collaborative, cooperative arrangementwhere there is (wherever possible) open consultation, opendata, sharedknowledge,mutualacknowledgmentof exper‐tise,mutualrespectforsharedvaluesandanunderstandingofhowtoagreetodisagree.Technologyandsocialtoolsarean importantpartof thischangebutareessentiallyanen‐ablerinthisprocess.

You will see from the definition that there’s a significantly largerpicture thatneeds tobeunderstood, explored, experimentedwithandultimatelyimplementedtomakeGovernment2.0therealityitcanbe.Government2.0makesadeliberateefforttobreakdownwhatcanseem impenetrable barriers of bureaucracy and introduce a morehumanfacetotheexecutivearmofgovernment.Publicservantsareencouraged to engagewith each other andwith the publicwherepossible,withintheirownspheresofexpertise.Ratherthanoutboundcommunicationfromagenciestothepublic,thediscoursebecomesconversation—amongst thepublic sector,between the public sector and the community, and amongst thevariouspartsofthecommunityitself.Thisconversationalapproachoffersmanybenefits—thepublicsectoriskeptconstantlyattunedto theneeds andwantsof thepublic, thepublic is lessbaffledbybureaucracyastheyareinmorefrequenttouch.Borrowing heavily from the culture of Open Source, Government2.0assumesthatpubliclyopen,multipleandrapiditerationsofpol‐icy, of programs and of ideas is a good thing. Not necessarily foreverythinggovernmentdoes,butasandwhereappropriate.Adopt‐ingthispracticeallowsforamoreagileapproachtopolicydevelop‐ment and program delivery. The big bang approaches of the pastwhere services delivered by the public sector are found to not besuitable for some reason, but are unchangeable and therefore anexpensive waste of funds and effort due to the implementationmodel,canbereplacedwithanapproachthatseesthingstestedin

82

COLLINS

public and subject to change as shifting priorities and needs areidentified.TheGovernment 2.0 Taskforce5 created by theAustralian govern‐menttoaddressissuesandreportonneededchangestoimplementthe cultural, practice and technological changesnecessary inAus‐tralia to adopt this new model, is itself using the model to helpidentifytheprioritiesthepublicwanttoseereturnedtothegovern‐ment in its report.So tooareeventssuchasLaborSenator,closetgeekandstrongICTadvocate,KateLundy’sPublicSphere6,whichhaveprovedmeasurably successful andhave cast thenetwide forinputandexpertise.Effortsinotherjurisdictionstoo,haveseensig‐nificantsuccessinprioritizingpolicy,fundingandhumanresourceneeds. Just last week several announcements here and overseasmovedtheconversationalong.New Zealand’s State Services Commission has announcedNZGOAL7, an experiment in licensing Public Sector Informationwith an appropriate license in order to adopt, as they say in theannouncement8, “principles which embrace, among other things,thenotionsofopenaccess,open licensing,creativity,authenticity,non‐discriminationandopenformats.”Theyverydeliberatelystateitisanexperiment,designedtobeiteratedandimprovedovertimethroughinputfrommanysources.Thisannouncementandwhatitmeanshasbeennoticedhereandas farawayas theUKbyseniormembersoftheParliament9,aswellasbyadvocatesofmoreopenlicensingofPSI.In Australia, we have moves in this direction too. The reformagenda10aroundFreedomof Informationandpublicationstatusofgovernment and public sector information will necessarily see achangeinlicensingforsomematerial,it’sachangethathasalreadybeen adopted by some organizations and there is help availablefromtheGovernmentInformationLicensingFramework11foragen‐cies unsure how they shouldmore permissively license their dataforreuse.

83

STATEOFTHEEUNION

InSeptember2009,NSWPremier,NathanReesannounced12atthefirstNSWSphereevent13thatnotonlywouldtheNSWGovernmentbesponsoringa$100,000competition14fordevelopmentofapplica‐tionsthatmadeinnovativeuseofpublicsectordata,butalsothat“Governmentshavetoovercomeoldhabitsofsecrecyandcontrol.We’vegottobeinteractive.Theoldone‐waystreetstyleofpoliticshastogo.”This announcementboremore than apassing resemblance to thePrimeMinister’swords15 inhis JohnPatersonOration at the 2009AustraliaNewZealandSchoolofGovernmentAnnualConference16,where he emphasized the need for an innovative, open, outward‐lookingAustralianpublicsectorandaculturewithintheAustralianpublicsectorthatsupportsthesethings.Italsoechoedthewordsofoutgoing Commissioner Lynelle Briggs who has more than oncestated17theneedforacitizen‐centricpublicsectorandtheneedtolook outside the boundaries of agencies to academia, to businessand to the public themselves by using systems thinking to solve“wickedproblems”18.Thesolvingofwickedproblemsandatrulycitizen‐centricapproachtogovernmentwillmeanthat theability for thepublicsectorandthelegislaturetoconnectcloselyandcollaboratewiththoseoutsidegovernmentmustbeenhanced.Amongstotherthings,approacheslike this support and enhance the government’s Social Inclusionagenda19.Movingourpublicsectortoaculture,setofpracticesandtechnolo‐giesthatactivelyembracesGovernment2.0ishighontheagendaofthe current government with the Taskforce due to report on itsfindingsattheendof2009,thePrimeMinisterexpressinghisdesiretoseethesetypesofchangesandMinisterLindsayTannerstronginhissupport20forculture,practiceandtechnologicalchangethatwillsupport this agenda. Ihavenodoubt that itpresents a significantchallengeforpublicservantsofeverygeneration,butthepromiseitholdscandeliverbetterevidence‐basedpolicy,more targetedpro‐

84

COLLINS

grams and an open environment where the public sector is nolongeraninscrutablemysterytolargepartsofthecommunitybutissomething made up of real, approachable human beings withnames and who really care about us— it’s not that these thingsaren’t already the case, but by adoption of Government 2.0 theybecomeagiven.Government 2.0 is somuchmore than just e‐Government with anewname.

“We need to connect citizens with each other to engagethemmore fully and directly in solving the problems thatfaceus.Wemustuseallavailabletechnologiesandmethodstoopenup the federal government, creatinganew level oftransparency to change the way business is conducted …giving[people]thechancetoparticipateingovernmentde‐liberationsanddecision‐makinginwaysthatwerenotpos‐sibleonlyafewyearsago.”‐Obamacampaignpolicystatement21

CultureChangeforGovernment2.0In ourmodern democracies, the ability formembers of society toparticipate in some way is a fundamental and accepted right. In‐deed,weuse the termparticipatorydemocracy todescribeone inwhichconstituentsareempowered toengage in thepoliticaldeci‐sion‐makingprocess.Therehasuntilrecenttimes,beenaburdenofactivityandwhere‐withalrequiredthathasmeantonlythosewithasingulardesiretoengagewiththeprocessofdemocracy–eitheratthe legislativeorexecutivelevel–havetrulybeenempoweredtodoso.Whetherthathasmeantbylobbying,protestorcivilunrest,letter‐writingoreventhe burdensomeprocess of being elected to some formof legisla‐ture,ithasbeenataskthattookrealeffort.Howthingshavechanged.

85

STATEOFTHEEUNION

In the 21stCentury theold, largelybroadcastmodelhasbeenbro‐ken. The ability for people, anywhere, to participate has shiftedthanks to a medium, the Internet, that is ever more ubiquitous,moresocial,andrelativelycheap.Wereallyareallapartofahugemeltingpotpossessedofthecapa‐bilitytoparticipate.One‐to‐oneandone‐to‐manycommunicationsarenolongertheoptimummodalities.Wearenowtheinhabitantsofamany‐to‐manyworld.Inrecenttimes,aswehaveseeninthenear‐instantdistributionofnewsinChinaaftertheSichuanearthquakeandinthecoordinationofpoliticalactioninMoldova22,Egypt23andmostrecently,Iran,thecapability for production and participation has been bolstered bythe easy availability of networks where each participant is bothbroadcasterandreceiver.Adesiretoparticipate,anincreaseinrealorsought‐afterfreedoms,relative ease and low cost of connectedness and the ever‐acceleratingpoweroftoolsthatconnectpeopleonlinenowmeansthat there is amassive supply‐side surplus to theabilityofpeopleeverywhere to engage actively and meaningfully in the politicalprocess.Thepowerofnetworksissuchthatforeverynewnode–eachnewperson–thepowerofthenetworkincreasesexponentially.Wearehyperconnected6andthereisnogoingback.Infact,weareleapingaheadatpace.Itismorethantimeforoursocialinstitutions–forgovernment–tojoinin.Theyarenolongerthebroadcasters,apartfromtheconver‐sation.They,andwe,arepartoftheconversation.But there is a problem. Governments are largely used to mostlytalking at the constituency rather thanwith the constituency. It'snottheirfault.It'ssimplythewaythingshavealwaysbeen.

86

COLLINS

Sowhyisitaproblem?It's a problembecause in today's hyperconnectedworld, a legisla‐tureandanexecutivethatisn'tengagedinaclose,many‐waycon‐versationwiththepublicitservesisnolongerfitforpurpose.Bothrisk rapidly increasing irrelevance if they fail to adapt to the newworld; one in which the public can, will and has done for itselfwherebureaucraciesaretooslowtorespondtoemergentneedsandchangesinopinion.Inahyperconnectedworld,toinvokeGilmore'sLaw24 is easy – the connected community will route around thedamageanddowhatneedstobedonewithoutthehelpofgovern‐ment.Inmy country,Australia, as innations across the globe, there areseveralorganizationsthatareliving,breathingexamplesofthisveryaction–GetUp!25,which isarguably themostpowerfulmovementforsocialandculturalchange inAustralia,OpenAustralia26,whichemulatestheTheyWorkForYoumodelfromtheUK,theCentreforPolicyDevelopment27,which isactivelyengagedintheprogressivepolicymakingprocessandTweetMP28thattracksandanalysespoli‐ticians' engagementusingTwitter.Thenumberof individuals andgroupswillingtoparticipateindemocracyinsomeforandtotakeactionisgrowing.We'reallempoweredtodomorethanwecouldbeinthepastbyourcommunitiesandourconnectedness.ThePublicSphere is the titleof a seriesof increasingly importantandpopulareventscreatedbyLaborPartySenatorandtechnologyadvocate,KateLundy.SenatorLundyisusingtheeventstocanvass,onlineandoff,sentimentandopinionwithrespecttoissuesaffect‐ingAustraliaanditsuseoftechnologyasasociety.Theeventshaveproven so successful popular that themodelhasbeen adoptedbyseveralothersandimplementedequallysuccessfully.ThetermPub‐lic Sphere, coined by German philosopher and sociologist, JürgenHabermas,defines aplace,physicalor virtual,whereopendiscus‐sionofissuesprevalentinsocietycantakeplaceandpoliticalactiontoremedythoseissuescanbeformed.Astrong,civilpublicsphere

87

STATEOFTHEEUNION

isa fundamentalunderpinning fora functionalandsuccessful lib‐eraldemocracy.Membersof governments inAustralia, in theUK, inNewZealandandmostparticularlyandpubliclyintheUS,saymanyoftherightthingsaboutparticipatorygovernmentunderpinnedbyaconnectedandengagedsociety.Thisisamuchneededfirstmove.Butitisonlythefirst.Itisfarfromtheendgame.In a society as connected as Australia, where according to recentresearchfromForrester29,3/4ofAustralianadultsonlineusesocialtoolsand1/4createtheirowncontent,aroundhalfaremembersofsocial networks and government needs to be present in onlinecommunities,listeningandrespondingandsometimestalking.A public service that is disconnected from the public it servesthrough the government of the day is no public service at all.Rather,itisabureaucracy.Impenetrable.Byzantine.Inscrutable.Thelegislatureandthepublicserviceneedtotakeactiontopartici‐pateonline inamore sophisticatedway thanpreviously.Thiswillrequire a fundamental shift in views on openness, risk, conversa‐tion,community,collaboration.Ashiftinthe“who”,the“what”andthe“where”.Thiswillbeadifficulttask.Butitisonethatwemustdo soon if Australia is to be truly the clever country we haveclaimedtobe forso long.Therearewell‐evidencedbenefits to in‐novationandcreativityfromcollaborationofallkinds.It isamisquotation touse ithere,Churchillwillnodoubtspin inhisgrave,but itseemsapt.Apublicservicenotengaged inactive,ongoingconversationwiththepublic“isariddle,wrappedinamys‐tery,insideanenigma;butperhapsthereisakey.”Thatkeyisachangeinculture.Australia is arguably a few steps off the pace with respect to thepublicsectorbeingcomfortable,andoften,evenpreparedtoengage

88

COLLINS

with the community in a conversation aimed at collaborating onmakingourdemocracybetter.Inthiscase,oneoftwothingshappen,andoccasionallyboth.First,the public sector risks being inadequately informed of the needsandwantsofthepublicandrisksgivingbadadvicetogovernmentresulting inbadpolicy,programsand legislation.And second, thepublicmaygrowincreasinglyfrustratedwiththepublicsector,andthroughit,thegovernment,fornotheedingtheirmood.Idoubtanyoneconsiderseitherofthoseoutcomesdesirable.The rightmoves arebeingmadeathigh level.But too slowly andnotpubliclyenough.Thatsaid,wearebeginningtoseesignificantprogressbeingmadeinsettingthenewagendabythefederallyap‐pointedGovernment2.0Taskforceafterwhatappearedtobeaslowstart.TheAustralianPublicServiceCommissionhashadadocument indraft,Circular2008/830,sinceDecember2008thatlaysoutalargelyworkablesetofguidelinesforonlineengagementofpublicservants.Butwhy is it still adraft in late2009?TheAPSCommissioner re‐centlygavea speech31 to the JohnCurtin InstituteofPublicPolicythatlaidaframeworkforamuchricherengagementwiththepublicthat squarely places the citizen at the center of government. Andthemost recent State of the ServiceReport32makes specificmen‐tion of the need for government and the public to engage moreclosely.Sotoo,thePrimeMinister33andseveralotherseniorMinis‐ters34 have made specific mention of much needed public sectorreformaddressingopennessandinnovationaskeyissues.Thecon‐cernis,however,thatthesearelargelywordsandmaynotbeborneoutinreality.WhenIspeakwithpublicservantsasIoftendo,toofewofthematanylevel,areawareofthesedocuments,thepoliciestheyembody,and the strong push for this new openness and engagement. Inconversation, I hear many arguments against open engagement

89

STATEOFTHEEUNION

betweengovernmentandthepublic.Toohard.Noskills.Manage‐mentresistance.Notallowed.It'snotthewaywedothings.Weneedtotakeactiontoremovewhatever it is thatcauses theseblocks.There are many public servants at all levels of government whostand ready,willing and able to engage directlywith the public ifonly you will let them. They are knowledgeable and capable andproud of theirwork. Theywill help you govern and help you de‐velop and deliver better government by being deeply connectedinto the communities they serve. Bybeing a trusted, real andhu‐manpartofthosecommunities.Ifonlyyouwillletthem.Weneedtoactivelyencouragechangewithinourparliamentsandourpublicsectorthatremovestheresistancetothisengagement.Itisfareasiertopointoutthesizeofthechasmthantostartbuildingabridgeoverit.Aspoliticians, aspublic servantsandascitizenswe shouldensureourcolleagues,ourstaffandourpoliticalrepresentativesatall lev‐elsareempoweredtoparticipateandprovidedwiththeskills theyneed to engagewith thepublic openly andon an as‐neededbasiswithintheirspheresofexpertise.And we need to do it urgently. Urgency does not imply haste, itsimply implies rapidity.And this culturechange isurgent.Of thishavenodoubt.Asaformerpublicservant,assomeonewhoworkswiththepublicservicetodayandasamemberofthepublic,I,andotherslikeme,believethisisamatterofnationalimportanceandthatwemustactsoonanddecisively.And,aspeoplewhounderstandhowboththepublicsectorandtheonlineworldwork,wewanttohelp.

90

COLLINS

Togetherwemustrebootthemodel forengagementbetweengov‐ernmentandthepublictomakeitmoreopen,morehuman,morefrequent,moreofaregularconversationfocusedonlistening.Andwemustempowerpublicservantsatall levelsandnot justofficialcommunicatorstobethosethatengage.Ifwemakethatchange,ourgovernmentsandourpublicsectorcanbemorerelevant to thepeople;enactingpolicyandprogramsanddelivering services that really matter and working hand‐in‐handwithanengaged,informedpublicparticipatingingovernment.NotonlyYesWeCan35,butYesWeMust.

CultureintheNewOrder36“There isnothingmoredifficult to take inhand,moreper‐ilous to conduct, ormoreuncertain in its success, than totake the lead in the introductionofaneworderof things.”‐NiccoloMachiavelli,ThePrince(1532)

One of the biggest hurdles for the public sector and legislatorstaskedwithfulfillingthepromiseofGovernment2.0willbethecul‐turalchangeinvolved.Culturechangeistoughinanyorganization,letaloneinhuge,dis‐tributed,diverseandlargelyconservativeorganizationssuchasfed‐eralandstatepublic services.Yet it is thischange thatwillbe themake‐or‐break factor in the transformation that the Government2.0TaskforcewilladvisetheFederalgovernmentonandthatotherlevelsofgovernment(andothergovernmentsacrosstheworld)arealsoseekingto.Change is an uncertain thing. How dowe convince others of theneedforthechange?Howwillwebesuccessful?Howdowedefinesuccess? How do we measure that success when we don’t evenknowwherethejourneyofchangemighttakeus?Andhowdowegoaboutmakingchangehappendespitethisuncertainty?

91

STATEOFTHEEUNION

TheGovernment2.0Taskforceismovingaheadfairlywellindefin‐ingtheissueforitsaudienceandincorporatinginputfromtheGov2.0 community of interest. There are some significant issues thattheTaskforcewillneedtoaddresswhenitdeliversitsreport:

• a lackofacohesive ‘wholeofgovernment’approachatanylevelofgovernment

• aviewofaccountabilitythatinadequatelyrewardsthosere‐sponsibleforsuccessandinnovation

• inadequatetrustandpermissionmodelsacrosspublicsectormanagement

• aneedtoshifttoopennessasadefault,includingremovingthereticencetoparticipateandobstructionofparticipation

• anegatively‐coloredperceptionofriskOf course, these issues are not problems for all individuals, noreventheiragencies,intheAustralianpublicsector.Theyare,how‐ever,representativeofthepublicsectorgenerally,basedonmyex‐perienceasapublic servantandmy timeworkingwith thepublicsectorasanoutsider.Myconversationsandreadingofsimilarma‐terial fromacross the globe suggests that the issues are similar inmostmoderndemocracies.InNewZealand37,theUSandtheUK38,thepublicsectorhasbeenequippedwithwell‐publicizedrulesofengagementforworkersthatpermitthemtoactivelyengagewiththepublicinonlinecommuni‐ties. These rules are ably backedupby existing codes of behaviorthat govern overall public sector employee conduct. In Australia,suchrulesexist39,buttheweightattachedtothem,theircurrency,the level of publicity and explicit, high‐ profile support for themfromeitherMinistersorthemostseniorlevelsofthepublicserviceislargelymissingorunclear.No wonder both individuals and agencies are largely confused orindeed, oblivious, to what the position is on the engagement ofpublicservantsonline.

92

COLLINS

Other nations have appointed both Ministers for Digital Engage‐mentand,inthecaseofboththeUSandtheUK,seniorpublicser‐vantswhoseambitsincludedigitalengagement.IntheUS,wehaveseentheyoung,vibrantanddemonstrablyengaged,VivekKundra,the United States Chief Information Officer, driving change fromthetop.IntheUK,AndrewStottistheDirectorofDigitalEngage‐ment,andisalsoleadingtheway,connectingdirectlywiththepub‐lic and public servants. These people understand the online envi‐ronment and its importance to the advancement of the Govern‐ment 2.0 agenda, and also visibly live and breathe the culture itrequires.InAustralia,wehaveneitheraMinisternoraseniorpublicservantwith carriage of digital engagement as a specific responsibility.SomeMinistersevenseematcross‐purposes.The Internetcensor‐ship agenda being advancedby Senator StephenConroy is in factanathema to the Government 2.0 model. Yet, as mentioned, Fi‐nanceMinisterLindsayTannerisstronginhissupportforareformagenda that can hardly be enhanced by a filtered and potentiallyslowerInternet.In my time as a public servant, and in my experience since, themodel of accountability thatwe see in the public sector is largelytiedtoresponsibilityforactionandcarriageofblameshouldsome‐thinggowrong.Again, this isnot trueof theentirepublic sector,butitdoesrepresenttheperceptionyougetfromthewhole.Taskforcemember,MartinStewart‐WeeksofCisco,notedrecentlythat,“Weneedatheoryof'accountability2.0'tomatchtheinstinctsand values of gov2. Any ideas?”40My response41 to Martin arguedthat it was not just accountability that was needed, but also newmodelsofauthorship,trustandpermission.Inordertoachievethecultural change needed with the least possible resistance, severalthingsmusthappen.First, I believe amandate to implement these reforms and to be‐

93

STATEOFTHEEUNION

haveandimplementintherequiredwayisneededfromthehighestlevels.ThePrimeMinisterandtheSecretaryof theDepartmentofPrime Minister and Cabinet should be the ones that deliver thismandatetotheAustralianPublicService(APS),toremoveanypos‐sibledoubtaboutwhetheragenciesand individualpublic servantsareactinginaccordancewiththewishesoftheelectedgovernment.They shouldbe supportedby theAPSCommissioner, theFinanceMinister in his capacity as the Minister responsible for the Aus‐tralianGovernmentInformationManagementOffice(AGIMO),andtheSpecialMinisterofState.And, second, the sometimes closed culture of the public sectormustbeshiftedtooneinwhich:

• thecreatorsofinnovativeprogramsandthinkingareidenti‐fiedfortheirgoodwork,publiclyandoften

• openness and publication of material is the default (itshouldbenotedthattheFOIreformagendaofthecurrentgovernmentismovingthisway)

• allpublicservantsareexplicitlyandimplicitlypermittedtoengagewiththepubliconline(andoffline)wheretheyhavethenecessaryexpertisetodoso,and

• public servants are trusted by their senior executive andMinisterstonotjustdotheirjob,buttodoitinthepubliceyeandinconcertwithanengaged,contributingpublic.

AnexampleoftheneedforthisisaliveandkickingnowintheworkoftheGovernment2.0Taskforce.Asnoted42byMatthewLandauerofOpenAustralia, fewof thepublic servantmembersof theTask‐forcehaveseenfittoengageviatheonlinechannelstheTaskforceisusing,whereasalmostallofthenon‐publicservantmembersofthesamehaveengagedinsomeway.Thisisunfortunate.Very fewof themanypublic servantswhoparticipate in theAus‐tralian Government 2.0 community on Google Groups do so offi‐cially.Manyof themhaveexplicitly stated that theyareunsureorafraid of the consequences of doing so. They use personal email

94

COLLINS

addresses and are sometimes reticent to discuss not only whatagenciestheyworkforbutwhatprojectstheyareinvolvedin.Thatthisapproachisviewedasnecessarybysomanyisdisappointing.Third,and finally, thereneeds tobeachange in thenegativeper‐ceptionofriskinthepublicsector.Itisnotoftenthatyouencoun‐terapublicservantwhoseperceptionofriskencompassesriskasanopportunity to innovate. Youmore often encounter a fearful per‐ceptionofriskthatimagineshowanadverseoutcomemightbedif‐ficulttoexplainforthememberoftheSeniorExecutivewhowillbequestioned in Senate Estimates. You can hardly blame public ser‐vantsforbeingrisk‐averseinthesecircumstances–sothecircum‐stancesmustchange.Allthesechangesmustbesupportedbyrelevantandongoingedu‐cationandmentoring toensure that thepublic sector isequippedwiththeskillstomanagethistransformationwiththegreatestop‐portunityforsuccess.I’mundernoillusionthatthechangeneededinthepublicsectoratalllevelsofgovernmentwillbeeasy.So,whattodo?Idonothaveallorevenmanyoftheanswers.ButIhavemanyideas.Asdooth‐ers.Itiswhentheseideasareallowedtocomeforward,treatedseri‐ouslyandactedonequallyseriouslythatwewillhavethemostop‐portunitytobringaboutthismuchneededchange.So,publicsector,let’sact.Let’s“taketheleadintheintroductionofaneworderofthings”.Stephen Collins (@trib) is an Australian thinker and doer in socialmediaanduserexperience.Heisrecognizedinternationallyasaninnovator,com‐munitybuilderandengagingpublicspeaker.Havingworkedformanyyearsin theAustralianpublic sector and consulting industries, Stephen foundedacidlabsinlate2006tohelpbringhisphilosophyofamoreopen,collabora‐tiveandhyperconnectedworldtohisclients.Thischapter isacompilationandupdateofanumberofhispreviouspieces.

95

STATEOFTHEEUNION

1http://j.mp/WOnyg2http://j.mp/aa1sP3SeeO'Reilly'schapterinthisbook.Also,seehttp://j.mp/gtydY.4http://j.mp/mCVuE5http://gov2.net.au/6http://j.mp/12AMyZ7http://j.mp/nSwZ58http://j.mp/Ipy8h9http://j.mp/2VByiE10http://j.mp/CazFA11http://www.gilf.gov.au/12http://j.mp/rxc3A13http://pennysharpe.com/live14http://j.mp/3Jk7IF15http://j.mp/z5Qkh16http://j.mp/DScr817http://j.mp/hA1cg18http://j.mp/cXR7819http://www.socialinclusion.gov.au/20http://j.mp/2Z2T5A21http://j.mp/3K8dBJ22http://j.mp/cA14y23http://j.mp/2TiROs24http://j.mp/hgEhj25http://www.getup.org.au/26http://www.openaustralia.org/27http://cpd.org.au/28http://tweetmp.org.au/29http://j.mp/nHxHE30http://j.mp/7QHYa31http://j.mp/LCQiG32http://j.mp/qjcEW33http://j.mp/z5Qkh34http://j.mp/2Z2T5A35http://j.mp/2jA3GA36ThissectionisaslightlyeditedversionofmycontributiontotheCentreforPol‐icyDevelopment'sInsight:UpgradingDemocracy,whichconsistsofseveralpiecesfromwell‐knownthinkersanddoersintheGovernment2.0sectorandwasCPD’ssubmissiontotheGovernment2.0Taskforce.Seehttp://j.mp/gYFSQ

37http://j.mp/4QXTW38http://j.mp/SoAY139http://j.mp/FWAcN40http://j.mp/fMY5m41http://j.mp/ahXSp42http://j.mp/19oFVF

97

#9

ASHORTHISTORYOFGOVERNMENT2.0:

FROMCOOLPROJECTSTOPOLICYIMPACT

DavidOsimoDirector,Tech4i2Ltd

Thischapteraimstoprovideanoverviewof theprogressivestruc‐turingofweb2.0ingovernment.Theearlyphasewascharacterizedbyspontaneousbottom‐upproject,suchasthoseofMySociety.org.More recently, severalmeso‐level initiativeswere launched,whichproactivelysupportandfacilitatebottom‐upprojects.Finally,anew(macro)policyvisionisnowemergingandbeingembracedbysomegovernments.Thisisalogicalframework(micro‐meso‐macro),butreflectsalsoachronologicaldevelopment.The figure below illustrates this (chrono)logical framework, al‐thoughitisobviouslyastrongsimplification.Itillustrateshowgov‐ernment2.0initiativeswerebornsincetheearlydaysofweb2.0–indeed sometimes before. While bottom‐up project continue togrow, they were then accompanied by meso‐level initiatives andfinally bymacro‐level visions and government policies. The three

98

OSIMO

levelsco‐existandco‐evolve,andarenot tobeconsideredas suc‐cessivephases,butasadditionallayers.

Macro‐level Meso‐level

Gov2.0

Micro‐level Web2.0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

User‐driveninnovationinpublicservicesThe emergence of web 2.0 applications such as blogs and socialnetworkingappearedtomanyastheapogeeofego,vanityandna‐vel‐gazing.Thisperspectivehasnowclearlybeendismissedbythewideemergenceofcollaborativeapplicationspursuingsocialgoals,which create collective value and bring societal benefits from theusers’perspective–theprimeexamplebeingWikipedia.In the government context, projects such as PatientOpinion.org,FarmSubsidy.organdTheyWorkForYou.comseektochallenge,dis‐ruptandimprovetraditionalmodelsofpublicservicedeliveryfromtheoutside,buildingontheweb2.0principlesofopenness, trans‐parency and sharing. Several studies1 have started collecting andanalyzing the innumerable initiatives in this field, but it was theelectionofBarackObamaandhis firstpolicy choicesaspresidentthatplacedweb2.0at thecentreofpolicydebate.The recentcallfromweb2.0guruTimO’Reillytoworkon“stuffthatmatters”re‐flects thisgrowing importanceof the socialdimensionofweb2.0,especiallyintimesofcrisis2.These bottom‐up web 2.0 projects share common characteristics.They emerge spontaneously, out of a problem‐solving attitude orfor the simple pleasure of a challenge. They tend to address onesimplegoal,likeinthecaseofPatientOpinion.orgintheUK,whichallowscitizenstocommentandratetheUKhospitals.Thewebsitesareoftendevelopedinaveryshorttime,withverylittleresources,and generally using open source software. Famously, the citizens‐generatedgovernmentportalDirectionLessGov.comintheUKwas

99

STATEOFTHEEUNION

developed in onemorning at zero cost, as stated on the website:“Wegot so fed upwith the general uselessness of themulti‐millionpoundshamblesotherwiseknownastheDirect.gov.ukportal,thatwedecided to build something better in under an hour. Sadly, we rancatastrophicallybehindschedule,butwestill finishedbefore lunch”.Theystronglyfocusonusability;withverysimpledesignandclearcommunicationtheymanagetomakepublicdatamoremeaningfuland useful. Another good example is FarmSubsidy.org, which ex‐tracts data from unusable government database and makes themmeaningful through visualizations and rankings. Finally, they areflexiblyadaptedaftertheirrelease,basedonthefeedbackofusers.Forexample,thePetitionssiteoftheUKgovernment,runbydevel‐opersfromMysociety.org,had50changesinthefirstday.All this is obviously verymuch at odds with current governmentpractice in managing IT projects. We lack the exact amount ofmoney invested on making public services available online, butsuffice to say that Italy alone invested6billionEuros in theyears2000‐2006.Theresultsarenotimpressive:take‐upoftheseservicesdoesnotgrowupfrom10%ofEUpopulation.3Thelogicalconclusionfromthisparadoxwouldbetostopgovern‐ment frombuilding interfaces and services, and let the “thousandflowers”bloom.Becauseofthelowcostoftechnology,thebarrierstoentryarenowdramaticallylowered.Yetitisalsoclearthatthesebottom‐up initiatives are not only spontaneous. In the last 2/3years, several initiatives have been launched,which aim at proac‐tivelysupportandstimulatethiskindofbottom‐upinnovation:wecallit“themeso‐level.”4Theemergenceofameso‐levelgovernment2.0Oneofthekeyquestionsstemmingfromanalyzingthewidearrayof bottom‐up projects described in the previous chapter, and thepublic value they create, is: is this simply anorganic spontaneousgrowth,orcanappropriatemeasuresbeput inplace toencouragetheirdevelopment?

100

OSIMO

Wehere describe a set of initiatives,which try to stimulate thesebottom‐upprojects:

• Social Innovation camp5: a two dayworkshop bringing to‐getherdevelopersandsocialactiviststocreatenewapplica‐tionsforsolvingcollectiveproblems

• Kublaiproject:anetworkprojecttobringtogethercreativepeopletolaunchlocaldevelopmentprojectsinsouthernIt‐aly,wheretraditionalregionaldevelopmentprojectsappearineffective

• RewiredState: a8hoursdaymeetingofhackerswhobuilt26 working applications on top of government data, withtheonlyrewardofpersonalsatisfaction,fun,beerandatten‐tionfromgovernment

• IBBTIncaaward:acompetitionforapplicationswithsocialpurpose, built on purpose in one month. 20.000 Euros ofrewardwillbedistributedamongthebestapplications.

Theseinitiativeshaveseveralcommonpoints,revolvingaroundtheissuesofmoney,peopleandhow(not)tomanageboth.Theoriginatingassumptionisthattraditionalpolicytoolstostimu‐latepublicinnovationdonotworkverywellinthecontextofpublicservices2.0.First,intheseinitiativespublicmoneyisnotthemaintooltostimulateinnovation.Moneyistheoutcome,ratherthanthepre‐condition of the initiative. The availability of funding attractsthewrongkindofparticipants, theopportunists, and the consult‐ants“abletobuildinganykindofprojectbypayinglipservicetotherightbuzzwords,”asAlbertoCotticaputitinhispresentationatthepublicservices2.0workshop6.Theinabilitytoattracttherightkindof people is indeed a crucial problemof fundingmechanisms; forexample,thepanelevaluationoftheEUICTresearchprogramad‐mits7that“therearemajorbarrierstoinvolvingthemostinnovativeandgrowth‐orientedSMEs.”Inmanycases,traditionalgovernmentfundingmechanismsareatoddswiththevaluesofcreativepeopleandcompanies.

101

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Insteadof focusingonmoney, these initiatives focusonattractingtherightkindofpeople.Theabsenceofmoneyasthemainmotiva‐torensuresthatparticipantsaremainlyinvolvedbecauseofenthu‐siasm,commitmentandpassion.Withlittlemoneyandlotsofpas‐sion you can achieve dramatically better results thanwith lots ofmoney and littlepassion. Sometimes,money is a risk, rather thananasset,asitsendsthe“wrongsignalstothewrongkindofpeople”(quoting fromAlberto Cottica presentation). Creative people lookformeaningbeforemoney.Butwhatisnewtodayisthescaleofthepossibility,asmadepossi‐ble by the dramatic reduction in the cost of collective action, asdescribed byClay Shirky8. Technology tools aremuch less expen‐sive, due to overall reduction in prices, open source software andsoftwareasaservice.Technologydiffusionmakesitmucheasiertoensurecollaborationwithouttheneedforformalorganization.Bar‐riers to entry in organizing and designing collaborative effort arenowverylow.Thereducedcostsmeansthatitisnowpossibletostartupprojectwithoutpublicfunding,inordertodemonstratewhatcanbedone.Fundingisthennecessarytomaketheprojectstandonitsfeetandensureupscaling,fulldeploymentandsustainability.Thisiswhyinmanyofthepresentedcases,thefinalresultisa“workingandfund‐able project” submitted to the attention of the funders. The com‐munityactsasaproduceroftheproject,andasafiltertoimproveandselectthebestprojects.Onlyattheendofthisprocesscomesthefundingpossibility.Moneyfollowsresults,nottheopposite:itisthepublicpolicyequivalentofthenew“publishthenfilter”model,versus the traditional “filter then publish”: create‐then‐fund. Re‐wiredState,at theendof thedevelopmentcycle,presents thepro‐jects to thegovernment forpurchase. Social InnovationCampde‐liverstheawardattheendoftheweekendofwork, lookingatthebest working projects. Kublai acts as a collective platform to im‐proveprojectsproposals from ideas to fully‐fledgedbusinessplan,whichcanbepresentedtodifferentfunders.INCArewardsthebestapplications after they have been developed, not the best project

102

OSIMO

ideas. This create‐then‐fund approach is effective in this contextbecauseitcrowdsawaytheexpertsinproposal‐writing,andattractsthe “doers”. Secondly, it ismore open tounpredictable outcomes,whichismoreinlinewiththenatureofbottom‐upprojects,whichoften take unexpected turns following the behavior of users.Thirdly, such an approach accepts failure as a normal part of thelearningandinnovationprocess.Themeso‐level initiatives are necessary new interfaces that bringtogether different people who would not meet in existing struc‐tures. Innovationgenerally stems fromcross‐fertilizationofdiffer‐ent communities and expertise: government and developers (Re‐wired State); social innovators and developers (Social InnovationCamp), creative people and structural funds officers (Kublai), re‐searchersandhackers(INCA).Anotherimportantlessonlearntisthattheseinitiativesgrowinanorganic, not planned fashion.There is no structuredmanagementapproach.Thesesocialprocessesaresuccessfulwhenviral,anditisimpossible to rigidly plan ex‐ante and top‐down. A different ap‐proach isnecessary.The “rightpeople” aremainly attracted infor‐mally, through word of mouth, and reputation mechanisms arecrucial to make it work. This is why these initiatives are seldommanageddirectlybygovernment,butratherbytrustedthirdpartiesandindividuals.Governmenthastolearntoactindirectly,bylever‐agingnetworks.Secondly,whileacontrolapproachdoesnotwork,agreatdealofworkgoesintothecarefulpreparationofafavorablecontext for innovation to happen. All the resources that are notspentintechnologyandinattractingpeoplearededicatedtoorgan‐izing theevent.RewiredStatecollectedagreat listofpublicdata;Social Innovation Camp works for months before and after theevent tomake it effective; Kublai developed a wide array of syn‐chronous and asynchronous tools to leverage creativity. Thesemeso‐level events share a feeling of enthusiasm, community andenergy which is greatly enhanced by the synchronicity of events:intense one day gathering, short termdevelopment times such astheonemonthgivenfortheINCAaward.

103

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Theseviralandcreativeactivitiescannotbeartificiallyinduced,butare not totally spontaneous either: they have to be carefully de‐signed and implemented. In other words, public policy has toevolve from a planning to a design approach, focusing on settingthefavorablecontextforinnovationtohappenratherthandefiningtheinnovationpathex‐ante.These initiatives are therefore more the result of craftsmanshipthanofindustrialplanning:itisthereforenotclearifandhowtheycan be up scaled and achieve large‐scale impact. Yet they are al‐ready verymuch able to show a radical difference in results fromtraditionalgovernment‐ledinitiatives.Shouldgovernmentjustmakedataavailableonline?Slowly, a newpolicy vision is taking shape on e‐government. Thesharp contrast between the low cost, fast development and highusabilityofuser‐generatedapplications,and thepoor track recordofgovernmentITspending,hasobviouslygeneratedtheconclusionthatgovernment should refrain frombuilding servicesonline, andsimply expose its data and web services for reuse by (more tech‐savvy) third parties. This perspective is verymuch visible in bot‐tom‐up initiatives such as RewiredState.org, which claims on itshomepage: “Government isn't very good at computers. They spendmillionstoproducemediocrewebsites,hideawayreallyusefulpublicinformationandgenerallygetitwrong.Whichisashame.Callingallpeoplewhomakethings.We'regoingtoshowthemhowit'sdone.”Sunlight Foundation, the organization running some of the finestgovernment2.0projectsintheUS,arguesinablogpost9thatgov‐ernment should not provide visualization of its data, but simplyexpose them for other people to make those visualizations. Thereason?“Becauseotherpeoplewilldothatandprobablydoitbetter.”These thoughts have then been consolidated in more articulatedvisions.Robinsonetal. argue thatgovernment “rather than strug‐gling,asitcurrentlydoes,todesignsitesthatmeetend‐userneeds,

104

OSIMO

itshouldfocusoncreatingasimple,reliableandpubliclyaccessibleinfrastructure that “exposes” the underlying data.”10 Gartner’s VPAndreaDiMaio11calledfora“nogovernment”vision,whereservicesto citizens are provided by private intermediaries, while govern‐ment simply exposesmachine readable data (e.g. RDFa) andwebservices(e.g.REST).Transparency and publication of reusable data is certainly key toenable user‐led innovation. It is still the case that the bottom‐upinitiativesabovedescribedareimplementedwithouttheawareness,andinmanycaseswithpassiveresistancefromgovernmenttopro‐videthedata.Mostofthetimeandresourcesisdedicatedtoscrap‐ing the data andmaking them usable andmachine‐readable. Re‐leasing government data would bring about several key benefits,such as better government accountability,more engaged citizens,more citizens‐oriented services andnewopportunities for techno‐logical innovation. In this sense, the8principlesofOpenGovern‐mentData12andtheW3Cnoteonmakinggovernmentdataacces‐sible13remainkeyreferences.ItisclearthatthenewUSadministra‐tionisalsosettinganewstandardbylaunchingthedata.govcata‐logueofgovernmentdata;byplacingtransparencyatthecentreofits e‐government policy, as expressed in the PresidentMemoran‐dum on transparency whichwas the first act signed by PresidentObama;andbymandatingagencies torelease fundingdata linkedtotherecoverybillinfullyreusableformat.Butwebelievethathavinggovernmenttosimplymakedataavail‐ableonlineiscertainlythemosturgentthing,itisnecessary–butitis far from sufficient. The large majority of the excellent govern‐ment 2.0 initiatives are from theUS andUK: other countries lackthespontaneousbottom‐upinitiatives,andarguablyneedproactivestimulus guaranteed by themeso‐level. Furthermore,most of theusersofgovernment2.0 initiativesareaffluentandcultivated–aswellasdigitallysavvy:marketandcivilsocietyareunlikelytofullycover the needs of all citizens. Government still has a subsidiaryroletoplaytoensurethatallcitizensbenefit frompublicservices.Inotherwords,itshouldinterveneincasesofmarketorcivilsoci‐

105

STATEOFTHEEUNION

etyfailure:andasitisthecasetoday,therearelotsofmarketfail‐ures.Wethereforeproposed14,ratherthantheapproachoftheno‐government scenario, a more subtle scenario: the e‐Subsidiarityscenario,wheregovernmentandcivilsocietyareboth investing inproviding services and continuously collaborating to innovate andprovide better services and to address the complex societal chal‐lengesofourtimes.Thise‐SubsidiarityscenarioisbestvisualizedthroughthemetaphorofTao.ThisChinesesymbol,vaguelysimilartoourvisualizationofthee‐Subsidiarityscenario,representstwooppositeforces,theYinandYang,whicharenecessarytooneanother,andfullycompene‐trated.Itisadynamicprinciple,permanentlychanging.ThemetaphoraimstohighlightthemaincriticismtotheNoGov‐ernment scenario: itpoints toa static,wall‐against‐wall, zero‐sumgame where the prevailing role is either the state or the mar‐ket/society. Instead, the e‐Subsidiarity scenario is flexibly adaptedtodifferentuserprofiles,anditisdynamicacrosstime.Mostofall,itrejectsthezero‐sumparadigmbutratheraimsatapositive‐sumsituation, arguing that government and markets are complemen‐tary,fullycompenetratedandnecessarytooneanother.Indoingso,the idea refers to the fact that positive‐sum games are a typicalconnotationofnetworkeconomies,andinparticularoftheInterneteconomy.Historyshowsthatpublicandprivateinitiativesarenotazero‐sumgame:inthelate19thcentury,thewelfaregrewparalleltothedevelopmentof thevoluntarysector. It isnotbyaccidentthattheUKand theUS lead theworld inbothbottom‐upcivil societyinitiativesandgovernmentunderstandingofgovernment2.0.FromvisionstopolicydesignWe need therefore not to discuss if government should provideservices,buildinterfacesandvisualization,promoteinnovation:butwhenandhowitshoulddoit.This is therationalebehindthebuildingof the“OpenDeclarationon Public Services 2.0”15: tomake a positive contribution towards

106

OSIMO

the organic integration of web 2.0 in service delivery, and go be‐yond stereotypes and contrapositions between government andcivilsociety.The open declaration is collaboratively built and endorsed by EUcitizenswhosharetheviewthatthewebistransformingoursocietyand our governments. We feel e‐government policies in Europecould learn from the open, meritocratic, transparent and user‐driven culture of the web.We also feel that current web citizensshouldengagemorepositivelywithgovernmenttohelpdesigningastrategy,whichisgenuinelydifficulttoadoptinthetraditionalcul‐tureofpublicadministration.In the firstphaseof this initiative,we sought to tap thecollectiveintelligence through an open process that aimed to answer thequestion:Howshouldgovernmentsusethewebtoimprovepublicservices and deliver greater public value for citizens? The secondphaseoftheprojectwasabouttryingtoturnthesesparseideasintoan impactfulmessage forministers. TheMixedink.com collabora‐tivewritingtoolwasusedsothatanyonecouldco‐createthemani‐festo.Finally,theinitiativelooksforlarge‐scaleendorsementofthemanifesto16.Inconclusion,itappearsclearthatweb2.0inpublicservicesisbe‐comingmorestructured,frombottom‐uptomesoandmacro‐levelinitiatives,andismovingfromtheperipherytothecentreofpolicydebate. Yet it is also clear that web 2.0 initiatives are still excep‐tionalandmarginalinthegovernmentcontext,andthatprogressistoo slow so that the gap with web‐based innovation is widening,ratherthanclosingup.2009isanimportantyearfortheEUICTpolicy.AnewICTstrategywillbeput inplaceandanewe‐governmentactionplan.Citizenshave toassumea shared responsibility topush thepublic services2.0 agenda forward. It is a window of opportunity to acceleratechange,andtheOpenDeclarationaimsattakingadvantageofthisopportunity.

107

STATEOFTHEEUNION

DrDavidOsimo(@osimod)ismanagingpartnerinTech4i2andhas15yearsexperience of EU policies and projects.Heworked three years in the JointResearchCentre of the EuropeanCommission,where hewas coordinatingresearch activities on e‐government, with a particular focus on the futureimpact of emerging technologies such as web2.0. Previously he worked aspolicy advisor and projectmanager on the information society strategy oftheItalianEmilia‐Romagnaregion.1Seee.g.Osimo,D.(2008a).Web2.0forgovernment:whyandhow?TechnicalReport.DGJRC;IPTS.SevilleJRC.http://j.mp/pvcul

2http://j.mp/iE6T3SeeEurostatdata2008availableathttp://j.mp/GC3jA4http://j.mp/10Nflb5http://www.sicamp.org6http://j.mp/VY5EL7InformationSocietyResearchandInnovation:DeliveringresultswithsustainedimpactEvaluationoftheeffectivenessofInformationSocietyResearchinthe6thFrameworkProgramme2003‐2006.May2008.http://j.mp/ejzCo

8Shirky,C.(2008).HereComesEverybody:ThePowerofOrganizingWithoutOrganizations.Penguin

9http://j.mp/jFQbK10Robinsonetal.(2009)“GovernmentDataandtheInvisibleHand“YaleJournalofLaw&Technology,Vol.11,p.160,2009availableathttp://j.mp/hRSz

11http://j.mp/tkGXc12http://j.mp/bXpmm13http://j.mp/UnUqe14Codagnone,C.andOsimoD.(2009)FutureTechnologiesforFutureeGovern‐mentServices:ServicesPlatformAnalysis,ReportfortheEuropeanCommission,Brussels:InformationSocietyandMediaDirectorate.http://j.mp/4r13Gj

15http://eups20.wordpress.com/16http://www.endorsetheopendeclaration.eu/

109

#10

WAITINGFORGOVERNMENT2.0:WHYDOPUBLICAGENCIESTAKESOLONGTOEMBRACESOCIAL

MEDIA?

AlexandraSamuelCEO,SocialSignal

WhentheEUhelditsfirstministerialconferenceone‐Governmentin2001,Lombardy'sRobertoFormigoni framedthechallengeofe‐governmentintermsofgovernment'sroleasthe“guarantorofthedemocraticparticipationofallcitizens”.Lookingbackevenfurthertotheearly1990s,whenwesawthebirthofacademicandpoliticalinterest in e‐democracy, 2001 looks like roughly thehalfwaymarkbetween the birth of aspirations for digitally‐enabled grassrootsparticipation,andthestateofthearttoday.Butwhenyoustepbackto lookat the largerpictureof lifeonline, thepasteightyearsen‐compass a far broader and more transformative period of onlineengagement:sincethefirstministeriale‐Governmentmeeting, theweb has exploded with ordinary citizen engagement as people

110

SAMUEL

around theworld take to theirnewrolesasbloggers, citizen jour‐nalists,socialnetworkersanddigitalvideographers.Whathasnotaccelerated is thepaceofonline,grassrootsengage‐mentwithgovernmentdecision‐making.Forall thatwe spent thenineties dreaming of large‐scale democratic engagement throughtheInternet–dreamsthatthebirthofWeb2.0promisedtomakereal–governmenthasbeenveryslowtoembracethetoolsthatnowmakethatkindofengagementnotjustfeasiblebutfamiliartoany‐onewhoengagesinconversationonline.True,therehavebeenpi‐lotprojectsandscatteredinitiatives–someofthemwithhighpro‐filesandpublicfanfare–butonthewhole,therehasbeenlittlesignthat genuine online engagement is becoming the norm, and notmerelyaremarkableexception.Like many who worked in the e‐democracy field throughout theWeb1.0era,I'vefoundgovernmentreticenceonWeb2.0tobeoc‐casionallyfrustratinganddisappointing,butrarelysurprising;gov‐ernments faceanarrayofconstraints inengagingwith thepublic,andmy work experience in government has givenme a personalvantagepointonthoselimits.In this chapter, I look at the opportunity for democratic engage‐ment that governments have been offered by social media, andidentifytheinstitutionalandculturalfactorsthathavemovedgov‐ernment from the forefront of online engagement to nearly theback of the pack. In the conclusion, I outline principles that gov‐ernmentswillhavetoembraceiftheyaretoovercometheirlimita‐tionsinembracingsocialmediainordertorealizetheiraspirationsforthedemocratizationofpoliticalparticipation.

Earlypromise,highhopesThefirstministerialconferenceroughlycoincidedwiththeconclu‐sion of the Governance in theDigital Economy research programthatDonTapscottandI launchedin1998.Theconsortiumofgov‐ernments who were part of the Governance program included a

111

STATEOFTHEEUNION

coupleofEUmembers,wholiketheircolleaguesinAsiaandNorthAmericahadexpressedparticularinterestinthequestionofhowe‐Governmentofferednewopportunitiesforcitizenengagementwithgovernment,andperhapsevenafundamentaltransformationintherelationship between governments and their citizens. In our 2001paper1on the topic,which reflected the inputofourpublic sectorparticipants,wemappedoutthehopeforatransformationinhowgovernmentsengagedwith theircitizensasbothstakeholdersandcustomers:

Citizens are no longer just the “end users” of governmentservices; they are also decision‐makers, contributors, andpartners in service design and delivery. But who are thesenewpartners?Atthesametimethatcitizensareassumingnew and expanded roles in government service, citizensthemselves are changing. Today’s citizens are much moreinformedandinvolvedthanweretheirparentsorgrandpar‐ents. These citizens expect new levels of service efficiencyand quality from government, and they expect more ac‐countability,too.Werefertothistransformationincitizenperspectivesasthe“e‐citizeneffect.”‐from“Servinge‐Citizens,”GovernanceintheDigitalEcon‐omyprogram,June2001

NowonderthattheadventofWeb2.0–whatwe'dnowcallsocialmedia–elicitedsuchhighhopes.Afterall,Web2.0toolsseemedtodeliveronsomanyoftheaspirationsforonlinepoliticalparticipa‐tion and government accountability, hopes that governments hadpreviously tried tomeetwith amishmash ofwell‐intentioned butcumbersome tools for online dialogue. At the 2005 e‐deliberationconference inStanford,whichcoincidedwiththeearlydaysofso‐cialmedia, the various software tools andpilot projects thatweredemonstratedmostlyreflectedtechnologyapproachesthattriedtotranslatebestpracticesandprinciples forofflineparticipation intoonlineform.Thatincludedtoolslikewikis,immersivevirtualenvi‐ronmentsandblogs,aswellasmoreestablishedtoolssuchasemail.

112

SAMUEL

I was part of the throng that engaged in those earnest, literal‐mindedefforts.Inearly2005IworkedwithAngusReid,bestknownasoneofCanada'sforemostpublicopinionresearchers,todevelopane‐consultationtoolkit.IdrewonexampleslikeViewpointLearn‐ing's terrific workbook‐driven methodology2 for informed citizendialogues to create virtual workbooks, and AmericaSpeaks' large‐scale citizen townhalls to plot out the large‐scale aggregation ofcitizeninput.Ase‐consultationprofessionalslikemebeaveredawayonourwell‐theorized online engagement plans, a spontaneous online revolu‐tion was unfolding. The principles and visions espoused by e‐democracy geekswere being realized in a new generation of webtechnologiesthatweredrivennotbydemocratictheory,butbythepragmaticneedsandmarketopportunitiesspottedbysoftwarede‐velopers.Many of the folks laboring in the e‐democracy trenchessawtheseemergenttoolsastheanswertoourhopes.AndreaKava‐naugh,forexample,wrote:

Inourownthinkingaboutmodifyingblogsforcitizendelib‐eration,wehavebeenbuildingonsoftware toolkitsandanevolving suite of components to support synchronous andasynchronous collaborative authoring and data manipula‐tion … Basic Resources for Integrated Distributed GroupEnvironmentstoolscanbecomposedintosetsthatproduceweb‐viewabledocuments,annotatedimages,andinteractivecollaborative environments. This integration of editingfunctionality intostandardwebtoolsremovesasignificantbarrier to information production and maintenance byminimizingtheoverheadofswitchingbetweenviewingandediting. Automated tracking of web accesses, comments,andqueriesalsoprovidesdatathatcanbeusedtogeneratesummariesofactive,recent,andpopularartifactsintheli‐brary.Forexample, citizensmaybeable to linkcommentsdirectly from posted Town agendas that might be aggre‐gated as a separate file for viewing by other citizens andgovernment.Specificrequirements for individualtoolcapa‐bilitiesandconfigurationsvariedwidelyamongpreviousde‐

113

STATEOFTHEEUNION

ployments,soweexpectmodificationswillbenecessaryforcivic participation and deliberation purposes, and govern‐mentintegrationofcitizenfeedback3.

DavidWilcoxwrote:

I suspect a lot of e‐democracy is just going to be old‐styleparticipation online, withoutmuch impact on the culturalandorganizationproblemsthatneedtobechallenged....Sowherecanwelookfornewmodels,newmethods–andnewattitudestomatch?...thecurrentbuzzaroundwhat'sknownasWeb2.0mayoffersomeinsights, ifmixedwiththinkingaround “openness”...new web tools have the potential forshiftingthewaythatknowledgeisorganizedfromtop‐downtobottom‐up....Insteadoftryingtogetpeopletocontributetooneplace,whynotenablethemtocreatetheirownplacesandthenjointhemup.Thecanbedonebypeopleproducingblogitemsinsteadofemail,addingtagstolabelthecontent,and thenbeingable to selectwhat theywant to read fromothersbyfilteringusingthetags...Participationversion1.xcanbeabitliketheoldtop‐downwaysoforganizingknowl‐edge:“youcanjoinin,butonlyonthetermsthatweset.Ifwedon'tdeliverwhatyouwant,I'mafraidthere'snotmuchyou can do about it.”....The Web, linked with a new ap‐proach to events and collaboration, is starting to changethat–andparticularlythenewtoolsandethosofwhat'sbe‐ingcalledWeb2.04.

StephenColemanwrote:

Themain political value of blogging is not to be found inpoliticians presenting themselves to an audience of poten‐tial voters, but in the dense networks of intellectual andsymbolic intercourse involving millions of private‐publicbloggers.Theblogosphereischaracterizedbythreedemoc‐ratizingcharacteristics.Firstly,itprovidesabridgebetweentheprivate, subjectivesphereof self‐expressionand theso‐cially‐fragile civic sphere in which publics can form and

114

SAMUEL

act.....Secondly,blogsallowpeople– indeed, expect them–toexpress incomplete thoughts.This terrainof intellectualevolution,vulnerabilityandsearchforconfirmationorrefu‐tationfromwidersourcesisinmarkedcontrasttothecrudecertainties that dominate so much of political dis‐course....Thirdly, blogs lower the threshold of entry to theglobal debate for traditionally unheard or marginalisedvoices,particularlyfrompoorerpartsoftheworldwhicharetoo often represented by others, without being given achancetopresenttheirownaccounts....It isaschannelsofhonestself‐presentationthatblogsmaketheirgreatestcon‐tributiontodemocracy5.

Wehadgoodreasontofeelhopeful.Therewasaremarkablecorre‐spondencebetweenthee‐democracyvisionsexpressedintheWeb1.0era,andthedynamicsofemergentWeb2.0toolsandcommuni‐ties.In the OECD's 2003 publication6, “Promise and problems of e‐democracy,”StephenColemanarguedthataneffectiverepresenta‐tive democracy requires a five‐way information flow: GovernmenttoCitizen (G2C);Citizen toGovernment (C2G);Representative toCitizen(R2C);CitizentoRepresentative(C2R);andCitizentoCiti‐zen(C2C).Ashe thennoted, “[w]ithin theexistingmodelofdemocratic repre‐sentation,these flowsaresomewhatrestrictedorclogged.”Web2.0toolspromisedtoaddressmanyoftheseclogs:2003assessmentfromColeman Web2.0promise

GovernmenttoCitizenG2Ctakesplacelargelyviathemassmedia,principally television and the press. Gov‐ernment distrusts themediating interpre‐tations of themedia; citizens distrust theextentandqualityofGovernmentinforma‐tionandtendtoswitchoffwhenpresentedwithit.

Public servants can communi‐cate directly to citizens viawebsites, blogs and socialnet‐works.

115

STATEOFTHEEUNION

CitizentoGovernmentC2G is limited. Government runs manyconsultations, but few citizens participatein these and there is much skepticismaboutGovernmentresponsiveness topub‐lic input.Most citizens believe thatwhat‐ever views or expertise they possess willhavelittleinfluenceuponGovernment.

Citizens can blog or commentaboutpolicyissues,orcontrib‐ute to online forums, withoutwaiting for an official govern‐mentinvitationforinput.

RepresentativetoCitizenR2C is limited outside of election cam‐paigning. Representatives work hard towin citizens’ votes, and make strenuousefforts to use local media to inform theirconstituentsabouthowwelltheyarebeingrepresented, but there are few opportuni‐ties to hear what their constituents thinkaboutspecificpolicyissues.

Elected officials can maintainblogs (ormore recently, Twit‐ter feeds and Facebook pages)to keep constituents up‐to‐date on their activities andconsiderations.

CitizentoRepresentativeC2R is very limited. Citizens can raise is‐sues with their representatives in localsurgeries or by mail – in some case byemail.But,outsideoftraditionallobbying,there are few opportunities to feed in tothe legislative process by raising new in‐formationorperspectives.Fewcitizensareactivemembersofpoliticalpartiesorlobbygroups, so fewvoices tend tobeheardbyrepresentatives when policies are beingevaluated.

Citizens can blog or commentabouttheirelectedrepresenta‐tives, creating public pressurefor a response. More recently,Tweets and Facebook updateshaveemergedasquickwaystoshare thoughts with publicofficials.Theonus isonrepre‐sentativestodoeffectivesocialmedia monitoring so theyknowwhat isbeingsaidaboutandtothem.

CitizentoCitizenC2C is the basis of a healthy civil society,but it is in decline, consistent with abroaderdecline in “social capital”. Ingen‐eral, citizens do not discuss policy issueswithoneanother–evenwhenthoseissuesmattertothem.Itisnoteasytofindplacesor networks for such discussion. Theme‐dia provide some opportunities, but theserarely enable citizens to develop commu‐nicationwithothercitizens.

Citizen‐journalist coverage ofgovernmentpolicyissues,issueblogs, citizen‐drivenwikis andonline conversations via fo‐rums and status updates givecitizens ample (and widelyused)opportunitiesforcitizen‐to‐citizenpolicydiscussion.

116

SAMUEL

Itseemedliketheeraofe‐democracywasfinallyuponus:aworldin which the decentralized, self‐organizing conversations of thesocial web could be applied to the policy questions of the day. Itseemedasthoughweweremovingfromengagementasthetightly‐controlledexception, toengagementas thenorm,withcitizensasfullpartnersinsettingtheagenda–aswellasdecidingwhen,whereandhowthoseconversationswouldoccur.

ConstraintsandroadblocksThetechnologiesofonlineconversationhaveindeedadvancedatablisteringpace.Thepublic,inturn,hasadoptedthosetechnologieswidely and rapidly.Butgovernments–witha fewhigh‐profile ex‐ceptions,most recentlyandnotably the incomingObamaadmini‐stration – have not. Instead, while public figures talk about thetransformativepotentialoftheInternet,thegovernmentstheyleadusuallyrestricttheironlineengagementstosmall‐scaleprojectsandone‐offpilots.AsreportedlastyearinGovernmentTechnology7:

TheadoptioncurveforWeb2.0applicationscurrentlyhasatrickle‐down pattern.While 67 percent of large businesseshave already implemented some form ofWeb 2.0 applica‐tions or tools, IT decision makers in medium‐sized busi‐nesses fall slightly behind with 53 percent currently usingWeb2.0.Only27percentofsmallbusinessesand30percentofgovernmentorganizationshaveadoptedWeb2.0.

Although disappointing, nobody should have been surprised bygovernments’slowtempoinadoptingWeb2.0tools.Theyfacese‐rious constraints that other actors do not, or do not face to thesamedegree.Thoseconstraintsinclude:

Legacysystems:ManygovernmentagenciesrelyonanagingIT infrastructure,coupledwithbudget restrictionsandpri‐

117

STATEOFTHEEUNION

oritiesthatimpedeupgrades.ThatinfrastructureoftendoesnotsupportWeb2.0technologies,orcanonlydosowithasubstantialsoftwareorprogramminginvestment.Organizationalriskaversion:Effectivesocialmediaengage‐mentdemands that the sponsoringorganization relinquishalargedegreeofcontroloverthecontentandnatureoftheconversation – an approach directly at oddswith the risk‐minimizingculture typicalofbureaucracies (publicand, tobeclear,privatealike).Those bureaucracies must answer to elected officials whogovern in an adversarial world – one where openness tocriticismcarriesheavypoliticalrisks(perceivedorreal).Andbecauseconversationscannoteasilybecompartmentalized,onedepartment’ssocialmediainitiativecanimposerisksonanother department, giving them a strong motivation toblockorrestrictthatproject.Finally, thesocialmediaworldreliesheavilyonthird‐partyapplications, services and sites.Governments that incorpo‐rate such services into their socialmedia offerings take onsubstantial risk, ranging from service outages to securitybreaches.Personal risk aversion: Advocating the use of resources foranunproven approach carries a double risk for public ser‐vants:wastingtimeandenergyonanunsuccessfulproposal,orgainingapproval for theproposaland thenseeing it failpublicly. That’s especially true in the restricted fiscal envi‐ronmentwheremostgovernmentshavespentthepasttwodecades.And let’s be honest: the kind of people who are drawn topublic service tend not to have a high degree of personalrisk tolerance.Oneof the attractions ofworking for a big,stable employer – whether it’s a government agency or a

118

SAMUEL

large blue‐chip company – is the relatively high degree ofjobsecurity.Ifyou’rethekindofpersonwhocravesnovelty,and you have a high degree of risk tolerance, you’remorelikely to land in a start‐up or an edgy NGO – no wonderthat’s where we see a lot of social media innovation! Ofcourse, there are exceptions to this generalization, and in‐deed it’s those exceptions – the folks who go into publicservice not because of its stability but in spite of it –whocanoftenbefoundinthefrontlinesofonlineinnovation.Policy limitations: Public agenciesmust often work withinthe boundaries of inflexible constraints governing such ar‐easasdesignstandards(oftenexpressedasa“commonlookand feel”) and content approval. Those constraints inhibitinnovationanddampenthefreeflowofconversationneces‐saryforsuccessfulengagement.Governmentsmust also grapplewith their role as custodi‐ansofprivateandpersonalinformation.Manyjurisdictionshavepoliciesandproceduresthatprivilegetheprotectionofprivacy over information disclosure – voluntary and invol‐untary–byparticipants inWeb2.0‐enabledconversations.Bring third‐party services such as Facebook into the mix,withtheircontentiousprivacyandterms‐of‐useagreements,andtheseaofconflictingprioritiesbecomesevenhardertonavigate.

What’sworking?YetsomegovernmentshavesucceededinmovingintoWeb2.0,andwiththerapidlyacceleratingembraceofsocialmediaamongbusi‐nesses,NGOsandcitizen‐consumers,moreandmorepublicsectororganizations are making serious efforts to incorporate onlinecommunity and social media tools into their repertoire of publicengagementandcommunicationsapproaches.Thisincludesexam‐pleslike:

119

STATEOFTHEEUNION

• TheBritishPrimeMinister’s e‐petition site,whichhasgar‐neredmorethan4,600petitionsandhundredsofthousandsofsignatures,andtheblogsmaintained.

• The Barack Obamaadministration’s array of social mediainitiatives,suchastheuseofYouTubeforweeklyaddresses,online user submission and voting for townhall questions,an open data repository and a broader, far‐reaching opengovernment initiative under the management of a ChiefTechnologyOfficer.

• NorthernIreland’sDepartmentforEmploymentandLearn‐ing’sFacebookpage,gearedtoencouragingimmigrationtothecountry.

• The City of Melbourne’s “Future Melbourne” wiki, whereresidentscouldcollaborateonastrategydocumentshapingthecity’sfuture.

• Certain individual political leaders. Mayors of Canadianmunicipalities such as Vancouver and Toronto not onlymaintainTwitterpresencesbutengageactivelywithfollow‐ers. (TorontoactuallyheldaWeb2.0summit in late2008,brainstorming ideas for implementing social media acrossthe municipal government). And Margot Wallström, EUVice President in charge of Institutional Relations andCommunication, hasmaintained her blog – completewithcomments–forseveralyears.

Fromtheseandotherexampleswecandistilltheemergentoppor‐tunities and best practices for governments seeking to tap thepowerofsocialmedia:Focus on small wins: Look for projects that minimize risk whiledemonstratingmeasurableresults,buildingthecaseformoreambi‐tious initiatives tocome.Suchprojectscannotonlyavoid failuresthatpoison thewell for future endeavors; theyhelp to change in‐ternal culture, and identifypotentialpolicy issues, internalbottle‐necks and unforeseen challenges while their impact is still small.And planned as part of a larger strategy, they can build not just

120

SAMUEL

support, but the software and social infrastructure – such as acommunityofusers–thatcanmakelargerprojectsasuccess.Gowherethepublicis:EvenanagencywiththebudgetoftheWhiteHousereliesonYouTubeasavideochannel.Asa rule, it iseasierandlesscostlytoengagepeoplewheretheyarecurrentlyparticipat‐ing,thantoconvincethemtovisitanewandunfamiliarwebpres‐enceandlearnanewandunfamiliarinterface(nottomentioncre‐ating yet another online profile, andmonitoring yet another con‐versation platform). Moreover, you gain from network effects asusers’participationismirroredintheiractivityfeedstotheirsocialnetworks. And perhaps most important, engagement on users’termsratherthangovernments’canhelptobuildtrustandencour‐age citizens to lend a civic dimension to their existing modes ofparticipation.Focusontangiblebenefitsandproblem‐solving:Particularlyinacul‐tureofcaution,supportforaprojectcanbedifficulttocomebyifitsbenefitstotheorganizationaren’texplicitordirect.Identifyingapain point and proposing a credible solution, on the other hand,can be a powerful way ofmobilizing internal support (andmain‐tainingitinthefaceofabudgetcut).Forexample,theU.S.Navy’sonline community allowing moms of serving sailors to talk withanxiousorskepticalmothersofnewrecruitshelpedthearmedserv‐icedealwithaseriousobstacletorecruitment.Import success stories: Governments are not known for their avidpursuitoffirst‐moveradvantage;favoringmoreprovenapproachesovercutting‐edgeinnovationcanallowgovernmentstoavoidrisks,learn fromothers’mistakesandsuccesses,andset realisticbench‐marks based on past experience. Thus an array of e‐petition sitesbegatNumber10’sonlineversion,andDell’sIdeaStormbegatPresi‐dentObama’suser‐selectedtownhallquestions.However,perhapsthebestadvicetoanyonewhowishestoadvancetheuseofsocialmediaincitizenengagementbygovernmentsisto

121

STATEOFTHEEUNION

manageexpectations:insidegovernment,withthepublicandwiththemselves.Government communicators and leaders need to be ready for thecertaintythattheywillhearthingstheydon’twantto,thattheywillbe unable to control the conversation, and that it will veer fromtime to time intounexpected territory. (Foranextremecase, lookto the short‐lived takeover of the White House question‐submission application by supporters of the “birther”movement.)Theyneedtobepreparedtorespondtoattemptstohijackconver‐sations for partisan or malicious purposes without stifling legiti‐matevoices.Andtheyneedtorecognizethat,aswithanyemergentfield,successfulprojectswillnotcomewithoutaccompanyingfail‐ures.Thepublicneedstoknowjustwhattheparametersofengagementare:what’sonthetableandwhatisn’t;whichkindsofparticipationare welcome, which are merely tolerated and which are discour‐aged; and what the outcome of the conversation will yield. Theyneed an explicit and accurate picture of the extent and limits oftheirgovernment’sopenness.Andtheyneedaclearandcompellingunderstandingofthevalueoftheirparticipation–tothemselvesaswellastotheircommunity.Andthoseofuswhowouldevangelizesocialmediaasatoolofgov‐ernmentengagementwiththepublicwoulddowelltotemperourown expectations with the hard‐won knowledge that, in govern‐ment,changeisnearlyalwaysevolutionaryratherthanrevolution‐ary.We are dealingwith large organizations, entrenched culturesand a massive set of formal and informal rules, and turning thatapparatusaroundtakespatienceandtime.But it’s important work nonetheless. Governments – democrati‐cally‐electedones,atanyrate–dowearthemantleofguarantorsofdemocraticparticipation.Theyareinaheadlongracefortheonlineattention of their citizens, competing with commercial entertain‐ment and online shopping on one side and grassroots self‐

122

SAMUEL

organizing on the other. A growing number of political leaders,alongwiththenewestgenerationofpublicservants,recognizetheurgencyofthatraceandaredoingtheirbesttopickupthepace.AlexandraSamuel (@awsamuel) is theCEOofSocialSignal,aVancouver‐basedsocialmediaagency.Alexandrahashelpedtoconceiveandbuildon‐linecommunities likeNetSquared.org,ChangeEverything.caandTyze.com.Alexandra holds a Ph.D. in political science fromHarvardUniversity. ShecurrentlyblogsforHarvardBusinessOnlineandonSocialSignal.com.1http://www.alexandrasamuel.com/researchwriting.html2ViewpointLearning,ChoiceDialogueMethodology,http://www.viewpointlearning.com/offer/methodology.shtml

3Kavanagh,A.etal.(2005)DetectingandFacilitatingDeliberationattheLocalLevel.Paperpresentedatthe2ndConferenceonOnlineDeliberation:Design,Research,andPractice/DIAC‐2005.http://www.online‐deliberation.net/conf2005/viewpaper.php?id=38

4DavidWilcox,IfParticipation1.xisn'tworking,let'sdevelopEngagement2.0,October12005.http://j.mp/h2fSX

5StephenColeman,Afterword:BlogsaslisteningpostsratherthansoapboxesinBlogs:CrazeorConvention,UKHansardSociety,2004

6http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/11/35176328.pdf7“ITDecisionMakersCautiousinAdoptingWeb2.0intheWorkplace",Govern‐mentTechnology,June182008.http://j.mp/37Dfjz

123

#11

3REASONSGOVERNMENTISN’TREADYFOR2.0YET

ArielWaldmanFounder,Spacehack.org

OnJuly 16,2009,acongressionalhearing intheUSCongressSub‐committee on Space & Aeronautics took place on Enhancing theRelevance of Space1.MilesO’Brien2 carried a powerfulmessage toNASAandsimilargovernmentagencies,asherespondedtoaques‐tion:Olsonasked:

“HowdowecommunicatehowbeneficialNASAhasbeentoour society from a technological, from a national securityperspective, and from an inspirational perspective? … Mr.O’Brien,I’dliketogiveyouthefirstcrackatthat.Whatcanwetellourconstituents?Whatcantheydotomakeadiffer‐ence?”

O’Brienresponded:

“YouknowIthinktheironyisthat40yearsafterthelaunchof Apollo 11 NASA suffers from a bit of timidity when itcomestounleashingthemessage.Nowtheyhaveanatural

124

WALDMAN

legionoffootsoldiers,evangelizers.EveryoneImeetwhoisinvolved in space is deeply passionate aboutwhat they do;lovewhattheydo.Theyarecommittedtotheirjobsinwaysmost people are not. And unfortunately if they attempt toblog about it or tweet about it they get shut down. Thishappens all the timebecause the concern is that they’ll beoffmessage.

It’simportanttoempowertheagencyandthusitsfootsol‐dierstoknowthattheycan—theycanbeapartofthis.If— if a flight controller wants to tweet and let her socialnetwork in on what’s going on insidemission control, as‐sumingwe’renotyouknowinsomesortofmissioncriticalsituation that would cause danger to somebody, why notempower her to do that? But instead the message is youcan’t.

So I thinkwhatCongresscando is to theextent theycanstreamline the rules forNASAandmake it easier for themtodomarketing,butalsototheextentthattheycanavoidthe tendency to get on the phone every time somethingcomesacrossthebowthatmight—mightoffendsomebodyin somebody’s constituency. Because what that does is itcows the agency. And they need to be empowered too be‐cause ifyouunleashedthepowerof thatworkforceandal‐lowed themtospread thewordwecould just standbyandwatchthemwinthecountryover.”

Relearnthephrase“don’tburnbridges”The quote above comes at a timewhere I still to this day receiveemailsfrompeopleinsideNASAwhotellmeabouthowtheywereforcedtoshutdowntheirpersonalblogforfearofbeingfired.Evenworse,Istillreceivestoriesaboutpeoplebeingforcedbytheirman‐agers to unblock people who are harassing them from their*personal* social networking accounts. The socialweb is a bridgebetweenpersonalandprofessionallivesandshouldberespectedassuch. Learning how to navigate this isn’t easy. Scrambling to puttogethera“digitalpolicy”foremployeesmightsoundliketheright

125

STATEOFTHEEUNION

solution, however, digital policies are equally dangerous due totheirinabilitytoevolveasthedigitalenvironmentdoes.Startingoffwith general guidelines like “play nice” that encourage the use ofsocialnetworksandrespectprivacyisabetterfirststep.Eliminate“thepublic”Themindsetofpeopleingovernmentisdeeplyrootedinusingtheterm“thepublic”whenreferringtoanyonewhodoesn’talsoworkingovernment.Notonlydoesthistermmassivelyinhibittheirabil‐itytocommunicateeffectivelyandconnectwithanyone,butitalsoframes their view for using the social web – something that “thepublic”usesand thus they shoulduseasanextensionof their job(insteadofhavingapersonalANDprofessionalinterestinit).Thisis ahard term to tackle, as I started saying it shortly after joiningNASAaswell.Irecommendsteppingdownfromusingthetermbysayingthingslike“peoplewillbeabletobetteraccessthis”or“thisprogramallowspeopletogetinvolvedwithXYZ.”Weneeda“FreedomofInformation,ExceptforJerks”ActThetitleofthissectionwasjokedaboutwhileconversingaboutthisissueoverdinner.Thegovernmenthasnostandardsorprocess3inplace for blocking abusive, harassing and/or all‐around trollingpeople(seeTantek’sTrollTaxonomy4).Infact,thegovernmentissoterrified of being called out for denying conversational access tosomeone,thattheyoftenpandertothepoisonouspersonoverpro‐tectingtheirownemployees.Asaresult,“supervillains”arecreatedto feedoffof the fearculture–a termHeatherChamp5, thecom‐munity manager at Flickr, uses to describe someone who keepscomingbacktohauntyouforever.AsHeatherstatedinatalkaboutShepherdingPassionateUsers,“Sometimesyouhavetomakediffi‐cultdecisionsandtakeactionsthatwon’tbeappreciated.”6

126

WALDMAN

ArielWaldman(@arielwaldman)isadigitalanthropologistandthefounderofSpacehack.org,adirectoryofwaystoparticipateinspaceexplorationandencourage citizen science. She is also a sci‐fi movie gadget columnistforEngadget and the founder of CupcakeCamp, based off of the BarCampmodel.Previously,shewasaCoLabprogramcoordinatoratNASA,andthecommunitymanagerforPownce,aP2Psharingsocialnetwork.1http://j.mp/ditAn2http://j.mp/4449oF3http://j.mp/bGVB4http://j.mp/yvILG5http://hchamp.com6http://j.mp/SwUe4

127

SectionII

OPENINGGOVERNMENT

128

STEPHENSON

#12

DATATRIGGERSTRANSFORMATION

W.DavidStephensonCEO,StephensonStrategies

Whenmanyofusgo toWashingtonD.C.,we like tovisithistoriclandmarks.Wedon’tnecessarilylikecarryingmapsandguidebooks,especiallysincemosttrytobecomprehensive,whileyoumightbeparticularlyinterested in one aspect, such as Lincoln, so the other materialwouldbeirrelevanttoyou.NowyoucanusetheD.C.HistoricToursapplicationonyouriPhone1.Justtypein“Lincoln,”anditinstantlycreates awalking tour only of Lincoln‐related places, then guidesyour actual path block‐by‐block. As for the content of that tour?Willing volunteers located the places to include in the tour anduploadedthedataandphotosaboutthemtotheWebforuseintheapplication.InNewZealand,Aucklanddriversuseanapplicationthatusesreal‐time data from the government’s InfoConnect program2 to showwhere there are traffic jams& then zero in on a local traffic cam.Theycanchangetheirroutestosteeraroundthejams.

129

STATEOFTHEEUNION

IntheNetherlands,companieshavetheoptionoffilingasinglesetofnumbersinsteadofthemultiplereportstomultipleagenciesthatthey formerly had to file. Participating companies can save up to25% on their reporting costs, and the agencies can actually do abetterjobregulatingthecompanies.3Whatmakestheseinnovationswork?Free,real‐timeaccesstounfil‐tered,valuabledata.Datapervadesourlives.4Governmentagenciesandcompaniescollectdataaroundtheclockaboutourbirths,deaths,education,jobs(orlackthereof),ourraceand gender, our spending and saving, our health. Then they usethatdata tomakedecisionsaffectingour incomes,ourbuyingop‐tions,evenwhetherwequalifyforspecialbenefits.Datadetermineshowmuchgovernmentalassistanceourcommuni‐tiesreceive.Data determines where roads will be built, then our GPS devicesprocess data from government satellites to guide us down thoseroadsandhelpusfindservices.Dataisthebasisofmedicalandscientificresearch.Yet, forallofdata’s influenceonour lives,youandIhavesurpris‐ingly little direct access to it ourselves to use as we might like.That’sparticularlytruewiththemostvaluabletype,real‐timedata.Becauseitismadeavailableasitisgathered,thisdatacanbeusedtoautomateequipmentandservicesand/orhelpusmakedecisions,ratherthansimplyanalyzethepast,ascanbedonewithhistoricaldata.

130

STEPHENSON

Despitethosebenefits,thisdataismorelikelytoremainburiedindatawarehousesandbecostlyand/ordifficulttoobtain.Whenwedogetit,it’softeninaformthatisdifficulttouse.That’soutrageous.Ifwedidhaveaccesstothatdata,wecoulddoourworkmoreeffi‐ciently and cheaply, engage in more productive political debates,andevencontributedirectlytonewwaystodealwithsomeofourera’smostpressingproblems,suchasglobalwarmingorhealthcarecostcontainment.Yet, there’s little sense of public concern, and even less outrage,aboutourrelativelackofunfetteredaccesstocriticalinformation.FrankDiGiammarino, former vice‐president of strategic initiativesat the National Academy for Public Administration and now theObama Administration’s deputy coordinator for Recovery Imple‐mentation, says that’s amajor problem in theUnited States (andworldwide,forthatmatter):

“Weasacountryneedtotreatdataasanationalassetandresource. It is a valuable commodity but we don't treat itthatway.Wedon'tthinkintermsofwhereitis.Incurrentstructures,itisstovepipedbut,needstobemovedfluidly…Thedefaultquestionhastobewhycan'tweshare it?Datahastobecomeacorecomponentofhowgovernmentworksandhowleadersthinkofdealingwithissues.”5

Similarly, SaraWood, a leader in the nascentmovement tomakedatabothavailableandunderstandable to thegeneralpublic, saysthat:

“Itmaynotbeobvioustoeveryone,butthereexistsan im‐portant problemof data apathy.No one cares about data.And by no one, wemean in the democratic sense…. Gooddatashouldaffectpolicy–butpoliticiansdon'tcarebecausethey know their voters don't care. People who vote don't

131

STATEOFTHEEUNION

carebecausedata isnotengaging,not tomentionaccessi‐ble,usable,andrelevanttotheirlives.”6

Dataapathyisnolongertolerable.Dataissoimportanttoourlivesthatwemustallcareaboutdataanddemandaccesstoit.ThetransformationtriggeredbydemocratizingdataThetimehascometomakedatafreelyavailable–andusable.Takesomesimplestepstotransformyourgovernment’srawdata intoamoreversatileandusableform,placethatdataatthecenterofyourgovernment’soperations,makeitaccessibletoeveryonewhoreallyneedsit,andeverythingchanges.Data thathasbeen “processed,organized, structuredorpresentedinagivencontextsoastomake[it]useful”iselevatedtothestatusofinformation.7Ahandfuloftools,noneofthemradicallyinnovativebythemselvesbutrevolutionarywhencombined,make itsimpleandeconomicalfor governments to make valuable information available to thosewhoneed it,whenandwhere theyneed it, to improve theirdeci‐sion‐makingandactions.Sincethatwasneverpossiblebefore,thepotentialforchangeineveryaspectofhowweworkandliveispro‐found and pervasive. The results, as demonstrated by the limitedexamples from around the world where democratizing data hasalreadytakenhold,areastonishing. Letuscallthistransformationdemocratizingdata:

Democratizing data makes it automatically available tothosewhoneedit(basedontheirrolesandresponsibilities),when and where they need it, in forms they can use, andwith freedomtouseas theychoose–whilesimultaneouslyprotectingsecurityandprivacy.

Fiveprinciplesguidetheprocessofdemocratizingdata:

1. Datashouldbefree

132

STEPHENSON

That is meant in both an economic and figurative sense.Our tax dollars paid for collection and processing ofmostpublicdata,andthecostsofcommercialgoodsandservices,includesimilarservices,sowehavealreadypaidforthedataandshouldn’thavetopayagaintoobtainit.Similarly,datashouldnot be kept locked in datawarehouses: to be valu‐ableitneedstobefreelyavailable.

2. Datashouldbedistributedinreal‐time

Dataismorehelpfulwhenitisavailableonadata‐in,data‐outbasis. Itcanprovide“situationalawareness”,and infor‐mationonfast‐changingfactorssuchastraffic,healthcon‐ditions, or weather that we need to consider in decision‐making,aswellasallowautomationofmanyprocessesthatcanbetriggeredandgovernedbyreal‐timeinformation.

3. Datashouldbeavailabletoallwhoneedit

Inthepast,itwassoexpensiveandtime‐consumingtocol‐lect, process, release and provide tools to work with datathatitmadesensetoonlygiveaccesstoseniormanagementorsalespeople.Thosebarriershavenowbeeneliminatedorsignificantlyreduced,sorelevantdata(basedonindividuals’rolesandfactorssuchastheirsecurityclearances)shouldbemade available to all who need it, in order to help themmakebetterdecisionsand/or improvetheirabilitytoman‐ageandlivetheirownlives.

4. Datashouldbeshared

When formaloreven informalgroupsofpeople jointlyac‐cessandcandiscussandanalyzedatatogether,theresultinganalysis is fundamentally richer and more nuanced, whileramifications, or need for additional data, are better ex‐ploredthanwhenanyindividualworksinisolation.Equally

133

STATEOFTHEEUNION

important, shared data can be acted upon simultaneously,ratherthansequentially.

5. Datashouldbemadeuseful

Numbersareenrichedandbecomeusefulinformationwhentheyareput incontext.Equally important, toolsthatallowus tomanipulate and analyze data in a variety ofways, aswellastosharedata,alsomakeitmoreuseful.

Itseemsaudacioustoclaimthatanactasmodestasmodifyingtheway you treat your government’s raw data can lead to sweepingeconomic,governmentalandsocialchange.Thatispreciselywhatdemocratizingdatawilldo.For fartoo long,wehavebeenmoreconcernedwithcreatingdatawarehousesinwhichtostoredatathanwehavebeenwithactuallyusing that data to its full potential. In fact, it’s rather astonishingthatgovernmentshaveprosperedtotheextenttheyhave,consider‐ing how limited access to real‐time, actionable information hasbeen.This remained true even recently, when we have had powerfulcomputers to gather, accumulate and disseminate data. It still re‐mained costly and difficult to deal with data, so access to it wastypically limited to management, analysts and other elites. Eventhesepowerusersrarelyhadaccesstothemostimportantdata,inreal‐time, non‐aggregated form, which allows the user the mostfreedomandmakesitsabilitytoaffectcurrentactionsmostpower‐ful.Puttingdatasquarelyatthecenterofeverythingwedo,andmakingitusable–andshareable–byeveryone,notjustthosewithstatisti‐cal skills, is a dramatically different approach fromhowwe’ve re‐gardeddatainthepast.

134

STEPHENSON

DemocratizingdatasparkswiderangeofchangeMaking data automatically availablewhen andwhere it is neededtriggerswidespreadandfundamentalchanges.Becausethisdataismachine‐readable,i.e.encodedinawaythatacomputerormachinecanautomaticallyscanorprocess,itcanpro‐videthereal‐timeinformationnecessarytooperateawiderangeofdevices,whichhasbotheconomicandquality‐of‐lifebenefits.Perhapsthemostcommonexampletodayofreal‐timedataspawn‐ing an entirely new industry would be global positioning systems(GPS). Location‐based services (LBS), just one component of therangeofbusinessesmadepossiblebyGPS,areexpectedtogrowby104%through2011.8Canyouimaginethepotentialeconomicdevel‐opment and quality‐of‐life opportunities if all of the non‐confidentialgeospatialdatacompiledbygovernmentagencieswasroutinelyreleasedonareal‐timebasis?Inthepoliticalrealm,debateanddisagreementwillalwaysbewithus, sooneshouldnotover‐estimate thebenefitsofaccess todata.However,beginningdebateonproposed legislationfromapoolofdata that was accessible to all on a simultaneous basismight in‐crease the chances of reaching consensus, or at least isolating themost extreme positions that were clearly not supported by data.Themore data is analyzed and debated before passage of legisla‐tion, the less likely itwill be that critical data that only comes tolightafterpassagewouldundermine the law itself,or significantlyalterpublicopinion.Similarly,whendataongovernmentoperations, campaign financeand“earmarks”aremadepublic, it ismuchharder toconcealcor‐ruption or unjustified disbursements. For example, making cam‐paigncontributionspublicallowswatchdoggroupsand themediato create visualizations that explore possible correlations betweencontributionsandvotesthatmightfavoraparticularcontributor.

135

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Equally important, although few governments have tried it so far,makingreal‐time,actionabledataavailabletoyourentireworkforce(with the exact amount and type available filtered depending onyour role: this is not a one‐size‐fits‐all approach) can elevate allworkerstothestatusof“knowledgeworkers”.Thatwillhelpwork‐ers increase their efficiencyand reducecosts.Theywillbeable toseewhichotheremployeeshaveaccesstothesamedataandthere‐foreare likelytosharetasks,responsibilitiesandoversightandin‐terests,engageinthekindofcollaborativedataanalysismentionedabove.Theycanseepotentialsynergies,overlapsandgapsbetweenprogramsthatmustbeaddressed.

DemocratizingdataessentialtodayThe lackofwidespreadaccess to real‐timedatawas regrettable inthe past. Given the unprecedented worldwide organizational andsocial changes facing government, the global economy, and ourpersonal lives today as a result of the global crisis that began in2008,itisintolerable.Weneed every potential tool andpiece of information at our dis‐posaltodealwiththeseconditionsandtoimproveourownlives.For government agencies, it is essential that workers who remainafter layoffs be able tobe as efficient and effective aspossible.Asmentionedabove,democratizingdatawillmake itpossible forthefirsttimetogiveyourentireworkforcetheraw,real‐time informa‐tion needed for them toworkmore efficiently, new tools to helpthembetter analyze that information, and to collaborate as neverbefore.Datawillgiveususable informationoneverything fromtraffic, toourpersonalcarbonfootprints,toourhealthconditionsinapplica‐tionsanddevicesthatwillallowustoactonthatdataandimproveourlives.

136

STEPHENSON

IntheUnitedStates,theregulatorysystem,inshamblesafterreve‐lationsoflaxenforcementinthepastdecade,wasatleastinparttoblameforthesub‐primemortgagescandalanditscascadingeffectsontheoveralleconomy.Regulationcanbereinvigoratedthroughashift to “smart” regulation,which substitutes a single data file forcountless traditional forms.All of the agencies responsible for re‐viewingacompany’soperationswillbeabletosharedatasimulta‐neously,allowingcoordinatedreviewandenforcementforthefirsttime.Thisshouldimprovethequalityofregulatoryreviewandun‐coversuspiciousactivitiessooner.Thesamesingle‐businessreport‐ingapproachwillallowcompaniestoreducetheirregulatorycom‐pliance costs, perhaps as much as 25%.9 By introducing parallel,integrated regulatory systems worldwide, based on innovationspioneeredby theNetherlandsandAustralia,wewillbeable to fa‐cilitateworldtradewhileprotectingtheenvironmentandworkers.In the past, effective regulation would inevitably have driven upcorporatereportingcosts,becausetheonlywaytoincreasescrutinywouldhavebeentorequirefilingmoreforms.Nowaradicallysim‐plified, but more informative and integrated, system can benefitgovernment,thepublicandcorporations.Equallyimportant,governmentagenciesmustrebuildpublicconfi‐dence.Theywillbeabletodosothroughdemocratizingdata.Demeaning,“trustus”platitudesarenolongerenoughinthefaceofvoteroutrage.Instead,byreleasinglargeamountsofunediteddatadirectlytomedia,votersandwatchdogs,theycantakea“don’ttrustus,trackus”approach,invitingunfetteredscrutiny.In the United States, the soaring federal budget and deficit haveunitedthepoliticalspectrumindemandstocutoutwasteandinef‐ficiency, and to open up the legislative process so that the publiccanbeheard.Vivek Kundra, the former District of Columbia chief technologyofficer, named by President Obama as the first chief information

137

STATEOFTHEEUNION

officer of theUnited States, refers to this approach as the “digitalpublicsquare”.10

“… technological advances now allow people from aroundthe world unfettered access to their government. Throughtheseadvances,constituentscanholdtheirgovernmentac‐countablefromtheprivacyoftheirownhomes.TheDistrictof Columbia is bringing people closer to governmentthrough collaborative technologies like wikis, data feeds,videos and dashboards. We’re throwing open DC’s ware‐house of public data so that everyone—constituents, poli‐cymakers,andbusinesses—canmeetinanewdigitalpublicsquare.”11

Finally,andperhapsmostexciting,democratizingdatacanleadtoinnovation.Itisnowpossible,byallowingfreeaccesstoreal‐timedatastreams,to unleash “crowdsourcing” of new services for government andindustry alike, better serving diverse groups’ needs at low or nocost.Crowdsourcing,asexplainedinthebookbythesamenamebyJeffHowe,12isthephenomenoninwhichcommunities,whetherinten‐tionaloradhocones,cometogetherusingInternetresources,espe‐ciallyopen‐sourcesoftware,toaccomplishataskcollaboratively,byeachprovidingasmallportionoftheoverallsolution.13Even better, as more governments embrace this revolution, themore thebenefitswillmultiply,becausedemocratizeddata inher‐entlyfosterslinkagesandsynergiesbetweenprogramsandservicesthat share the same data, and open source solutions that all canshareand improveupon.Because theseprogramsuseglobal stan‐dards, free to everyone, the revolution can andmust be global innature,benefittingnationsofallsizesanddevelopmentstatus.

138

STEPHENSON

This is not just a vision of possible transformation in the future.True, the amount of innovation is severely limited by the lack offreely‐availablestructureddatathatistheunderpinningofdemoc‐ratizingdata.Despite those limits,pioneers ingovernmentworld‐wide are already realizing tangible results with innovative data‐centricstrategiesthatwouldhavebeenimpossibleonlyafewyearsago.In theUnited States,Nevada’s innovativeController,KimWallen,has taken the lead by designing a portal system for businesses,which provides them with a single, simplified point‐of‐entry andcoordinatesregulatoryreviewsbyallstateagencies.14IntheDistrictofColumbia,AkiDamme,directoroftheDistrictofColumbia’s IT ServUs team, had to manage a project to buy andinstall6,000computers incityclassroomsforahigh‐visibilitynewprogram.Theoriginalestimatewasthattheprojectwouldtakeanentire year to complete. However, an expedited purchasing pro‐gramandhisability toplan the installationsusingaGoogleMapsmashupcutthetotal lengthtoonly7weeks,andsavedthousandsofdollarsincosts.15AgenciesresponsiblefordisasterpreparednessandresponseinAla‐bama can now access “Virtual Alabama,” a comprehensive, inte‐gratedarrayofreal‐timegeospatialinformation–rightdowntothelayout of individual classrooms – that helps them change emer‐gency evacuation routes, know instantly where response vehiclesare located, and monitor real‐time sensors locating chemical re‐leasesandtheirplumes.16TheUSPatentOfficenowallowsindividualsoutsideitsstafftopar‐ticipateinthereviewofpatentapplicationsunderthetrial“PeertoPatent system,” designed in part by NYU Law Professor BethNoveck,nowanObamaAdministrationofficial.Theprojectprom‐isestoreducethe“patentthicket”thatslowsinnovation.17

139

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Since, as mentioned above, these pioneering examples are madepossiblebyinternational,open‐sourcestandardsforhandlingdata,itbecomesincreasinglyeasyforotheragenciestolaunchtheirowndemocratizing data programs, building on the experience of thepioneers and adding to the “library” of data‐based solutions tocomplexproblems.Thatwillmean that thosewhobegindemocratizingdatanowcandirectly benefit from this library. The benefits, should other gov‐ernment agencies move quickly to take the basic steps required,should increase exponentially because of the synergies betweeninitiativesworldwide.KeystothestrategicshiftEffective democratizing data initiatives require a paradigm shiftfrompastwaysofregardingdata:

Makeyourgovernmentdata‐centric.In the past, because the tools to distribute and use datawere primitive, it was understandable that access to datawasprimarilysecond‐hand.Itwasusuallywarehoused,em‐bedded in proprietary software, and/or interpreted by anelite group of analysts and executives. Today, open sourcesoftware,metadataandothertoolsallowthedatatoremainindependent, accessible to allwhose jobs require access toit.Truly,datamustbe thoughtof as at theheartof every‐thingthegovernmentdoes.Treatallworkersasknowledgeworkers.Whendatawashardtoaccessandthesoftwaretointerpretit costly, limiting access to real‐timedata to a relative fewwasjustifiable.Nowitisn’t.Everyworker’sjobperformanceand satisfaction can be increased by direct access to data(theexactmixofdatadeliveredtoindividualworkerswillbedeterminedonthebasisofhisorherrole.)

140

STEPHENSON

When appropriate, release real‐time data for outsideuseandscrutiny.Governmentagenciesaccumulatevastamountsofdatathatcould be used externally, not only to earn public trustthrough transparency, but also (especially with real‐timeandgeo‐spatialinformation)tocreatevaluablenewservicesthat cancomplementwhat theagenciesdo themselves,or,initsmachine‐readableform,todriveembeddeddevicesina wide range of products. That data is alsomore valuablewhenitisreleasedintheoriginal,granularforminwhichitwascollected,ratherthanasinterpretedandaggregatedbyothers. Today the default must be to release data. Excep‐tionstothatrulemustbejustified.In no way does a democratizing data strategy justifybreachesinpersonalprivacyand/orsecuritystandards.Infact,aswewillsee,establishingtherightaccessstandardscanmeanpeoplerangingfromthosewithnosecurityclear‐anceatalltotop‐secretclearancemayallaccessportionsofthesamedatasetbasedonthesituationandtheirroles,butwithwidely‐differingspecificlevelsofaccess.Acomprehen‐sivedemocratizingdatastrategyshouldinfacthelpuncoversecurityandprivacybreachesratherthanencouragethem.Above all, adopt a new collaborative attitude towarddata.Inthepast, ifdatawassharedatall, itwasusuallysequen‐tially,becausedatawas effectively capturedandalteredbyvarious proprietary programs. Now, with open‐source,open‐access programs and structured data, data can bemoreeffectivelyanalyzedandusedif it issharedonareal‐timebasis.Collaborativedataanalysisisfundamentallydif‐ferentthananalysisbyindividuals,harnessingdifferentper‐spectives andexpertise to yield a richer,more comprehen‐sivepicturethatbenefits fromalloftheseperspectivesandismorenuancedandbalanced.

141

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Democratizing data is both a process and an attitude. The morepeoplewhocanaccessdataanduse it, themorevaluablethedatawill become, themoreworkerswill be able to improve their per‐formance, governments will becomemore accountable and trans‐parent, and average peoplewill becomeboth better consumers ofdataandbeabletouseittobecomeactiveparticipantsincreationofgoodsandservices.W.DavidStephenson(@DavidStephenson) isa leadingGov./Enterprise2.0strategist and theorist. He particularly focuses on homeland security anddisastermanagementandways todirectly involve thepublic inpolicyandservicesdebateanddelivery.Heiscompletingabook,DemocratizingDatato transform government, business and daily life, on strategies for auto‐mated structured data feeds and their use to improve worker efficiency,transparency,andtostimulatemasscollaboration.

142

STEPHENSON

1BoaltInteractive,“DCHistoricTours",http://www.dchistorictours.com 2 NZTransitAgency,InfoConnect,http://j.mp/rLEYv 3 BobSchneider.“DutchTaxonomyProjectCutsRedTape",HitachiInteractive.http://j.mp/9HSqL

4 StrictgrammariansremindusthatdataisthepluralofdatuminLatin.However,ithasbecomecommonpracticetouseasingularverbwithdata,sothatwillbethepracticeobservedhere.Incaseyou’reinterested,here’stheargument:“TheworddataisthepluralofLatindatum,“somethinggiven",butdoesthatmeanyoushouldtreatitasapluralnouninEnglish?Notalways.Thepluralusageisstillcommonenough.Sometimesscientiststhinkofdataasplural,asinThesedatadonotsupporttheconclusions.Butmoreoften,scientistsandresearchersthinkofdataasasingularmassentitylikeinformation,andmostpeoplenowfol‐lowthisingeneralusage."TheAmericanHeritage®BookofEnglishUsage.APracticalandAuthoritativeGuidetoContemporaryEnglish.NewYork:Random,1996.

5 FrankDiGiammarino.Interviewwithauthor,December05,2008. 6SaraWood.“BreakingtheViciousCycle",TastyDataGoodiesblog,July14,2007.http://j.mp/U4r2X

7 “Datavs.Information".Diffen.http://j.mp/3LgiTQ8 “WorldGPSMarketForecastTo2012".GPSNews,http://j.mp/2ITWdq 9 Schneider,opcit. 10 VivekKundra.“BuildingtheDigitalPublicSquare",Oct.15,2008.http://j.mp/G0KE

11 ibid. 12 JeffHowe.Crowdsourcing:whythepowerofthecrowdisdrivingthefutureofbusiness.NewYork:CrownBusiness,2008310pps.

13 MichaelArrington.“SearchforSteveFawcettExtendstoAmazon’sMechanicalTurk".TechCrunch,Sept.8,2007.http://j.mp/NblKJ

14KimWallen,“TheStateBusinessPortal,"whitepaper.Mumbai:IRISBusiness,2009.http://j.mp/oVywY

15 “OCTODeliversComputerstoEveryDCPSClassroom",NewsRelease,DistrictofColumbiaOfficeoftheChiefTechnologyOfficer,Jan31,2008.http://j.mp/NKHnG

16 AlabamaDepartmentofHomelandSecurity,“VirtualAlabamaFactSheet",http://j.mp/iJK22

17 NancyScola.“BetterPatentsThroughCrowdsourcing".ScienceProgress,http://j.mp/MkuPk.PresidentObamaappointedBethNoveckasdeputydirectorofopengovernmentintheOfficeofScienceandTechnologyPolicy.

143

#13

THEPOWEROFGOVERNMENTINFORMATION

RichardAllanDirectorofPolicy,EU,Facebook

The phrase Power of Information was coined to cover a range ofissuesrelatedtopublicsectorinformationanduser‐generatedcon‐tent, aswell as to talk about innovation in public service deliveryusingWeb2.0technologies.TherehavebeenseveralphasesinthedevelopmentanddeliveryofthisPowerofInformationagendaintheUK.ThePower of Information Review by EdMayo and Tom Steinbergsetouttheagendacomprehensively in June2007.TheReviewhadbeencommissionedbytheCabinetOfficeinApril20071withapar‐ticular emphasis on the growing phenomenon of websites wherecitizenscouldshareadvicewitheachother.

“Thisisanunusualreviewinthatitisastoryofopportuni‐ties rather than problems. It takes a practical look at theuse and development of citizen and state‐generated infor‐mation in the UK. For example, information produced by

144

ALLAN

thegovernment(oftenreferredtoas'publicsectorinforma‐tion') includesmaps,heartsurgerymortalitystatisticsandtimetables,whileinformationfromcitizensincludesadvice,productreviewsorevenrecipes.”PowerofInformationReview,ExecutiveSummary2.

TherecommendationsintheReviewwereacceptedbytheUKGov‐ernment and their responsewas given extra impetuswith the ap‐pointmentofTomWatsonMPasaMinister intheCabinetOfficein January 2008. Tom, who has since left the government, wasstronglyinfluencedbyhisownexperienceoftechnologyasanearlyand prolific blogger3, and by his appreciation of the work of keythinkers in theareaofmass collaboration, especiallyClayShirky’s‘HereComesEverybody’4.TomdecidedthatthebestwaytospeedupprogressontheReview’sagendawastoestablishaTaskforce5bringingtogetherpeoplefromindustry,governmentandthevoluntarysectorwithasharedinter‐estinopeningupgovernmentinformation.ThisgroupwassetthetaskofdevelopingfurthertheproposalsintheReviewandofactingaschampionsfortheseacrossgovernment.TheTaskforcewaschairedbytheauthorofthisarticleandworkedfromthespringof2008untilproducingitsfinalreport6inFebruary2009.With the acceptance of the Taskforce’s further recommendations,the UK Government is now moving into a phase of mainstreamgovernmentdeliveryofthePowerofInformationagenda.Thishasbeenakeyobjective–toattempttomovetheagendaaroundpublicsectorinformationandtheuseofitfrombeingafringeactivityforthemore technicallyminded to being somethingwhich is part ofcoregovernmentactivity.Inordertodeliverthatagenda,theGovernmenthassetupaDirec‐torateofDigitalEngagementwiththeCabinetOfficeandappointed

145

STATEOFTHEEUNION

AndrewStott7astheUK’sfirstDirectorofDigitalEngagementfromMay2009.Theirjobnowistodeliverthisasamainstreampolicyagenda.Thisthinkinghasalreadystartedtosurfaceinthemainstreampol‐icy agenda with the following section in a public service reformpaper “Working Together: Public Services On Your Side”8 fromMarch2009:

• “Openinformation–tohaveaneffectivevoice,peopleneedtobe able to understandwhat is going on in their public serv‐ices.Governmentwillpublish informationaboutpublicserv‐icesinwaysthatareeasytofind,use,andre‐use.

• Openfeedback–thepublicshouldhaveafairsayabouttheirservices. We need more services like NHS Choices or Pub‐licExperience.com to provide direct feedback to the Innova‐tionCouncil.

• Open conversation – we will promote greater engagementwiththepublicthroughmoreinteractiveonlineconsultationandcollaboration.Wewillalsoempowerprofessionals tobeactiveononlinepeer‐supportnetworksintheirareaofwork.

• Openinnovation–wewillpromoteinnovationinonlinepub‐lic services to respond to changing expectations – bringingtheconceptsbehindShowUsABetterWayintomainstreamgovernmentpractice.”

ThismessagewasreinforcedbyTomWatsonMPinhisforewordtotheGovernment’sresponsetotheTaskforcereport,statingthat–

"ThePowerofInformationprinciplesarenolongerjustrec‐ommendationsinareportbutwillbecoretothefuturede‐velopmentandimplementationofgovernmentpolicy.”

Itisalsoimportanttorecognizethatbeforethesephasesofactivitywere gathered under the “Power of Information” banner, several

146

ALLAN

strandsofworkhadbeendevelopingwhichwerecrucial to itsde‐velopment.Onewasthelargeamountofactivitythattookplacebywebactiv‐istsbuildingwebsitesandservicesthatmetneedstheyfeltwerenotbeingmetby theofficial channels.Muchof this activitywas itselftriggered by Government proposals to introduce new powers tomonitorinternetcommunicationsintheyear2000.This inspired activists to create a series ofwebsites that aimed tomake politics and politicians more accessible, such as the self‐explanatory faxyourmp.com, which has since evolved into write‐tothem.com.ThisDIY activity remains very influential in theUK,much of it organized through an NGO called mysociety.org, andtheir flagship site has become theyworkforyou.com, which takesParliament’sowndataandrepurposes it tomake itmore intelligi‐ble.Theyworkforyou.com had a significant impact on policy makerswhentheysawtheirownworktakenandrepurposedthroughopenaccesstopublicsectorinformation.TheaccesstotheParliamentaryrecordmaynothavebeentechnicallylegalwhenthedatawasfirsttaken,butsincethenlicenseshavebeendevelopedtoallowpeopletouse it.AndMPshavemoved fromapositionof, in somecases,concernabouttheservice,tooneofgenerallylikingitandinmanycaseslinkingtoitfromtheirownwebsites.The other strand of activity that was very significant was on thelegislativefrontwiththedevelopmentoftheEUDirectiveonPublicSector Information9 in 2003, which was brought into UK law in2005.TheintroductionoftheDirectiveledtothecreationoftheAdvisoryPanelonPublicSectorInformation10,whichbringstogetherleadingexperts to advise government and to deal with complaints aboutaccesstopublicsector information. Italso ledtothedevelopment

147

STATEOFTHEEUNION

oftheOfficeofPublicSectorInformation11asapieceofgovernmentwithaspecificfocusinthisarea.Bothoftheseorganizations,whilenotwidely‐knownatthetimeoftheir creation, have been building expertise over several yearswhichhasbeenofrealvalueandsignificanceasthisbecameamorehighprofilepoliticalissueoverrecenttimes.The other major changes were at the technology level. We haveseenhowbroadbandpenetrationhasexpandedmassively,sothatitisnowthenormtohavefasthomeaccessinmostdevelopedcoun‐tries. And we have seen the development of the simple softwaretoolsandpackagesofcode,commonlylabeledasWeb2.0toolsthatallowustobuildverycomplexsystemswithouthavingtocodefromscratch. The level of technical expertise required to do somethinglikeaGoogleMapsmash‐upcanbeverylowindeed.These technology changes and the spreadof technologyhave alsobeen very important in creating the climate for talking about the“Power of Information” as being relevant to most citizens ratherthanjustasanissueforthehighlytechnically‐literateminority.TheTaskforce approached itsworkbydeciding todevelop ‘exem‐plars’ and ‘enablers’ for the “Power of Information” agenda. Theexemplars were aimed at demonstrating possibilities to peopleacrossgovernmentforwhomthismaybeveryunfamiliarterritory.Theenablerswereaimedat identifyingwhatwouldberequiredtodothisinamoreconsistentfashionacrossgovernment.Akeycomponentoftheexemplarsworkwasthecreationofacom‐petition for ideas forusingpublic sectordata calledShowUsABet‐terWay.com.This is along the linesof other competitions such asAppsForDemocracy.org in the US andmany private sector exam‐ples.Thesecompetitionsaregainingsometractionbecausetheybringtolifeforpeoplewhomaynotfullyunderstandwhatitisyoucoulddo

148

ALLAN

ifyouencouragedinnovationandmadedataavailable.Thealloca‐tionofsmallbudgets forprizesalsohasthebeneficialeffectofre‐quiring thecompetitionorganizers to securebuy‐in fromthegov‐ernmentorganizationswhoareputtingupthefunding.Aswellasgeneratinggoodexamplesforuseacrossgovernment,thecompetition also highlighted some of the issues that need to betackledwithintheenablers’strandofwork.Itwasalreadyapparentthattherewereissueswithaccesstosomepublic sector data where activists had reported difficulties in ob‐tainingtheinformationtheyneeded.Forexample,wehadacommunityofparentswhowantedtoaccesssimpledataaboutschools–theiraddresses–sotheycouldorganizeparentsintolocalgroupsaroundtheirlocalschools.Theycouldnotgetholdofthatdatasetfreelyoreasilyduetoahistoriccommercialarrangement,whichcouldbedealtwithonceitcameto lightas itwascontrarytocurrentgovernmentpolicy.TheOfficeofPublicSectorInformationdevelopedadata‐unlockingservice12in2008,toallowthepublictoflagdatasetsofinterestlikethiswhichtheywouldtheninvestigate.Butthecompetitionalsobroughtoutanumberofstructuralissuesarounddatasetswheretheywereeitherprohibitivelyexpensive,orfor which the licensing conditions were inappropriate, or whichweresimplynotavailableinausableform.A lot of the data thatwas of interestwas that generated by localgovernment. But local government typically has its data storedacross different local systemswhich arenotnecessarily consistentacrossregionsorthecountryasawhole.Theyhavehadnoreasoninthepasttodoanythingelse,sothisisquiteanaturalplacetobe.

149

STATEOFTHEEUNION

But thisbecomesabarrierwhenyouwanttosetupanewservicesuch as the Loofinder13 service thatwas proposed in the competi‐tion.This was a service to allow people to find public toilets whereverthey are, basedona service calledSatLavdevelopedbyWestmin‐sterCityCouncil.WithSatLavyoucantextthewordTOILETtoaparticulartextnumberanditwilltextyoubackwiththelocationofthenearestpublicconvenience.Thatwould clearlybe a service thatwouldbeuseful at anationallevel, butwhen you are in those circumstances youdon’twant tohave to know which local authority boundary you are in beforesendingyourrequestoff.Your reasonable expectation these days is that you can send therequestoffandthat somewherebehindthescenes thedatawouldbeaggregated fromall therelevant localauthoritiesandthenpre‐sentedtoyouinanaccessibleform.Giventheextentofthisdata,whichhastobeaggregatedfromlocalsystems,there isaneedtodevelopawarenessofthis issuein localgovernmentandforconsequentchangestosystemsanddatastruc‐tures.Thereisotherdata,whichissimplynotcollectedinausableformatpresent.An example of this from the competition was school catchmentareas14 – theboundarieswhichdefine eligibility to sendyour chil‐dren to a particular school in theUK.The school catchment areamaybedefinedbyapapermapthatsits inadrawer intheschooloffice,andtheremaybenoelectronicorotherwiseeasilyaccessibleversionofthatmap.A project has therefore been set up to try and put in place easilylicensable and freely usable school catchment data. Thiswill sup‐

150

ALLAN

portpeopleinbuildingsystemstohelpparentsnavigatetheschoolsadmissionsprocess,perhapsmashingup the schoolcatchmentar‐easwithuser‐generatedexperiencesofaccesstothoseschools,andwiththeinspectiondataandotherdataabouttheirperformance.Theotherissueofconcernwasthedatasetswhicharecurrentlynotavailable in a formwhich is accessible for small‐scale innovators,andthisverymuchfocusedonspatialdataintheUK.Around a third of our competition entries wanted to take publicsectordataandpresentitspatially,typicallyusingmapsfordisplayandusingpostcodes to locatepublic sectordata itemsandserviceusers.Both of these data sets –maps andpostcodes – present problemsfor the small innovator working from a limited or non‐existentbudget.The official source ofmapping data in the UK is an organizationcalled theOrdnanceSurvey,which isexpectedtogenerateacom‐mercial returnon its activities in amodel calleda ‘TradingFund,’while postcode data is tied up in a commercial service offered bytheRoyalMail.ThePowerofInformationReviewin2007askedtheOrdnanceSur‐veytocreateasimple,free,productalongthelinesofGoogleMaps,and it had done so with a product called OpenSpace. WhileOpenSpace isuseful,we found that the restrictionson itmeant itwasnot therightproduct formanydevelopers.Thecoremappingproducts that Ordnance Survey offers, for valid reasons aroundcompetitionpolicy and fairness in themarket, are alsoonly avail‐able on terms where small innovators found it prohibitive to usethatdata.Wefoundthatdeveloperswouldthereforetypicallyturntoaprod‐uctlikeGoogleMapsinstead.Butthisalsocreatessomeadditionalproblemsaroundwhat is called ‘deriveddata’. For example, crime

151

STATEOFTHEEUNION

mappingisofcurrentinterest,butifyouderivedtheboundariesforthe local crime statistical areas from Ordnance Survey maps anddisplayed these on aGoogleMap, thenOrdnance Surveybelievedthat therewas a conflict between the licensing terms for the twosystemsandhaswarnedpeopleaccordingly.The Taskforce recognized that there are some major commercialissues at stake here, including an ecosystem of people who workwiththedataatpresent,andthatOrdnanceSurvey itselfneedstohaveareliablesupplyoffundingforthefuture.Butwedidwanttoemphasize the point that improving access to spatial data was apriority from the innovators’ point of view, which governmentshouldalsoprioritize.There are alternative services developing like OpenStreetMap,whichwouldavoidsomeofthesecommercialandlicensingissues,but these would also benefit from freeing up the official govern‐mentspatialdatasources.Asaresultofthisactivity,OrdnanceSurveyhasbeenaskedtolookagain at their strategy and have published a consultation that isnowbeingconsidered.Theirproposals fortheir futurestrategy in‐cludeamajorexpansionof thedataavailablethroughOpenSpace,as well as other changes tomake their datamore accessible. Therobust online discussion about the Ordnance Survey and theirstrategyprovidesaninterestingillustrationofthecontrastingposi‐tionsoncommercialexploitationversusfreeaccesstogovernmentdata.Wealsofoundthatpostcodedatawasofgreatimportancetodevel‐opers to allow them to link data to political or administrativeboundaryofrelevancetocitizens.TheUKpostcodedatasetisheldinaproductcalledthePostcodeAddressFile,whichispartofRoyalMail’scommercialbusiness.There are some issues around the fitness of that dataset itself forourpurposes,asitisarecordofdeliverypointsdesignedtoenable

152

ALLAN

thepostofficetodelivermailratherthanacomprehensiveaddressdatabaseassuch.Ithasbeenenhancedovertimeto includeotheraddressinformationtosupportdirectmarketingandotherbusinessapplications.There areotherdatasetswhich support addressing applications intheUK,butallofthemarecommercialandhavetheirownlicens‐ing termswhichcanactasabarrier to innovators.RoyalMaildidprovideacopyofthePostcodeAddressFileforthepurposesoftheShowUsABetterWaycompetition,butthiswasaone‐offexerciseforthoselimitedpurposes.There are now somedrivers towards resolving the issue of an ad‐dressingdatabasetosupportpublicserviceapplications.Oneofthesedriversisthe2011censuswhereafulladdressdatabaseofallindividualsintheUKisrequiredandateamislookingathowtosupportthis.TheyareevaluatingthedifferentaddressdatabasestryingtoevaluatetheiraccuracyandconsideringhowtopullallthesourcestogetherintoasinglecomprehensivedatabasefortheUK.Thisleavesopenthequestionofwhattodowhenthecensusisoverandwhetherthereissomeattemptthroughthisprocessatcreatingan ongoing comprehensive address database. These policy ques‐tionsremainonthetableprovidingafreshpointoffocusonpost‐code‐addresslookup.Theothersourceofpressureisfromsomewebactivists.Theyhavecreated a site called ErnestMarples.comwhich offers postcode‐to‐coordinate lookup and deliberately sets out to challenge what ispermissibleunderlicenseconditions.

"Post codes are really useful, but the powers that be keepthem closed unless you have loads of money to pay forthem. Which makes it hard to build useful websites (andthatmakesErnestsad).”

153

STATEOFTHEEUNION

"SowearesettingthemfreeandusingthemtorunPlannin‐gAlerts.comand JobcentreProPlus.We're doing the sameas everyone's being doing for years, but just being openaboutit.”Homepageaternestmarples.com.

The site takes a number of different freely available sources forpostcodelookup,forexampleyoucandothisonmostofthecom‐monmappingsites,andoffersa single interface to these for look‐ups.Itdoesn’tholdthedataitselfbutcreatesaccesstoit.Asdescribedbythemselvesabove,theactivists,HarryMetcalfeandRichard Pope, have done this tomake the point that this kind ofserviceshouldbefreelyavailableandcansupportanumberofvalu‐able public information services including ones they themselveshavebuilt.A further area that has emerged as being of particular interest istransportdata.TransportdataintheUKistypicallynotpublicsectorinformation,but isgeneratedandheldby theprivatesectorprovidersof trans‐portservices.Thisincludesinformationaboutinfrastructure,time‐tablingandserviceperformance.Thedevelopmentof apps for the iPhonehasbrought this issue tolight in anumberofplaces, includingonewithNewSouthWalesCityRail15inAustralia,aswellaswithNationalRailintheUK16.The Taskforce recommended that government should not in thefuturesignuptodealswiththirdparties,includingtransportopera‐tors,wheretheinformationisregardedasacommercialassettobeheld externally andused to fund the service.Rather, the informa‐tionassetshouldreverttogovernmentwhereverpossible,andthisshould be built into the contracts so that government can decidewhetherornottofreelydistributethedata.

154

ALLAN

In the case of something like public transport information, if thepublic policy objective is to get more people using more publictransportmoreefficiently, then there is a clear interest inmakingdatasets like timetable information freely available. This createsconditions for innovative developments such as the creation ofmany iPhone apps competingon their ownadded value. Itwouldalsoallowforvaluableexperimentationsuchasisochronemappingtoshowtraveltimesbetweenplacesusingdifferentmodes.ThePowerof Informationcase is thatabroadrangeof innovativeactivitycanandwilltakeplaceifthedataismadeavailable.Ifitisrestrictedontheotherhand,thenwewillseeamuchlowerlevelofinnovation to thedetrimentof citizens andof those chargedwithdeliveringpublicservices.Aswellastheseissues,whichweredrawnfromourworkonexem‐plars, theTaskforce lookedat the shifts in thinking thatwouldberequiredtoenablegovernmenttoactasaplatformforinnovation.A key element in thiswas to consider a shift from the traditionalmodelwherethegovernmentwebsitewastheonlyendproductandseen as the single correct way of presenting data, to thinking ofgovernment information as existing in three distinct layers whichshould be separated out – Presentation, Analysis and Data. ThemodelalsocalledfortheinsertionofAccesslayers,offeringuptheAnalysisandDatacontentforre‐use.ThismodelwasdescribedgraphicallyintheTaskforcereportandinthefollowingterms–

"Theemphasisofmuchwebdevelopmenttodatehasbeenonthepresentationofthedatatothepublic.The assumptionwas that a particular website would be theuniqueinterfacetoaparticularsetofdata.

155

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Thismeantthatlittleornothoughtmighthavebeengiventohowanyoneelsewouldusethedatasetinquestion.Sometimesthedataandanyanalysisof itcouldbeunpickedfrom such a site but in many instances this would be ex‐tremelydifficult.Thinking hasmoved on over recent yearswith a developingunderstandingof the importanceofseparatingdata fromitspresentation. Ifnothingelse, thisallows forsimplerchangestothepresentationlayeras,forexample,websitesareredes‐igned.PRESENTATION LAYER – the public‐facing front end, typi‐callyasetofwebpages

ANALYSIS LAYER – any form of interpretation of the rawdata,typicallyforsummarypresentationACCESS LAYER – all the information needed to access thedata,includingtechnical,legalandcommercialaspectsDATALAYER–therawdatasets.”PowerofInformationTaskForceReport,February2009.

For somepeople theywillwant to access rawdata, for others theanalysis, and for many users they will simply want to access thefully‐finishedpresentationlayerproduct.TheTaskforcealso foundthepaper ‘GovernmentDataandtheIn‐visibleHand’17 veryhelpful indeveloping its thinking in this area.Andwhiletheirviewwas,thatofficialgovernmentwebsiteswouldremain important, websites need to be seen as part of an overallecosystem in which innovators can create alternatives and thosealternativesmayhavesignificantvalue.

156

ALLAN

TheTaskforcealsolookedatmeasuresthatgovernmentmighttakeactivelytosupportopeninnovation.Akey recommendation in this area related to thedevelopmentofinnovation platforms within the government web estate. Such aplatform would support the kind of innovation proposed by theShowUsABetterWaycompetitionentrantsonanongoingbasis.Thisthinking was strongly influenced by the experience of BBC Back‐stage18,whichopenedupBBCdatasetsforinnovatorsandprovidedthemwithaspacetocometogether.As well as providing technical tools, this requires a cultural shift.There isaneedtomovefromamindsetwheregovernmentbuildswebsitesandservices,and feels that ifcitizenstry todothis, thenthisissomekindofthreat,tooneinwhichcoproductionisseenasapositivebenefitandopportunityforgovernment.Sometimesgovernmentserviceswillgaindirectly,asexternalinno‐vationsarerolledbackintotheircoreservices.Thismaybeacom‐monscenarioaspeoplecreatenewservicesthattheycannotsustainthemselves.Onmany other occasions, new services will remain free‐standingand will provide complementary or alternative to existing formalchannelstothebenefitoftheirusers.Someserviceswillbeofferedonanot‐for‐profitbasis,otherswillbecommercial,andmanywillhavenoformalbusinessmodelatall,astheyare simply thebrainchildofoneormore innovatorswhoarewholly focused onproducing a good solution.TheTaskforce con‐sidereditimportantthatgovernmentisabletoworkwiththisrichvariety of innovation models and be creative in its response toworkingwiththem.Inorder todeliver this ‘backstage’ capability, thecoreUKgovern‐ment website that is there to delivermost public sector informa‐tion, DirectGov, was asked to create an innovation space. This is

157

STATEOFTHEEUNION

nowliveat innovate.direct.gov.uk.Itwillhaveadualpurpose:try‐ingtocreatethiscommunityofco‐producersandtryingtostimu‐latedemandfordatasetstobereleasedforre‐use.A further barrier to innovation can occur when governmentdatasetsarenotwelldescribedoreasilylocatable.TheUSGovern‐menthasrecentlyprovidedamodelfortacklingthissituationwiththeirdata.govportal.Work is now being carried out in the UK to deal with the samechallengeofprovidingaccurateandeffectivedatasignposting.ThiswilldrawontheUSexperienceaswellastheexistinginfrastructureofInformationAssetRegisterswithingovernmentandoftheCom‐prehensiveKnowledgeArchiveNetworkoutsidegovernment.Thefinalareaofongoingworkisaroundlicensingmodels.Whatiskeyforinnovators,isthattheydonotneedtohaveateamoflaw‐yers onhandbefore starting to produce interesting services usingpublicdata.Thismeansthatthelicensinghastobesimpleandstraightforward.TheTaskforcewasimpressedwithworkinAustraliaongovernmentdata licensing, especially by Prof Brian Fitzgerald aroundCreativeCommons and the Queensland Government’s Government Infor‐mationLicensingFramework19.The current position is one of anticipating that the existing openlicensesofCrownCopyrightwillbemaintainedasthesearehighlypermissiveandwell‐developed.CrownCopyrighttogetherwiththeClick‐uselicensingservicefromtheOfficeofPublicSectorInforma‐tionalreadyprovidesasoundframeworkformanyinnovators.ButworkwillcontinueonhowanylessonsfromCreativeCommonsandotheropenlicensingschemescanbeappliedalsotoUKpublicdata.It is also important tocontinue toworkoncompatibilitybetweenthe licenses that apply todifferent formsofdata. Innovative serv‐ices typically combine a range of public and commercial datasets,

158

ALLAN

which has the potential to generate conflicts as was seen in theOrdnanceSurveyandGoogleMapscase.The UK agenda of offering data and other support for innovativewebserviceshasdevelopedconsiderablyoverthelastfewyears.Thereisnowabroaderunderstandingofthevaluethatcanbegen‐eratedbyopeningupdataandencouraginginnovationratherthanseekingtoplacebarriersinthewayofthisactivity.Thedebatehasmovedfrombeingonthetechnicalfringestoincor‐porationinmainstreamgovernmentpolicywithinabroaderthemeofopennessandtransparency.There remain some tensions aroundparticular datasets, especiallyspatialdataduetotheparticularmodelstheUKhasdevelopedforcreationandmaintenanceofthisdata.Finally,theTaskforceitselfwasamodelforadifferentwayofwork‐ingwithingovernment.Allof itsdeliberationsweresharedonline,including a commendablebeta version20 of its final report.This ispartofacurrentofinternalinnovationthatisnowrunningthroughpartsof theUKadministrationandmayalsoprovehighly influen‐tialovertime.Richard Allan (@ricallan) joined Facebook in June 2009 to lead the com‐pany’s public policywork in Europe.Hewas previously EuropeanGovern‐mentAffairsDirectorforCisco.FromApril2008toMay2009,RichardwasChairoftheCabinetOffice’sPowerofInformationTaskForce.RichardwaselectedasMemberofParliamentforSheffieldHallamin1997andre‐electedin 2001 before giving up his seat in 2005. Between 1991 and 1997, RichardworkedasanITprofessionalintheNHS.

159

STATEOFTHEEUNION

1PressnoticeannouncingPowerofInformationReview.http://j.mp/18m4NH2PowerofInformationReview,EdMayoandTomSteinberg,June2007.http://j.mp/1EfhGW

3TomWatson’sblog–http://www.tom‐watson.co.uk/4http://j.mp/dSCuU5PressnoticeofTaskforceestablishment.http://j.mp/1Va7RM6FinalreportofTaskforce–http://poit.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/poit/7Pressnoticeofappointment.http://j.mp/1ac5468http://www.hmg.gov.uk/workingtogether.aspx9EUDirectiveonPublicSectorInformation.http://j.mp/oX0f510http://www.appsi.gov.uk/11http://www.opsi.gov.uk/12OPSIDataUnlockingService–http://www.opsi.gov.uk/unlocking‐service13Loofindercompetitionentry.http://j.mp/rnRXp14Schoolcatchmentareascompetitionentry.http://j.mp/2D0BHh15NewSouthWalesiPhoneappstory.http://j.mp/YM6ZY16UKNationalRailsiPhoneappstory.http://j.mp/192FjC17Robinson,DavidG.,Yu,Harlan,Zeller,WilliamP.andFelten,EdwardW.,Gov‐ernmentDataandtheInvisibleHand(2009).YaleJournalofLaw&Technology,Vol.11,p.160,2009.AvailableatSSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=1138083

18BBCBackstage–http://welcomebackstage.com/19QueenslandGovernmentLicensing.http://j.mp/EblYI20Betaversionisstillavailableforcomparisonwithfinalversionathttp://poit.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/poit/

161

#14

THEEMPEROR'SNEWNAKEDNESSOR

HOWTRUETRANSPARENCYWILLSAVEGOVERNMENTALPROJECTS

FROMUTTERFAILURE

TommyDejbjergPedersenCEO,Geekhouse

TheinternalsystemsofTwitterwererecentlyattackedbyahacker.The hacker gained access to a lot of internal documents such asbusinessplans,minutesofboardmeetingsandothervitalandsen‐sitive internal information.Theunintendedtransparency this sud‐denly createdaround the internalworkingsofTwitterhadahugemarketingeffect.Suddenly,Twitterandtheirroadmap,theirpoten‐tial exit strategies and much more was on everybody's lips. AndanyonewhohadgoodideascouldnowopenlysuggestthesetotheTwitterguysandco‐createthefutureofTwitter.Full transparency, participation and open collaboration in the ex‐treme,andperhaps–unintended...Unintendedtransparencymaynotbeeverypublicsectormanager'sdream.

162

DEJBJERGPEDERSEN

Buttakeaminutetothinkaboutwhatwouldhappenifalargegov‐ernment project decided to release their entire code base, docu‐mentationandmoretopublicdisplay,inordertotapthesupportofthecommunity.Now close your eyes, and think of the consequences of this andthenresumereading.Alldone?Welcomeback.Whatdidyouseewhencontemplatingtheoutcomeofsuchanac‐tion?Was itbad for theproject to suddenlybeonpublicdisplay?Ordiditactuallyincreasethechanceoftheproject’ssuccess?Iwillarguethattransparencyinallaspectsofaproject isanexer‐ciseweshouldseriouslyconsiderifwearetobecometrulyawareoftheadvantagesoftransparencyingovernmentalprojects.Whynotthrow in a paragraph in the next major tender material that thecustomer reserves the right to publish all information, code anddocumentationintheirproject?Ibelievethatwouldtrulydrivethequalityandraiseattentiontoperformanceintheproject.Attemptshavealreadybeenmade togo someof theway ina fewgovernment projects in Denmark. The government portal for in‐formationaboutstandardizationinthepublicsector,calledDigital‐iser.dk (translates to digitalize.dk), developed by the National ITandTelecomAgency(NITA),isonesuchproject.Digitaliser.dkwasdevelopedasanagileprojectwith(assumed)transparencybetweenthesupplierandthecustomer.Projectplanswerepublishedalongthe way, but detailed project information on sprint planning wasnot made completely public, so the process itself was not madetransparent.Anissuetrackingsystemwasusedtoenableparticipa‐torycollaborationwithusers,buttheleveloffeedbacktotheusersreportingtheissueshasbeenverypoor.ThecodeforDigitaliser.dkwassaidtobeavailableasopensourcebut,althoughtheplatformwent live in spring 2009, the site for hosting governmental opensourceprojects(softwareboersen.dk)doesnotyetcontainanycode

163

STATEOFTHEEUNION

releases. The head of NITA's infrastructural department recentlyreported1thatthesourcewillsoonbeavailableatapublicSubver‐sionsite.The mission statement for Digitaliser.dk seemed promising, butsomewherealongtheline,goodintentionswerenotcombinedwithappropriateaction.Aone‐wayissuetrackingsystemandthefailuretoreleasethesourcecodeadduptonorealdifferenceinthetrans‐parency of governmental projects. Source code andmilestone re‐leasesshouldbemadewidelyavailableduringtheprojecttocreatethetransparencythatstimulatescollaborationwiththecommunity.On the other hand, thewise decision to focus on transparency inthisproject,inboththesourcebaseandtheprojectmodel,shouldserveasinspirationforothergovernmentinstitutions.AnotherprojectcalledNemHandel(EasyTrade),alsobyNITA, isaframeworktoenablethedigitalinterchangeofbusinessdocuments.The project was initially founded to enable digital interchange ofbusiness documents in Denmark and, in their own words: “Makethe digital interchange of business documents as easy as sendingemail”.Now the efforts continue in a ambitiousprojectunder theECinaprojectcalledPEPPOL,PanEuropeanProcurementOnline2,which targets thewholeprocurementprocess fromtender, tobid,to offer and so on.This project hasmade all source code releasesavailable on the government software exchange (Software‐boersen.dk).Afterthefinalrelease,sourcecodeisstillavailableinasubversion repository for all to retrieve.During thepilot phase oftheproject,anumberofsoftwareintegratorsactuallyretrievedthesourcefromSubversionandworkedonittomakeitrunwiththeirownsystem.Asaresult,supportingthesystemintegratorsbecamepart of the pilot project. This enabled the system integrators tobuildthesystemandchangethepartstheyneededtofitittotheirsolution.Transparencyisfullyachievedhere,alsowithregardstoveryactiveissuetracking.Buttheoutcomeofsuchanundertakingclearlyde‐pendsonactiveparticipationofsoftwareintegrators.

164

DEJBJERGPEDERSEN

Asanexample,NemHandelhashadtofacethefactthatvendorsofapplicationservershadaveryhardtimeunderstandingthebusinesscase,andthusputverylittleeffortintointegratingtheNemHandelframeworkintotheirsoftware.The last example is a project calledDKAL,which aims to build acentraldistributionplatformforallsortsofmessagesfromgovern‐ment systems, i.e. SMS and e‐mails. On this project, NITA havebegunto“opensource”adocumentmadeintheprojectbythesup‐plier,inordertogetinputonthewaythesupplierproposestosolvecertain aspects of a solution. All these efforts are good signs of agovernment institution that aims for transparency and aims atcommunityparticipation.

Whydogovernmentalprojectsfail?TheDanish ITorganizationDansk IT–anon‐commercial interestorganization for the IT sector in Denmark – recently published areport3 called “5 statementson IT‐supportedgovernmentbusinessprojects” citing someof the reasons that governmentprojects fail.ThereportwasputtogetherbyapanelofexperiencedpeoplewithalongtrackrecordinlargegovernmentandprivateIT‐projects.Oneof thekey factors forsuccess,according to thereport,was tohaveaclearprojectgoalwhichwouldbekept in focusduring theentire course of the project. To paraphrase the report: “Too oftenthefocusisonwhatgoeswrongandwhatdoesnotwork,insteadofthe long termgoal of theproject.” There are bound to be failuresalong theway, but thesemust beweighed against the overall ad‐vantagesofthefinalproject.The report also points to another aspect as the source of projectfailure: Too often, the overall project goal is defined by top‐managementonboththecustomerandsupplierside.Buttopman‐agementdoesnotstayontheprojectafterithasbegun.Itisimpor‐tanttokeepthesepeopleclosetotheprojectall thetime,tokeep

165

STATEOFTHEEUNION

focusonthegoalandensurethatthisitiscleartoallprojectmem‐bersandexternalparties.Another major reason for failure, according to the report, is thatqualityisstillverypoorinmanyprojects,“even”iftheITsuppliershavemadedozensofgovernmentprojectsbefore.Qualityishardtoachieve,andpoorquality leadstoslippingdeadlines,budgetover‐runsandmanychallengesinmaintainingtheprojectafterfinalde‐livery,thusreducingthelifetimeofthesystem.

Opensourceequalsquality?Many companies today4 naturally view open source as a label tostickontheirproducts,tosellsomethingasahighqualitysolutiontotheircustomers.Publicsectorsolutionsarealsooftenfocusedonbuildingonopensource,togetthebestpossiblebuildingblocksforasmanysolutionsaspossible.Butdoesopensourcealwaysequatequalityandtheflexibilityweneed,orwhataretheapparentcharac‐teristicsthatweassociatewiththelabel“opensource”?The answermay well be found in themany commercial businesscases based on open source software. A large number of vendorshaveadoptedopensourceprojectswithanintenttobuildcommer‐cialsolutionsontop.Vendorsfindopensourceprojectstobegreatplatformsfornewsolutionsbecauseopensourceprojectsarebasedonbestpracticesandaretypicallyofaveryhighquality.These open source building blocks are usually framework compo‐nents and thus isolated blocks that target an isolated purpose,ratherthanafullsolutionaimedatafullverticalprocessinacom‐pany. The goal of the company is to provide a business‐focusedlayeraroundthecomponentstoensureturnkeysolutionsaimedatcreating business value for their customers. Customers generallysupportthechoiceofcommercializingopensourcecomponents,asitgivesthemasenseoffreedomofchoicewithregardtotheirven‐dor.

166

DEJBJERGPEDERSEN

Zooming in on these building block types of open source compo‐nents, the levelofqualityachievedmostcertainly stems fromtwospecificreasons.Firstly, the code is implemented to solve a very specific isolatedpurpose.Itaimsatdoingafewthingsanddoingthemverywell,incontrasttolargeERPsolutionsthatalsoneedtoincorporatereport‐ingfacilities,activitymonitoringaswellasbothadministrativeandclientinterfaces.Thehugeadvantageofkeepingthepurposesimpleand isolated is thatyoucanenvisionthewholesolutionandcarryout the design and development of it within the same frame ofmind.Ortoputitanotherway:Youcanpickuptheball,walkontothecourtandjustconcentrateonplayingbasketball.Solvingmorechallengesatonetimecaneasilybecomparedtoplayingmanydif‐ferentgamesatonetime,whichisverycomplicatedandshouldbeleftfor6yearoldkidsplayingCalvinball,thefavoritegameofcar‐tooncharactersCalvinandHobbes,whichhasmanyrulesbut themostimportantis:“Anyplayermaydeclareanewruleatanypointin thegame”.Needless tosay thisgame ishighlycomplicatedanddoesn'tfitwellintorigidstructuressuchaslargeITprojectteams.Thepointis:Qualityintermsofsolvingaprobleminthebestpos‐siblewaycomesfromthesingle‐taskingeffortofdevelopingsome‐thing that's limited to solving an isolated problem. Keeping theproblem isolated does not in anyway guarantee that the compo‐nentswillfitnicelytogether,nordoesitensurethatthecharacteris‐tics of the components adhere to the high standards needed insoftware components. The componentsnaturally need to be flexi‐ble,open, secureandadaptable to thesystemorprocess inwhichtheywillbeapplied.Thisleadsustothesecondreasonthatopensourceisaguaranteeof high quality. Open sourced projects are usually initiated andmaintainedbyhighlymotivatedandskilleddeveloperswhoarenotafraid to exhibit the code they write for constructive criticism bythe community. Thus the transparency achieved in open sourceprojects drives the constant measuring of quality in every single

167

STATEOFTHEEUNION

aspect of the code.Developers,whowant to achieve the status ofcommittersonanopensourceproject,needtoprovetotheprojectowners that their commitment to the project and that their skillsliveuptothehighstandardsoftheproject.Whenyouhavemadeitontotheteam,thepressuretokeepyourstatuspushesthestandardof your contributions. The awareness that you are working on aproject where every single contribution is openly visible to teammembers, as well as to the whole community, creates a drive toperformwell.Transparencyleadstohighqualityprojectsandgivesgoodvelocityon projects in general, as seen when using agile methods. Thesemethods have built‐in transparency through the use of visiblesprintplans.Sprintplanscanbeplacedonlineforall toseealong,withvotingoptionstoprioritizethesprintplanninginaparticipa‐toryway.Thetworeasonsdescribedintheaboveare,whencombined,asolidstarting point for any healthy project focusing on quality and ondeliveringontime,withinbudget.Weneedtofocuslessonsimplymakingeverythingopensourceperse,andinsteadfocusontakingthecharacteristics,suchastransparency,fromopensourceprojectsandapplyingthemtothewholeprocessofdevelopingandcontrol‐lingthedevelopmentofgovernmentsystems.Ihopethat,someday,ahackerwillbreakintoaservercontainingall files ina largegovernmentalproject,andputall these fileson‐lineforeveryonetosee.Alternatively,Iwouldurgegovernmentstoconsidera fullytransparentapproachtothenextmajorproject, inordertoreapthebenefitsoftransparencyandtrueparticipationofthecommunity.Tommy Dejbjerg Pedersen (@tpedersen) is the founder of Geekhouse, thefirst geek‐only incubator in Denmark and a division of the Danish IT‐companyMiracle.Geekhousehosts“traditional”entrepreneursbuthasalsospecializedinhostingunemployedpeoplewhowanttostarttheirownbusi‐

168

DEJBJERGPEDERSEN

ness.Tommyisaserialentrepreneur,leadingspecialistinWeb2.0technol‐ogyandhasworkedinthetoughdotcombusiness.Hehasalsodonealotofadvisoryworkon largegovernmentalprojectsbothonthesupplierandthecustomerside.1http://j.mp/3V8SBO2http://www.peppol.eu3http://j.mp/2XMVgq4http://j.mp/3GfpKl

169

#15

AGAINSTTRANSPARENCY:THEPERILSOFOPENNESSIN

GOVERNMENT1

LawrenceLessigProfessor,HarvardLawSchool

In 2006, the Sunlight Foundation launched a campaign to getmembers of theUS Congress to post their daily calendars on theInternet. “The Punch‐Clock Campaign” collected pledges fromninety‐twocandidatesforCongress,andoneofthemwaselected.Irememberwhentheprojectwasdescribedtomebyoneof itsde‐velopers.SheassumedthatIwouldbestruckbyitsbrilliance.Iwasnot. It seemed tome that therewere toomany legitimate reasonswhysomeonemightnotwanthisorher“dailyofficialworksched‐ule”availabletoanyonewithanInternetconnection.Still, Ididn’tchallengeher.Iwasjustcomingintothe“transparencymovement”.Surelythesethingswouldbecomeclearer,sotospeak,lateron.In any case, the momentum was on her side. The “transparencymovement” was about to achieve an extraordinary victory in theelection of Barack Obama. Indeed, practically nobody any longerquestionsthewisdominBrandeis’sfamousremark–ithasbecomeone of the reigning clichés of the transparency movement – that

170

LESSIG

“sunlight is ... thebestofdisinfectants.”Like thedecisiontogotowarinIraq,transparencyhasbecomeanunquestionablebipartisanvalue.And not just in politics. If health care reform ever emerges fromCongress,itiscertaintospreadnationallyaprojecttorequiredoc‐torstorevealtoanInternet‐linkeddatabaseanyfinancialintereststheymayhaveinanydrugcompanyordevicemanufacturer.Typethenameofanydoctorintothedatabase,andalonglistofconsult‐ingcontracts,stockownershipandpaidspeakingarrangementswillbereturnedtoyou,presumablytohelpyouavoiddoctorswithtoomany conflicting loyalties, and to steer you to doctors who havethemselvessteeredclearofconflicts.Howcouldanyonebeagainsttransparency?Itsvirtuesanditsutili‐ties seem so crushingly obvious. But I have increasingly come toworrythatthereisanerroratthecoreofthisunquestionedgood‐ness.Wearenotthinkingcriticallyenoughaboutwhereandwhentransparencyworks,andwhereandwhenitmayleadtoconfusion,ortoworse.AndIfearthattheinevitablesuccessofthismovement–ifpursuedalone,withoutanysensitivitytothefullcomplexityofthe ideaofperfectopenness–will inspirenotreform,butdisgust.The “naked transparencymovement”, as I will call it here, is notgoingtoinspirechange.Itwillsimplypushanyfaithinourpoliticalsystemoverthecliff.The naked transparencymovementmarries the power of networktechnology to the radicaldecline in thecostof collecting, storing,anddistributingdata.Itsaimistoliberatethatdata,especiallygov‐ernment data, so as to enable the public to process it andunder‐standitbetter,oratleastdifferently.Themostobviousexamplesofthisnewresponsibilityfordisclosurearedataaboutthelegislativeprocess:thedemand,nowbackedbythe White House, that bills be posted to the Internet at leasttwenty‐fourhoursbeforetheyarevotedupon,orthatvideooflegis‐lativehearingsandfloordebatebefreedfromtheproprietarycon‐

171

STATEOFTHEEUNION

trol of one (easily disciplined) entity such as C‐SPAN. The mostdramatic examples so far are public data from executive agencies:thewebsiteData.govisjustbeginningtoassembleanextraordinarycollection of “high‐value datasets” from the executive branch, allavailableinstandardopenformats,andfreeforthetaking.Without a doubt, the vastmajority of these transparency projectsmakesense. Inparticular,management transparency,which isde‐signed to make the performance of government agencies moremeasurable, will radically improve how government works. Andmakinggovernmentdataavailableforotherstobuilduponhashis‐toricallyproducedenormousvalue–fromweatherdata,whichpro‐duces more than $800 billion in economic value to the UnitedStates, to GPS data, liberated originally by Ronald Reagan, whichnow allows cell phones to instantly report (among other essentialfacts)whetherPeetsorStarbucksiscloser.But that is not the whole transparency story. There is a type oftransparencyprojectthatshouldraisemorequestionsthanithas–in particular, projects that are intended to reveal potentially im‐proper influence, or outright corruption. Projects such as the onethatthehealthcarebillwouldlaunch–buildingamassivedatabaseofdoctorswhogotmoneyfromprivateinterests;orprojectssuchastheones(thesearethereallysexyinnovationsforthemovement)tomakeittriviallyeasytotrackeverypossiblesourceofinfluenceonamember of Congress, mapped against every single vote that thememberhasmade.Theseprojectsassumethattheyareseekinganobviousgood.Nodoubt theywillhave aprofoundeffect.Butwillthe effect of these projects – at least on their own, unqualified orunrestrainedby other considerations – really be for the good?Dowereallywanttheworldthattheyrighteouslyenvisage?With respect todataaboutcampaigncontributions, thehistoryoftransparency is long.Disclosure requirements for federal electionsareacenturyoldnextyear.Formorethanthreedecades,wehaveknown thenames of everyonewho gives significant amounts to afederal campaign.Or at leastwehave “known” them in the sense

172

LESSIG

thatifyouhustledyourselftoagovernmentfilecabinet,youcoulddiscoverwho contributedwhat – oftenmonths after the election,andoftenwith the cabinet located far fromany convenientplace.To thisday,practicalmattersworkagainstpracticalaccess. In theSenate,forexample,thosenamesarereportedtotheFederalElec‐tionCommission(FEC) theold‐fashionedway–onpaper.Staffersfor senators collect the data in sophisticated computer programsthatmakeitsimpletomanageefficientlythemostvaluabledataforanypoliticalcampaign.Whenitcomestimetoreportthedatathattheyhavecollected,however,theyprintthedataonpaper,forcingFEC staffers to re‐enter it into FEC databases. This process takestime,givingsenatorsacomfortablewindowattheendofanycam‐paign to secure last‐minute funding to avoid defeatwithminimalscrutiny.The hope of the naked transparencymovement is to change this.Throughbettercode–inbetterlegislativerulesandinbettertech‐nology–itsaimistomakeittriviallyeasytogetaccesstorecordssuggesting influence, and then link those records automatically tothepossible influencethattheysuggest.Consider, forexample,anearly instance of this work, presented in a recent report byMaplight.org, analyzing theHouse vote on the cap‐and‐trade bill.Titled “How Money Watered Down the Climate Bill,” the reportenumerates a long list of correlations between money given andresults produced. In a section labeled “Amendment to gut thewhole bill,” for example, the report states: “Each legislator votingYes…receivedanaverageof$37,700fromtheOil&Gas,CoalMin‐ing and Nuclear Energy industries between 2003 and 2008, morethanthreetimesasmuchasthe$11,304receivedbyeachlegislatorvotingNo.”Inasectionlabeled“Oilandgasgiveaway,”describinganamendmentto“increaseeligibilityforindustrialpolluterslikeoilandgasrefinerstoreceivecarbonallowances,”thereportstatesthat“the Oil & Gas industry gave an average of $72,119 to Energy &Commerce Committee members from 2003 [to] 2008.” And in asection labeled “Redefining renewable biomass,” the report de‐scribes an amendment “to broaden the definition of renewablebiomass[whichtheLeagueofConservationVoterssaid]wouldhave

173

STATEOFTHEEUNION

removed critical safeguards that prevent habitat on our nation’spublicandprivateforestsfrombeingplowedup”:“Energy&Com‐merceCommitteememberswhovotedYesontheWaldenamend‐ment received an average of $25,745 each from the Forestry andPaperProducts industry, tentimesasmuchasthe$2,541received,onaverage,byeachmembervotingNo.”This isacrudebutpowerfulbeginning.Itpointstoanobviousfu‐ture. Even this clarity took an enormous effort to produce, andthereareobviouslyamillionotherwaysinwhichthedatamightbeinspiredtospeak.AsCongresscomplieswiththecleardemandsoftransparency,andascodersdevisebetterandmoreefficientwaystomash‐upthedatathatCongressprovides,wewillseeafuturemoreandmore inundated with claims about the links betweenmoneyand results. Every stepwill have aplausible tie to troubling influ‐ence.Everytiewillbereported.Wewillknoweverythingthereistoknow about at least the publicly recordable events thatmight beinfluencing thosewho regulateus.Thepanopticonwillhavebeenturnedupontherulers.What could possibly bewrongwith such civic omniscience?Howcould any democracy live without it? Finally America can reallyknowjustwhosqueezedthesausageandwhen,andholdaccount‐ableanyonewithanimpropertouch.ImaginehowmuchBrandeis,the lover of sunlight, would have loved a server rack crunchingterabytes of data.As a political disinfectant, siliconbeats sunlighthandsdown.Brandeis coinedhis famousphrase in 1914, in abook calledOtherPeople’s Money, an extraordinary progressive screed directedagainstthatgeneration’sbankers.(Hewrotethebookwhenhewasstill practicing law. It is the sort of book that no Supreme Courtnomineetodaycouldsurvivehavingwritten.)Inthecontextofthethen‐frenzied demand for financial reform, Brandeis called for“publicity”–theideathat“bankerswhenissuingsecurities…makepublicthecommissionsorprofitstheyarereceiving.”

174

LESSIG

This publicity was designed to serve two very different purposes.First,Brandeisthoughtthatthenumberswouldshamebankersintoofferingtermsthatweremorereasonable–astrategythathasbeentriedwithexecutivecompensationby theSecuritiesandExchangeCommission,withtheresultnotofshame,butjealousy,leadingtoevenhigherpay.Second,andmoresignificantly,Brandeisbelievedthat publicity would make the market function more efficiently.The “law,” Brandeis counseled, “should not undertake … to fixbankers’ profits.And it shouldnot seek toprevent investors frommakingbadbargains.”Butthelawshouldrequire,heemphaticallydeclared,“fulldisclosure,”tohelpthebuyerjudgequality,andthusbetterjudgethe“realvalueofasecurity.”Transparencycouldthusmake amarketwork better, and should be encouraged as amoreefficientwaytoregulatethispotentiallydangerousmarket.Inthissimpleinsight,Brandeisdescribedwhathasbecomeaschoolofregulatorytheory–whatArchonFung,MaryGrahamandDavidWeil describe in Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise of Trans‐parency as “targeted transparency.” As they define it, targetedtransparency “represents a distinctive category of public policiesthat, at theirmost basic level,mandate disclosure ... of standard‐ized,comparable,anddisaggregatedinformationregardingspecificproductsorpracticestoabroadaudienceinordertoachieveapub‐licpolicypurpose.”Its“ingeniousness,”asBrandeishadpromised,“liesinitsmobiliza‐tion of individual choice,market forces and participatory democ‐racythroughrelativelylight‐handedgovernmentaction.”Moreover,this “ingeniousness” has now been copied, and ever more fre‐quently. Fung and his colleagues have catalogued fifteen targetedtransparency programs in their study, ten of them created since1986,allwithsubstantialbipartisansupport,andallwithacommonmechanism: give the consumer data he or she can use, andhe orshewilluseitto“regulate”themarketbetter.Thismobilizationworkswhenthesystemgivesconsumersinforma‐tion that they can use, and in a way that they can use it. Think

175

STATEOFTHEEUNION

about the requirement that car manufacturers publish averagemile‐per‐gallon statistics for all new cars.We all can compare 36mpg to 21mpg.We all understand what that comparisonmeans.That“targetedtransparency”rulesimplifiesthedataandpresentsitinawaythatconveysmeaningfulinformation.Oncesimplifiedandstandardized,itmakesitpossibleforconsumerstochangethewaythemarketworks.The problem, however, is that not all data satisfies the simple re‐quirement that they be information that consumers can use, pre‐sentedinawaytheycanuseit.“Moreinformation,”asFungandhiscolleaguesput it, “doesnotalwaysproducemarkets thataremoreefficient.” Instead, “responses to information are inseparable fromtheir interests, desires, resources, cognitive capacities, and socialcontexts.Owing to theseandother factors,peoplemay ignore in‐formation,ormisunderstandit,ormisuseit.Whetherandhownewinformation is used to further public objectives depends upon itsincorporation into complex chains of comprehension, action, andresponse.”To know whether a particular transparency rule works, then, weneed to trace just how the information will enter these “complexchains of comprehension.”We need to seewhat comparisons thedatawillenable,andwhetherthosecomparisonsrevealsomethingreal.And it is this that thenakedtransparencymovementhasnotdone. For there areoverwhelming reasonswhy thedata about in‐fluence that this movement would produce will not enable com‐parisons that aremeaningful. This is not to say the data will nothaveaneffect.Itwill.Buttheeffect,Ifear,isnotonethatanybodyin the “naked transparency movement,” or any other thoughtfulcitizen,wouldwant.What does the fact of a contribution to a member of Congressmean? Does a contribution cause a member to take a position?Does amember’s position cause the contribution?Does the pros‐pectofacontributionmakeamembermoresensitivetoaposition?Doesitsecureaccess?Doesitassureabetterhearing?Domembers

176

LESSIG

compete for positions based upon the contributions they mightexpect?Dotheycovetcommitteeassignmentsbaseduponthecon‐tributionsthatthecommitteewill inspire?DoesCongressregulatewithaneyetowhetheritsregulationmightinducemorecontribu‐tions?Thereislittledoubtthattheanswertoeachofthesequestionsis,insomesenseandatsometime–rememberthosequalifiers!–yes.InaseriestitledSpeakingFreely,publishedbytheCenterforRespon‐sive Politics, you can find testimony frommany formermembersfrom both parties to support each of those assertions. Everyoneinside the systemknows that claims about influence are, to somedegree,true.Itisthenatureofthesystem,asweallknow.Butthere isalso littledoubtthat it is impossibletoknowwhetherany particular contribution or contributions brought about a par‐ticularvote,orwas inspiredbyaparticularvote.Putdifferently, iftherearebenignaswellasmaligncontributions,itisimpossibletoknowforanyparticularcontributionwhichofthetwoitis.EvenifwehadallthedataintheworldandamonthofGooglecoders,wecould not begin to sort corrupting contributions from innocentcontributions.Oratleast“corrupting”inacertainsense.Allthedataintheworldwill not tell uswhether a particular contribution bent a result bysecuringavoteoranact thatotherwisewouldnothaveoccurred.Themostwecouldsay–thoughthisisstillaverysignificantthingto say – is that the contributions are corrupting the reputationofCongress,because they raise thequestionofwhether thememberactedtotrackgoodsenseorcampaigndollars.WhereamemberofCongressacts inaway inconsistentwithhisprinciplesorhiscon‐stituents,butconsistentwithasignificantcontribution,thatactatleast raises a question about the integrity of thedecision.But be‐yondaquestion,thedatasayslittleelse.Butthen,sowhat?Ifthedatadoesnottellusanything,whatistheharminproducingit?Evenifitdoesnotprove,itsuggests.Andifit

177

STATEOFTHEEUNION

suggests something false, then let the offended legislator rebut it.The publicwillweigh the truth against the charge. Enter anotherBrandeiseancliché: “If therebe time toexpose throughdiscussionthe falsehood and fallacies … the remedy to be applied is morespeech,notenforcedsilence.”Thissoundsright.Butwouldsucharemedywork?Wouldmorespeechreallyhelptouncover the falsehoods? In answering this question, it helps tothinkconcretely.How,actually,doesthissortofdialogueproceed?Consideranexample.InthewaningdaysoftheClintonadministra‐tion, friends of the credit‐card industry were trying to get whatwould become the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and ConsumerProtection Act of 2005 enacted into law. President Clinton wasoriginallyinfavorofthebill.Butin2000,firstladyHillaryClintonreadanop‐edpieceinTheNewYorkTimesdetailingtheharmthatthebillwoulddotolower‐middle‐classAmericans.Shebeganrefer‐ringto“thatawfulbill”–lowercase“b”–andtookonthemissionofstoppingherhusbandfrommakingit law.Heapparentlyacqui‐esced,lettingthebilldieinapocketveto. Two years later, First LadyClintonwas Senator Clinton. And twoyears later, she had received over $140,000 in campaign contribu‐tionsfromcredit‐cardandfinancial‐servicescompanies.Twoyearslater, thebillcameup foravote.Butbynow,SenatorClintonap‐parently saw things differently from how First Lady Clinton hadseen them. In 2001, she voted for “that awfulbill” twice. (In 2005,sheswitchedherpositionagain,opposingitsfinalpassage.)Objectivelyspeaking,thereareanynumberofreasonswhySenatorClinton would view the financial‐services sector differently fromhowFirstLadyClintonwouldview it.Shewas, afterall, a senatorfromNew York. New York has a special relationship to financial‐servicescompanies.(Putasideforamomentthatitalsohasaspe‐cial relationship to lower‐middle‐class credit‐card holders.) Therearemanyreasonswhythesedifferenceswouldhaveaneffectonhersupportforan“awfulbill.”Butwhateverobjectivitymightteach,weall know something undeniable about this fact of $140,000 being

178

LESSIG

attachedtoanysentenceaboutswitchingsupportinapoliticalcon‐text.Everyonelearningthefactnow“knows”justwhysheswitched,don’tthey?Whethertrueornot,moneyisthereasonfortheswitchinthiscase.EvensupportersofSenatorClintonfoundithardtoseethingsdifferently.Thepoint issalience,andtheassumptionsofourpoliticalculture.Atthistime,thejudgmentthatWashingtonisallaboutmoneyissowide and so deep that among all the possible reasons to explainsomething puzzling, money is the first, and most likely the last,explanationthatwillbegiven.Itsetsthedefaultagainstwhichany‐thing different must fight. And this default, this unexamined as‐sumption of causality,will only be reinforcedby thenaked trans‐parency movement and its correlations. What we believe will beconfirmed,againandagain.Butwillnotthissupposedsalienceofmoney–thefaithfuldiscipleofBrandeisasks–simplyinspiremoredebateaboutwhetherinfactmoneybuysresultsinCongress?Won’tmorepeopleentertonegatethedefault?Likearashofflat‐earthdefenders,won’ttheattentioncauseround‐earthtruthtospread?Again,wemustkeepourintui‐tionsguidedbytheconcrete.Nodoubtfalseclaimswillsometimesinspiremoretruth.Butwhataboutwhentheclaimsareneithertruenorfalse?Orworse,whentheclaimsactuallyrequiremorethanthe140charactersinatweet?This is theproblemofattention‐span.Tounderstandsomething–an essay, an argument, a proof of innocence – requires a certainamountof attention.Butonmany issues, theaverage,or even ra‐tional,amountofattentiongiventounderstandmanyofthesecor‐relations, and their defamatory implications, is almost always lessthantheamountof timerequired.Theresult isasystemicmisun‐derstanding – at least if the story is reported in a context, or in amanner, thatdoesnotneutralizesuchmisunderstanding.The list‐ingandcorrelatingofdatahardlyqualifies as sucha context.Un‐derstandinghowandwhy somestorieswillbeunderstood,ornot

179

STATEOFTHEEUNION

understood, provides the key to grasping what is wrong with thetyrannyoftransparency.Oncewe havenamed it, youwill begin to see the attention‐spanproblem everywhere, in public and private life. Think of politics,increasinglytheartofexploitingattention‐spanproblems–taggingyouropponentwithbarbs thatnoonehas timetounderstand, letalone analyze.Thinkof any complexpublicpolicy issue, from theeconomytodebatesaboutlevelsofforeignaid.Eventhe increaseddemandfor “privacy” inacts thatonecommitsinpublic – activitieson the Internet, for example–mightbestbeexplainedby theattentionspanproblem.Consider, forexample,astorybyPeterLewisinTheNewYorkTimesin1998:

Surveillance cameras followed the attractive young blondwomanthroughthelobbyofthemidtownManhattanhotel,keptaglassyeyeonheras she rode theelevatorup to the23rd floor and peered discreetly down the hall as sheknockedatthedoortomyroom.Ihavenotseenthevideo‐tapes, but I can imagine the digital readout superimposedonthescenes,notingtheexacttimeoftheencounter.Thatwouldcomeinhandyifsomeoneweretoquestionlaterwhythiswoman,whoisnotmywife,wasvisitingmyhotelroomduring a recent business trip. The cameras later saw usheading off to dinner and to the theater – a middle‐aged,marriedmanfromTexaswithhisarmaroundaprettyEastVillage woman young enough to be his daughter…. As amatteroffact,sheismydaughter.

"Privacy” herewould hardly be invoked for the purpose of hidingembarrassing facts. Quite the contrary: the hidden facts here arethemost innocentor loving.Yet itwouldhidethese factsbecausewemaybecertainthatfewwouldtakethetimetounderstandthemenoughtoseethemasinnocent.Thepointinsuchcasesisnotthatthepublicisn’tsmartenoughtofigureoutwhatthetruthis.Thepointistheopposite.Thepublicis

180

LESSIG

toosmarttowasteitstimefocusingonmattersthatarenotimpor‐tantforittounderstand.Theignorancehereisrational,notpatho‐logical. It is whatwewould hope everyonewould do, if everyonewere rational abouthowbest todeploy their time.Yet even if ra‐tional, this ignorance produces predictable and huge misunder‐standings. A mature response to these inevitable misunderstand‐ingsarepoliciesthatstrivenottoexacerbatethem. Soaretherewaystorespond?Canwegetthegoodoftransparencywithout thebad?The Journalof theAmericanMedicalAssociation(JAMA) thought that ithad foundaway todo so. JAMAhas longhad policies designed to ferret out conflicts of interest betweenJAMA‐publishedauthorsandthemedicalindustry.Likemostjour‐nals in medicine, JAMA required disclosure, and was among themost aggressive in the extent and the reach of the disclosures re‐quired. Butasattentiontodisclosuregrewinthemedicalfield,thefailureto disclose adequately has become a serious charge. Omission isnow a serious commission. Indeed, the mere charge of failing todiscloseisenoughtostainareputation.Aswithachargeofsexualharassment,theestablishmentofinnocencedoesnotreallyeraseitsharm. In response to this sensitivity, JAMA instituted a policy that wasdesignedtoavoidthecostsofwrongfulchargesofconflictsofinter‐est. As described in TheWall Street Journal, JAMA required thatanyone filinga complaintwith JAMAthata conflicthadnotbeendisclosedmust remainsilentabout thechargeuntil itwas investi‐gated.Themotivationsbehindthis“gagorder”(asitwasreferredtoby thosewho opposed it) are not hard to see.While JAMAhas astronginstitutionalinterestinavoidingpublicationsthathidecon‐flicts, it alsohasan interest inavoidingcharges thatwilldoharmwhether or not they are proven to be true. Recognizing both thesalienceproblemand the attention‐spanproblem, JAMA sought awaytoavoidthebadinaregimeofdisclosure(misunderstanding),whilepreservingthegood(verifiableconflicts).

181

STATEOFTHEEUNION

TherulewasinspiredearlierthisyearbyProfessorJonathanLeoofLincolnMemorialUniversity.Atthebeginningoftheyear,hefiledacomplaintwith JAMAabout the failureofone researcher todis‐closeaconflict.JAMAsatonthecomplaintforfivemonths.Infrus‐tration,LeopublishedhischargeintheBritishMedicalJournal.Asreportedby theTheWall Street Journal, JAMA responded angrily,demanding that he stop his campaign until JAMA’s investigationwas complete, and formally requiring anyone making a similarchargetoremainsilentuntilJAMAhasresponded. But, once the story of JAMA’s effort to silence a critic had beenmadepublic,that“gagrule”wasofcoursedoomed.Afteraninter‐nalreview,thejournalreverseditspolicy.Anyefforttoprotecttheaccused against unjustified criticismwas abandoned. Unfair com‐plaintswouldhavetobetolerated–astheywouldhavetobeinanysimilar context. The age of transparency is upon us. The need toprotectthewhistleblowerisunquestionable–drivingoffevenmod‐esteffortstocushiontheblowsfromamistakenaccusation.Thesetroubleswithtransparencypointtoapatternthatshouldbefamiliar to anyonewatching the range of horribles – or blessings,depending upon your perspective – that the Internet is visitingupon us. So, too, does the response. The pattern is familiar. Thenetwork disables a certain kind of control. The response of thosewhobenefittedfromthatcontrolisafranticefforttorestoreit.De‐pendinguponyourperspective, restoration seems justifiedornot.Butregardlessofyourperspective,restorationfails.Despitethebestefforts of themost powerful, the control – so long as there is “anInternet”–islost.Consider,forexample,thedynamicthatisnowkillingnewspapers,ormoreprecisely,thebusinessmodelfornewspapers,causedeitherby the explosion of more efficient technologies for doing whatnewspapers used to profit from, or by the inevitable explosion ofcompetitiondrivingpapers tomake freewhat theyusedtochargefor.Untilquite recently,newspaperswereamong themostprofit‐

182

LESSIG

able localbusinesses.Asonecommentatorcalculated,averageop‐eratingrevenuesevenaslateas2000–2007were27.3percent.Butaraft of technologies thatwere seededabout adecade ago arenowpushingnewspapers over the brink. In 1995, a San Francisco geeknamedCraigopenedacommunitywebsitewherepeoplecouldlistitemstosell,forfree.Withmuchbettercoverage,space,and(obvi‐ously) price, Craigslist quickly began to dominate newsprint inmarkets where bothwent head to head. Therewas little that thephysical paper could do to respond. A formerly lucrative cross‐subsidywasgone.Acomplementarystorycouldbe toldwithoutblamingCraig.Peo‐plebuynewspapersforthestories,notfortheink.AsinnovatorsontheInternetbeganofferingfreeaccesstothosestories,thedemandforink‐stainingversionsdeclined.WhyshouldIbuyTheNewYorkTimeswhen its content is available for freeon its site?And if thecontentofTheNewYorkTimesisnotfreeonthesite,noproblem:Icanget(essentially)thesamestorieselsewhere.Orworse,forlocalpapers:ifIcangetaccesstoarangeofpapersataclick(seeGoogleNews),whywouldIbuyanyoneinparticular?Abusinessthathadrelatively little competition because of the costs of local marketsnowhasalmostendlesscompetition,drivingthepriceforthisfreelydistributedgood(aseconomistswouldpredict)tozero.Both dynamics – together they are the consequence of what wemight call the “free contentmovement” – have had a predictableeffect.Firstonthechoppingblockisinvestigativejournalism,withitsriskyreturn,andevenwhensuccessful,areturnnotmeasuredincash. Less than 10 percent of large daily newspapers in Americahave four investigative journalists ormore.More than 40 percenthavenoinvestigativejournalistsatall.OneneednothatetheInter‐net to be deeplyworried about the repercussions of this develop‐mentfordemocracy.Orthinkaboutrecordedmusic.Untilthelate1990s,therecordin‐dustryhadahappyfate.Everycoupleofyearsanewformatwouldbestanearlierleader–eight‐trackbeatingtheLP;cassettesbeating

183

STATEOFTHEEUNION

the eight‐track;CDsbeating cassettes.Consumerswould then ea‐gerlymigrate to thenew thing.With thatmigration,newcontentwouldhavetobebought.Oldcontenthadtobereplicated.Musicwas likeold librarybooks thatyouwouldhave tocheckoutagainandagainandagain–exceptthatthislendingwasnotforfree.Along comes digital technology, and thismodel of profitwas sig‐nificantly threatened.Thenatureofdigital isperfectcopies, freelymade. The nature of certain popular technologies – Napster, andthenpeer‐to‐peer(p2p)moregenerally–wastoencourageliterallymillions of people tomake literally billions of perfect copies andthensharethemforfree.Suchbehaviorcouldnothelpbutdampenthe demand for some recorded music (even if it spurred the de‐mandforotherrecordedmusic–namely,musicthatwouldn’thavebeendiscoveredifthepriceofadmissionhadbeena$20CD).Andit couldn’t help but inspire a richly different “free culture move‐ment”. An industry that had become addicted to the blockbusteralbumwas obviously allergic to a technology that threatened thispromiseofreliableprofits.Both of these developments have inspired Luddite‐like responses.There is a regular call to close free access to news on the Web.There areprincipledobjections toCraigslist, even if theyare faintandconfused.Andtherearepoliticallywell‐supportedobjectionstopeer‐to‐peer file‐sharing, seekingboth laws and technology to killthep2p“market”.Inallthesecases,theresponsetotheproblemisto attack the source of the problem: the freedom secured by thenetwork. Inall thesecases, theresponsepresumesthatwecanre‐turntoaworldwherethenetworkdidnotdisablecontrol.But the network is not going away.We are not going to kill the“darknet”(asMicrosoftcalleditinafantasticpaperabouttheinevi‐table survival of peer‐to‐peer technologies). We are not going toregulate access to news, or ads for free futons.We are not goingbacktothetwentiethcentury.Inadecade,amajorityofAmericanswillnotevenrememberwhatthatcenturywaslike.

184

LESSIG

Butthenwhat?Ifwecan’tgoback,howdowegoforward?Foreachoftheseproblems,therehavebeensolutionsproposedthatdonotdepend foolishlyuponbreaking thenetwork.These solutionsmaynotproduce aworld as goodas theworldwasbefore (at least forsome). Theymay not benefit everyone in the sameway. But theyaresolutionsthatremoveanimportantpartoftheproblemineachcase,andrestoreatleastpartofthegoodthatisrecognizedinthepast.With p2p file‐sharing, scholars such as William Fisher and NeilNetanelhaveproposedmodelsofcompensationthatwouldachievethe objectives of copyrightwithout trying to control the distribu‐tion of content. Filesharing would be legal, at least in some con‐texts.But thenartistswouldbecompensated for theharmcausedby this file‐sharing through systems that track the popularity ofdownloads.BritneySpearswouldgetmoremoneythanLyleLovett(themysteriesoftaste!),withrevenuecomingeither fromataxorfromfeespaidbykeynodesinthenetwork.TheElectronicFrontierFoundation has a related proposal for a “voluntary collective li‐cense”:payacertainflatamount,andyousecureanimmunityfromprosecution for non‐commercial file‐sharing. The Green Party inGermanyhastakenthisideaonestepfurther,andproposeda“cul‐turalflatrate”thatwouldapplytocultureonthenetworkgenerally,securingcompensationfortheartistsandimmunityfromprosecu‐tionforthekids.Allthesechangeswouldrenderlegalthebehavioryour kids are engaging in right now (trustme), and assure somesortoflivelihoodforartists.Withjournalism,theanswersarelessclear.Thereisgrowinglegis‐lative support for allowing newspapers to become (intentional)nonprofits,thusenablingtax‐deductibledonationstosupporttheirmission, andallowing themission tobemore securely set, freeofthedemandsofstockholdersorcommercialreturn.Likewise,therehasbeengrowingsupportfornonprofitssuchasProPublica,whichfundinvestigativejournalismthatisthenreleasedfreelytopartnernewspapers.Aswithmusic,theaiminbothcasesistofindadiffer‐entwaytofundthecreationofwhateconomistscall“publicgoods.”

185

STATEOFTHEEUNION

And as economists will tell you, no way is perfect. Each has itsbenefitsanditsflaws.Butbothalternativeshavethesingularvirtueof accepting the architecture of the Internet as it is, andworkingouthowbesttoprovidethegoodsweneedgiventhisarchitecture.Soisthereananalogoussolutiontotheproblemscreatedbytrans‐parency? Is thereananswer thataccepts that transparency ishereto stay – indeed, that it will become ever more lasting and evermoreclear–butthatavoidstheharmsthattransparencycreates?In thecontextofpublichealth,wheredoctorsare forced to revealanyconnectionwithindustry,Icannotbegintoimaginewhatthatsolution would look like. The citizenry is not remotely willing tofundpublicly theresearchnecessary tosupportdrugdevelopmenttoday.Close to 70 percent of themoney for clinical drug trials intheUnitedStatescomesfromprivateindustry.Privatefundinghereseemsinevitable–andwithit,thepotentialforperceivedconflicts.Thatpotentialwill inevitablyrequiremoreandmore transparencyaboutwhogotwhatfromwhom.In the context of public officials, however, the solutions are obvi‐ous,andold,andeminentlytractable.Iftheproblemwithtranspar‐ency iswhatmight be called its structural insinuations – its con‐stantsuggestionsofasinthatispresentsometimesbutnotalways–then the obvious solution is to eliminate those insinuations andthose suggestions. A system of publicly funded elections wouldmake it impossible to suggest that the reason some member ofCongressvotedthewayhevotedwasbecauseofmoney.Perhapsitwasbecausehewasstupid.Perhapsitwasbecausehewasliberal,orconservative. Perhaps itwas because he failed to pay attention tothe issues at stake.Whatever the reason, each of these reasons isdemocracy‐enhancing.They give thedemocrat a reason to get in‐volved,ifonlytothrowthebumout.Andbyremovingwhatisun‐derstoodtobean irrelevant factor–money– thedesire toget in‐volved isnot stanchedby thecynicism that stifles somuch in thecurrentsystem.

186

LESSIG

Thecurrentversionofthisveryoldidea–TheodoreRooseveltgaveusitsfirstprominentplayin1907–iscalledtheFairElectionsNowAct. Sponsored in the Senate by Dick Durbin and Arlen Specter,andintheHousebyJohnLarsonandWalter Jones, thebillwouldgrant to qualifying candidates a certain grubstake to fund theircampaigns. Inaddition to that initial stake, candidatescould raiseasmuchmoneyastheywant,withcontributionscappedat$100percitizen per cycle. Thus Roosevelt meets Obama, with a proposalthatmarries the ideal of neutralizing any appearance of improperinfluencewiththeenergythatsmallcontributionsaddtoanycam‐paign.Theonlysignificantflawinthisbill,atleastinmyview,isitstitle.Wavingthe“fairnessflag”infrontoftheSupremeCourtisthepro‐verbial red flag in frontof thebull.Whatpossible reason is there,theCourtwillask,forallowingCongresstoregulate“fairness”–atleastwhere “fairness” seems so clearly tobenefit one side inmostpoliticaldebates?Andtheconcernisagoodone.Thereistoomuchincumbencyprotectionbuilt intoourpolitics already. Itwouldbemuchworseifthestatewereputtingathumbononesideofapo‐liticalscale.But theobjectiveof theseproposals is not, or shouldnotbe, fair‐ness. The objective should be trustworthiness. The problem thatthesebillsaddressisthatwehaveaCongressthatnobodytrusts–aCongressthat, intheopinionofthevastmajorityof theAmericanpeople,sellsitsresultstothehighestbidder.Theaimofthesepro‐posalsshouldbetochangethatperceptionbyestablishingasysteminwhich no one could believe thatmoneywas buying results. Inthiswaywecaneliminatethepossibilityofinfluencethatnourishesthecynicismthatisanywayinevitablewhentechnologymakesitsosimpletoimplyanendlesslistofinfluence. As with ProPublica or nonprofit newspapers, or a “cultural flat‐rate”, or a compulsory license to compensate for file‐sharing, pro‐posals forpublic fundingcan thusbeunderstoodasa response toan unavoidable pathology of the technology – its pathological

187

STATEOFTHEEUNION

transparency–thatincreasinglyrulesourlivesandourinstitutions.Withoutthisresponse–withtheidealofnakedtransparencyalone–ourdemocracy,likethemusicindustryandprintjournalismgen‐erally, is doomed.TheWebwill showus everypossible influence.Themost cynicalwill be themost salient. Limited attention spanwill assure that themost salient is themost stable. Unwarrantedconclusionswillbedrawn,careerswillbedestroyed,alienationwillgrow. No doubt we will rally to the periodic romantic promisingchange(suchasBarackObama),butnothingwillchange.D.C.willbecomeasD.C.isbecoming:aplacefilledwithsoulsanimatedby–as Robert Kaiser put it recently in his fine book So Damn MuchMoney–a“familiarAmericanyearning:togetrich.”But if thetransparencymovementcouldbetiedtothismovementforreform–ifeverystepformoretransparencywereattendedbyareformthatwoulddisabuseusoftheillusionthatthistechnologyisjust a big simple blessing, and set out tomake transparency bothgood and harmless – then its consequence could be salutary andconstructive.Whentransparencyanddemocracyareconsideredinthisway,wemayevenpermitourselvestoimagineawayoutofthiscycleofcynicism.Reformers rarely feel responsible for the bad that their fantasticnew reform effects. Their focus is always on the good. The bad issomeoneelse’sproblem.Itmaywellbeaskingtoomuchtoimaginemore than this. But as we see the consequences of changes thatmany of us view as good, we might wonder whether more goodmighthavebeendonehadmoreresponsibilitybeeninthemix.Themusic industry was never going to like the Internet, but its waragainstthetechnologymightwellhavebeenlesshystericalandself‐defeatingifbetterandmorebalancedalternativeshadbeenpressedfromthebeginning.NoonecandislikeCraigslist(orCraig),butweall would have benefited from a clearer recognition of what wasabouttobelost.Internettriumphalismisnotapublicgood.Likewisewithtransparency.There isnoquestioningthegoodthattransparencycreatesinawiderangeofcontexts,governmentespe‐

188

LESSIG

cially.Butweshouldalsorecognizethatthecollateralconsequenceof that good need not itself be good. And if that collateral bad isbusy certifying to the American public what it thinks it alreadyknows, we should think carefully about how to avoid it. Sunlightmaywellbeagreatdisinfectant.Butasanyonewhohaseverwadedthroughaswampknows,ithasothereffectsaswell.LawrenceLessig(@lessig)isprofessoroflawanddirectoroftheEdmondJ.SafraCenterforEthicsatHarvardLawSchool,andtheauthormostrecentlyofRemix:MakingArtandCommerceThriveintheHybridEconomy(Pen‐guin).He is on the advisory board of the Sunlight Foundation and on theboardofMaplight.org.1ThisarticleoriginallyappearedinTheNewRepublic,October21,2009.Usedwithpermission.

189

#16

OBJECTIVITY,TRANSPARENCY,ANDTHEENGAGEMENTWITH

DEMOCRACY1

DavidWeinbergerFellow,HarvardBerkmanCenterforInternet&Society

Whenyoupickuparespectablenewspaper,thenewsarticlesmakeanimplicitclaim:Whatyouarereadingistrue,anditisuntaintedbythepoliticalleaningsofthereporter.Indeed,thatimplicitclaimofobjectivity isabigpartofwhatmakesanewspaperrespectable.But,outsideoftherealmofscience,objectivityisdiscreditedthesedaysasanythingbutanaspiration,andeventhataspirationislook‐ing pretty sketchy. Transparency is becoming the new objectivity,andnot just for journalism.The effectongovernment isquitedi‐rect.Theproblemwithobjectivityisthatittriestoshowwhattheworldlookslikefromnoparticularpointofview.But,weareperspectivalcreatures.Wealwayssee fromapointofview.Sometimeswerec‐ognizeourbiases,butsomeprejudicesareburied toodeepwithinlanguage and culture. So, the notion of pure objectivity has beenprettywelldebunkedoverthepastcoupleofgenerations,especially

190

WEINBERGER

whenitcomestostory‐tellingactivitiessuchasjournalism.Never‐theless,objectivity—evenasanunattainablegoal—hasservedanimportantroleinhowwecometotrustideasandinformation.Itwasalsoamajorcomponentofthevaluenewspapersofferedus.You can see this in newspapers’ early push‐back against blogging.Wewere told thatbloggershaveagendas,whereas journalistsgiveusobjectiveinformation.Ofcourse,ifyoudon’tthinkobjectivityispossible,thenyouthinkthattheclaimofobjectivityisactuallyhid‐ingthebiasesthat inevitablyarethere.That’swhywhen,duringabloggerspressconferenceatthe2004DemocraticNationalConven‐tion,IaskedPulitzer‐prizewinningjournalistWalterMearswhomhewassupportingforpresident,hereplied(paraphrasing!),“IfItellyou,howcanyoutrustwhatIwrite?”Ofcourse,ifhedoesn’ttellus,howcanwetrustwhatheblogs?Theideaofapoliticalbloggerhid‐ingherpolitical standpoints is as odd as a traditional political re‐portertellingushis.So, that’s one sense in which transparency is the new objectivity.Whatweusedtobelievebecausewethoughttheauthorwasobjec‐tivewenowbelievebecausewecanseethroughtheauthor’swrit‐ings to the sources and values that brought her to that position.Transparencygives thereader informationbywhichshecanundosomeoftheunintendedeffectsoftheauthor'sever‐presentbiases.Transparency brings us to reliability the way objectivity used to.Perhaps transparency doesn't bring us to as high a degree of cer‐tainty,butit'sarguablethatobjectivityneverreallybroughtusalltoasmuchreliabilityaswelikedtobelieve.Whenitcomestounder‐standingourworld,wearelikelytoachievemorecertaintythroughatransparencythatacknowledgesuncertaintythanthroughanob‐jectivitythatpromisescertainty.The changegoesbeyondhowwe readnewspapers.That is simplywherewe are seeingmost vividly an overall change in the role ofauthorityinbelief.

191

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Objectivityispartofabroadersystemofknowledgethatwasaimedat solving the fundamentalproblem that there's toomuch foranyonepersontoknow.So,wedevelopedtechniquesthatenabledourinquiriestostop.What'stheorderoftheplanets?Askanastrono‐mer.Andoncetheastronomerhastoldyou,youcanstopresearch‐ing thequestion. It's beenanswered.Better, rather thanannoyingyour localastronomer, look itup inabook.Thebookwaswrittenby an authorized astronomer, and it wouldn't have gotten pub‐lished if the editors hadn't had good reason to believe what thebooksays.Thissystemofcredentialsisdesignedtogiveusreason‐able stopping points for inquiry so that we can get on with ourstudiesandwithourlives.That systemobviouslyworks.We've gotten quite far as a civiliza‐tionwithit.But,wethoughtthatthatwashowknowledgeworks.Itturnsoutthat it’sreally justhowpaperworks.Paper is literallyanopaque medium. You can't see through text printed on it to thesourcesofitsideas.Yes,youcanlookupthefootnote,butthat’sanexpensive, time‐consuming activitymore likely to result in failurethan success. Most often we use citations in footnotes simply asreassurancethatthepointissupportedandrequiresnofurtherin‐quiry. So, during the Age of Paper, we got used to the idea thatauthoritycomesintheformofastopsign:You’vereachedasourcewhosereliabilityrequiresnofurtherinquiry.Butnowwehavelinks.IntheAgeofLinks,westillusecredentialsandrelyonauthoritiesbecausethoseareindispensiblewaysofscal‐ingknowledge–thatis,thesystemofauthorityletsusknowmorethan any one of us could authenticate on our own. But, increas‐ingly, credentials and authority work best for vouchsafing com‐moditizedknowledge,thestuffthat’ssettledandnotwortharguingabout.At theedgesofknowledge—intheanalysisandcontextu‐alization that journalistsnowadays tellus is their realvalue—wewant, need, can have and expect transparency. Transparency putswithin the report itself away for us to seewhat assumptions andvaluesmayhaveshaped it, and letsus see thearguments that the

192

WEINBERGER

reportresolvedonewayandnotanother.Transparency—theem‐beddedabilitytoseethroughthepublisheddraft—oftengivesusmorereasontobelieveareportthantheclaimofobjectivitydid.Infact,transparencysubsumesobjectivity.Anyonewhoclaimsob‐jectivity should be willing to back that assertion up by letting uslookat sources,disagreements, and thepersonal assumptionsandvaluessupposedlybracketedoutofthereport.We are getting soused to transparency that objectivitywithout itincreasinglywilllooklikearrogance.Whyshouldwetrustwhatoneperson—withthebestofintentions—insistsistruewhenwein‐steadcouldhaveawebofevidence,ideasandargument?Objectivity is a trustmechanism you rely on when yourmediumcan’tdolinks.Nowourmediumcan.Governments are not immune to this change, for they have beenauthoritiesaswell.Wetrustthecensusfiguresandthebookletsinwhichwe lookuphowmuchmoneyweowe in taxes.Butgovern‐mentsarehighlychargedpolitically,andaresubjecttotremendousforcesof corruption.So,now thathyperlinkshavemade transpar‐encysoeasy,afailureofthegovernmenttoletusgobehinditsfactsand figures looks likeaguiltyattempt tohide information.Trans‐parencyisbecomingthenorm,thedefault.Buttheriseoftransparency'smostimportanteffectongovernmentis less direct. It undoes some pernicious anti‐democratic assump‐tionsthathavesnuckintoourthinkingandintoourinstitutions.The system of knowledge by authority is also an economy. It be‐stows valueon thosewho serve as stops:The expertwhoanswersourquestionsconfidentlyandcorrectlymakesagoodlivingandishighly respected.Nothingwrongwith that, except that it's in theinterestoftheexpertstoinflatetheirownvalue.Westarttothinkthat thosepeople are a special caste,highpriests, peoplewhoareessentiallyunlikeus.Betweenusandthemis(wethink)anunsur‐

193

STATEOFTHEEUNION

passablegap.Theyaretheexperts.Wecan'tknowwhattheyknow,andwecan'tretracehowtheyknowwhattheyknow.Wecanonlycrossthechasmbybelievingthem.Thatistheirvalue:Wecanbe‐lievewhattheysayandnotonlydon'twehavetolookfurther,welacktheabilitytochecktheirwork:Howareyougoingtofigureouttheorderoftheplanetsindependently?Theopaquenessofauthori‐tiesmakesuspassive.A class systemandcitizenpassivity is exactlywhatwedon'twantforourdemocracies.Ifwecantrustauthoritiestoknowthings–somuch so that theirwords end our inquiry – then perhapswe cantrust them to decide things aswell. After all, decisions should bebased on knowledge. If knowledge truly belongs to the elite, thefew, the authorities, then perhaps decisions are best left in theirhandsaswell.Thesystemofauthoritytendstoleadtoabeliefthatdecidingongovernmentpoliciesisajobforspecialists.Ontheotherhand,ahyperlinkedtransparencyputsbeforeusinvi‐tations to continue. If and when we stop, it's not because we'vereachedtheendbutbecauseourinquiryhastostopsomewhere;wehaveother thingstodo–andperhapsotherpatchesof thenever‐ending wilderness to explore. We are stopped not by the gapauthority insists on for itself, but by the sense thatnowweknowenoughtomakeadecision,butalwayswiththeunderstandingthat“knowing enough” is relative to the seriousness of the matter athand,and that “knowingmore” isalwaysapossibility. Inahyper‐linked, transparent ecology, we may choose to go no further fornow,butthepossibilityofproceedingisalwaysactive,notpassive.Further,ahyperlinkedtransparencytellsus thatbehindaclaimedknowledgeisnotanunbridgeablegap,forthelinksthatweseearebridges we can travel. Rather, behind a claim of knowledge areotherpeople'sideasbehindwhichareyetmoreideas,withoutend.Anexpertknower is justanotherperson inawebof ideasand in‐formation. Of course, an expert is in a richer web, makes moresenseofthatweb, is intimatelyfamiliarwithit,andistreatedasahubinwaysthatwe,asnon‐experts,arenot.Butitisstillonecon‐

194

WEINBERGER

tinuousfabric,nowthatwecanseetheweaveandwarpofit.There‐fore, knowing and deciding are left up to us humans, somemoreexpert thanothers,butnonewithanunbridgeable claimon truthandauthority.Everyclaimofknowledgeissubjecttoalloftheer‐rors definitive of our species.Wehaveno one to do the knowinganddecidingforus.Wehavetodoitourselves.That'swhywehavedemocracies.Ahyperlinked,transparentecologythusremindsusofdemocracy'sessential truth:We are each individualswith our ownneeds, per‐spectivesandlimitations.Weonlyhaveourselves.Thereisnohopeexceptthroughengagementinourownprocessofgovernance,butwiththatengagement,thereiseveryhope.DavidWeinberger (@dweinberger) is a fellow atHarvard BerkmanCenterfor Internet& Society.He is co‐author of the international bestsellerTheCluetrainManifesto.HislatestbookisEverythingisMiscellaneous.1AversionofthischapterappearedasapostonDavidWeinberger'sblogonAugust19,2009.http://j.mp/MuwE3

195

SectionIII

DEMOCRATIZINGGOVERNMENT

196

FRIIS

#17

DEMOCRACY2.0

MichaelFriisFounder,FolketsTing

Democracy inancientGreecewasof thedirectvariety:Citizensofthe poliswouldmeet up every once in awhile, draw lots onwhoshould be officials and debate and vote on decrees. The modernwesterndemocraciesareoftherepresentativetype:Everycoupleofyears citizenselect representatives toaparliamentwhere lawsaredebatedandpassed.Agovernmentischosen,eitherdirectlybytheelectorate or amongst members of parliament. The governmenthires officials and bureaucrats to help it exercise and uphold thelaws. Citizens usually have no direct say in legislation, althoughtheycanformlobbyingorganizationsandtrytoindirectlyinfluencegovernmentandparliamentmembers.Thisindirectformofdemoc‐racy is toleratedbecausepoliticalentitieshavegrown insize fromcity‐statestocountriesandevenunions,andbecausepoliticalfran‐chise has been expanded to includemost of the population. Thismakesregularlygatheringallcitizensfordebatesaratherimpracti‐cal proposition. Further, running modern societies apparently re‐quireslegislationofascaleandcomplexitythatmakeskeepingupafulltimejob.Thepragmaticsolutionisforthecitizenrytoelectfulltime representatives by some form of popular vote. The electedrepresentatives thenmeet ina legislativeassemblywhere theyde‐

197

STATEOFTHEEUNION

bateandpass legislation.TheFreePressmonitors representatives'actions tomake sure theyarealignedwith thewishesof theelec‐torate.ThepremiseofDemocracy2.0isthatcitizenscanusetheInternetandWeb2.0techniquestoreenterthepoliticalfrayandparticipatein ways reminiscent of ancient Greece. Democracy 2.0 has twooverarchingobjectives:First,fosterdirectcitizenoversightofpoliti‐cians independently of the Press; Second, involve citizens directlyinthe legislativeprocess.ThischapterwilloutlinewhytheauthorbelievesthesetobeattractiveobjectivesandwhyhebelievesWeb2.0technologyhasplacedthemwithinreach.ThechapterwillthendescribehowDemocracy2.0websitescanachievetheseobjectivesanddiscusssuccessfulreal‐worldexamples.Thechapterisbasedonthe author’s experience building “Folkets Ting” (Peoples Parlia‐ment),awebsite1coveringtheDanishnationalparliament(inDan‐ish:“Folketinget”)andhisanalysisofother,relatedsites.DowenecessarilywanttodragourpoliticalprocessesontotheIn‐ternetandsubjectthemtomeddlingfromnosycitizens?Thischap‐terargues“Yes”forthefollowingreasons.First,traditionalpoliticaljournalismisindecline.Newspapersarecuttingstafforclosingandfocus is shifting towards consumer and entertainment stories thatare easy tomonetizewith ads.Remainingpolitical coverage is in‐creasinglylightheartedandfocusedonperceivedpersonalconflictsbetweenpoliticians.Forthesereasons,it isimportantthatcitizenshaveinformationandtoolsthatletthemdirectlymonitorthelegis‐lativeprocessandholdtheirelectedrepresentativesaccountablefortheir actions. Second, democratic participation, as measured bypartymembership and voter turnout, is waning inmany parts oftheworld,oftenmostmarkedlyamongsttheyoung.Thelegitimacyofapolitical systemrestsoncitizens'activesanctionandsupport.Makingdemocracyanaccessibleandonlinepropositionwillmakemorepeopleparticipateinagreatervarietyofways.Activepartici‐pationbycitizensitself,islikelytoincreaseinterestinpoliticsandboost support fordemocratic institutions.Third,modern lawmak‐ing involvespoliticians,bureaucratsandorganizationswithvested

198

FRIIS

interests interacting inways that arenot always entirely transpar‐ent.ThisprocessshouldbemovedontotheInternetandopeneduptoinputfrommoreparticipantssuchasNGOsandprivatecitizenswithspecialistknowledge.Suchamovewouldproducebetterlawsthat incorporateandaddressconcerns fromagreaterpartof soci‐ety.What are the innovations that make Democracy 2.0 feasible? Tostartwith, the Internethasmadepublishinganyamountof infor‐mation a trivial task. Publishing parliamentary meeting minutes,revisionsoflaws,videoofdebatesandalltheothermediaaccumu‐latedby aparliamentarybureaucracy is entirely feasible.Tomakesense of the flood of information generated by cheap online pub‐lishing, several techniques have evolved. The traditional one ispowerfultextualsearch,asexemplifiedbyGoogleindexingtheen‐tireInternet.Inrecentyears,websiteshaveemployedaplethoraofmore user‐powered “Web 2.0” techniques that are, in someways,evenbetter at finding information relevant tousers.Examples areAmazons“Customerswhoboughtthis itemalsobought...,”photo‐tagging on Flickr, collaborative filtering of news‐articles on DiggandReddit, and people sharing relevant contentwith friends andfamilyonsocialnetworks suchasFacebookandTwitter.All theseareexamplesofusersdeliberatelyorincidentallydiggingout,filter‐ingandpresenting relevant information fromthevastcontent‐seaoftheInternet.IfWeb2.0canhelpmakesenseofwhatgoesonoutthereontheInternetatlarge,surelyitcanprofitablybeappliedtoinformationgeneratedbythepoliticalprocesstoo.An interesting detail is what the Internet does to the so‐called“Long Tail,” i.e. marginal content with a very narrow audience.Sincepublishingcostsarenegligibleandbecausethetotalaudienceis very large, itmakes perfect sense to publish Long Tail contentonline,andthesearchandfilteringtoolsmentionedabovemakesitpossible for interested users to find it. Democracies too, have aLong Tail of legislation that is not publicly debated in any detail,typically because it affects few people. Democracy 2.0 can make

199

STATEOFTHEEUNION

these lawsdiscoverable andopen themup todebate amongst thenarrowgroupsofcitizensandorganizationstheyaffect.Besides filtering, categorizing and finding information, Web 2.0alsoletsuserscollaborateandinteract:Amazonletspeoplerateandreviewproducts, news‐articles onDigg andReddit and photos onFlickr can be commented on and discussed and so can contentposted to Facebook and Twitter.Whatever youmay think of theintellectualprowessoftheaverageInternetdenizen,awell‐curatedandmoderated online discussion will, more often than not, yieldinteresting insights and links to relevant content. Discussionamongst friends on Facebook and Twitter satisfies a basic socialneedtovoiceandshareopinionsandbereinforcedorchallengedinonesbeliefs.Thereisnoreasonsimilarrating,reviewingandcom‐menting cannot be applied to parliament debateminutes, laws orlivevideo‐feedsfromparliamentdebates.Won'tanyonlinediscus‐sion of something as contentious as politics invariably drown innonsenseand invectives?Notnecessarily:Amazonmanages to re‐liablyshowthemostrelevantproductreviewsfirstbyaskingusersto rate the reviews themselves, and Digg and Reddit does some‐thingsimilarforcomments.Collaborativeself‐moderationbyuserscan keep discussions relevant and enforce a tolerable tone of de‐bate.Wikipedia, the user written and edited encyclopedia, is an evenmorecompellingexampleof thepotentialofonlineWeb2.0 stylecollaboration. Instead of just augmenting existing content withcomments, reviews and tags, thousands of wikipedians have col‐laborated to write millions of encyclopedic articles from scratch.Manyarticlesareaboutverydivisivetopics,yetWikipediaisproofthat–withgoodtoolsandpolicies–peoplecanworktogetheron‐line.Whileitmaybesomeyearsintothefuture,onecanenvisionaprocesswherebygroupsofcitizensdraftandreviselawswhicharethenadopted intothetraditional legislativeprocess for furtherre‐finement. In the end, political discussions are part of theDNAofany democracy and online debate of parliamentary minutes andlawswillextendandinformthesediscussions.

200

FRIIS

Technologies and techniques like cheap publishing, powerfulsearch, filtering, sharing, commenting and online collaborationcomplement each other and have the potential to revolutionizepoliticalprocessesandupgradeourdemocraciestoversion2.0.TherecentObama presidential campaign heavily leveraged social net‐works and otherWeb 2.0 technology and demonstrated how thiscan reinvigorate politics and dramatically increase participation.ThefollowingparagraphswilltakeamoredetailedlookatfeaturesofDemocracy2.0sitesthatarealreadyupandrunning.Individualfeatures will not be discussed in great technical depth, the focuswillbeontheirpotentialtoengageandempowercitizens.What content belongs onDemocracy 2.0 websites? Basically any‐thingthathelpachievethefirstobjectiveoffacilitatingcitizenover‐sightofthepoliticalsystem.Fundamentalcontentisstuffliketextsoflawsintheirvariousrevisions,parliamentarydebateminutesandparliamentary voting records.Many parliamentary systems let op‐positionmembers pose questions to governmentministers. Thesequestions tend to put a finger on relevant issues, and should beincluded too. Sites like Folkets Ting, TheyWorkForYou.com2 andOpenCongress3 publish laws, debates and questions to the extentthat they are available from bureaucracies. Parliaments routinelyrecordvideoor audioof allmeetings.TheyWorkForYou letsusersmatch up video clips with the relevant debate minutes, so otherusers can watch video for speeches while reading the transcripts,anotherrelevantfeature.Politicalcampaigndonationsareacanary‐in‐the‐coalmine for citizenswaryofundue influenceofpoliticiansand,ifpossible,shouldbeavailabletoo.Claimedpersonalexpensesbypoliticians,whiletangentialtoactualpolitics,aregreatbecausethey can be used to gauge the profligacy of individual parliamentmembers. The Guardian, a newspaper, has created a superb site4(“InvestigateyourMP'sexpenses”)whereparsingandregistrationofreceiptsiscrowd‐sourcedtotheBritishtaxpayers.Earmarks(provi‐sions in laws mandating money be spent on particular projects,ofteningeographiclocationswherepoliticiansareelected)arean‐othergoodwayofmonitoringspending.“EarmarkWatch,”5bythe

201

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Sunlight Foundation, lets Americans track US congressional ear‐marks.Muchoftheinformationlistedaboveisalreadypublishedonlineinmany countries by parliaments, election commissions and similarorganizations.Toaccessthedata,mostexistingDemocracy2.0or‐ganizations “screen‐scrape” and “parse” the relevant governmentwebsites. Screen‐scraping is a process somewhat similar to whatGoogledoeswhenitcrawlsanddownloadspagesontheInternettofigureoutwhatwordsareusedwhere.Parsinginvolvespickingoutrelevantdatafromthedownloadedpages,forexampletofigureouthowparticularpoliticiansvotedforalaw.Screen‐scrapersandpars‐ers are typically automated robots running nightly, although theymay require human help as in the case of the UK parliamentaryexpenseclaims.Animportantpointisthatthevarioustypesofcontentneednotbeaggregatedontomonolithicomnibussites,butcanbeuseful–andoftenmoreaccessible–whenpresented in isolation.Ontheotherhand, some of this information becomes a lot more interestingwhen aggregated. Combining campaign donations and earmarksmay,forexample,revealdonorsbuyinggovernmentordersthroughpoliticians.TheauthorcansayfrompersonalexperiencethatoneofthemostmemorablemilestonesinthedevelopmentofFolketsTingwaswhenaggregatednews‐feedsforpoliticiansweremadetowork.OntheDanishparliamentwebsite,politiciansvotes, speechesandquestions are shownout of context ondifferent parts on the site.TheaggregatedfeedonFolketsTingpresentsaclearchronologicaloverviewof all thepoliticians' actions, dramatically increasing theutility of the information that goes intomaking it.OpenCongressandTheyWorkForYousimilarlyprovideaggregatedprofilesforpoli‐ticians.Politicians’ actions and opinionsmatter a lot to voters, and theirprofilesshouldhaveasmuchinformationascanbegathered.“Con‐gressSpeaks,”anothersite6bytheSunlightFoundation,hasword‐cloudsforeachpoliticianwithcommonlyusedwordsinbiggerfont

202

FRIIS

thanlessfrequentlyusedones.Thisisagreattoolforgivingusersaroughideaofwhattopicsaparticularpoliticianismostconcernedwith.Votersarealsointerestedinknowingthegeneralactivitylevelof their elected representatives, so profiles should have graphsshowing,month‐for‐month, the number of votes cast, words spo‐ken,questionsaskedandsoforth.Aparticularproblemis identifying, fromthemanyvotescastbyapolitician,howthepoliticianstandsonaparticular topicofpolicy(e.g. theWar on Terror). Figuring this out is interesting becausevoterswillwanttomakesurethatpoliticiansactualvotesmatchupwith the public stances they take on various issues. The PublicWhip (another British Democracy 2.0 site7) has come upwith aninnovativesolutiontothisproblem:Userscandefine“policies”(e.g.“Ban fox hunting”) and then assign particular parliamentary votesto that policy, designating whether a yes‐vote would be “for” or“against”thepolicy.Thismakesiteasytodeterminewhereapoliti‐cian stands onparticular issues because the relevant votes canbeaggregatedintoasimplescoreforthatpolitician.Anothermatterofgreatinteresttovotersiswhetherelectedpoliti‐cians are keeping promises made on the campaign trail. TheObameter8, runby theSt.PetersburgTimes, tracks themore than500promisesmadebyBarackObamaduringhiselectioncampaignand rates thembasedonwhether theyhavebeen fulfilled or bro‐ken.WhilenotatrueDemocracy2.0site(thepromisesarejudgedbythepapersreporters,notbyusers),ittakesagoodstabatanareawheremoreoversightandaccount‐keepingissorelyneeded.AsDemocracy2.0sitesusuallytaketheirpointofdepartureinpar‐liamentrecordsanddocuments,theytendtoreflecthowthesein‐stitutions work, even while attempting to mix and mash data innewways.Parliamentaryprocessesandtraditionshaveevolvedovercenturiesandareoftenhighlyidiosyncratic(filibusterswereknowntotheancientRomansandarestillwithus).AnimportantmissionforDemocracy2.0istode‐contextualizepoliticsfromthesestrangeoldwaysandpresentwhatisgoingoninparliamentineasilyacces‐

203

STATEOFTHEEUNION

sible formats thatareuseful tocitizenswhoarenotpolicywonks.Aggregating many votes into a few relevant policies or showingcloudsofwordscommonlyusedbyapoliticianaregoodexamplesofthis.Toaidcitizensinkeepingupwithparliament,Democracy2.0sitesshouldofferRSSfeedsandemailalertswhereverpossible,includingfornewlaws,passedlaws,newquestions,answeredquestions,indi‐vidual politician activity and so forth. Laws in the Danish Parlia‐ment are not categorized in any useful way, so Folkets Ting letsuserstaglaws(tagscouldbe“health‐care”or“transport”),makingiteasier forotherusers tonavigateand follow lawsby interest.Asafurther aid tonavigation, sites can show listsof “hot” content, i.e.laws withmany new comments or politician profiles with lots ofrecentvisits.What features shouldDemocracy 2.0websites have to let citizensmake themselvesheard?First off, users shouldbe able to vote onlawsunder review.Thiswill let politiciansknowhowcitizens feelabout a particular law on its way through parliament. Second, ifwritten questions are part of the parliamentary process, a self‐respectingDemocracy2.0siteshouldletuserposetheirownques‐tions, including provisions for opposition’s politicians adoptingthese questions and forwarding them to government ministers.Third, users should have the opportunity to comment on all law‐textsanddebateminutes.OpenCongresshaspioneeredatechnique(sincecopiedbyFolketsTing)wherecommentsappearunderindi‐vidual paragraphs in texts instead of at the end of an entire law.Comments can also be threaded so users can comment on otherusers’ comments. This system permits very detailed discussionaboutparticularpoints in laws anddebates.Tomoderate thedis‐cussion,usersareabletorateotheruserscommentsasgoodorbad,in the same way that reviews are rated on Amazon. Commentswhosescorefallsunderacertainthresholdcanbehiddenbydefaultandonlyshownifrequested.Usersalsohavetheoptionofreport‐ingoffensivecommentstobehandledbysitemoderators.

204

FRIIS

Userswilloftenbeveryinterestedtoknowwhetherpoliticiansreadandrespondtotheircommentsandquestions.Forthisreason,poli‐ticians'profilesshouldincludelistsofmostdebatedcontent,lettingthemquicklydeterminehowpeoplefeelaboutwhattheyareuptoand optionally respond.Or, as is done byWriteToThem.com, thesitecansendfaxesoremailswithcitizenmessagestopoliticians.Howcanactiveuserparticipationbeencouraged?Besidespoliticaldiscoursebeinganalmostuniversalhumanactivity in itself, thereareseveralthingsasitecandotopromoteinteraction.Onewayisto give users points or “karma” for comments and questions up‐voted by other users. Another is to give users a page on the sitewheretheirrecentcommentandvotingactivityisdisplayed.Theseareextremelysimplemeasures,yet theyhaveprovedmassivelyef‐fective on question/answer sites like Stackoverflow.com. Eventhoughtheyhavenobearingonreallife,usersconsiderthepointsasign of prestige and use the personal activity feeds as vehicle todemonstratetheircleverness.Anotherwaytopromoteparticipationistointegratecloselywithsocialnetworkingsites.FolketsTingletsusers post comments on the site directly to their Facebook feeds.Seeing friendscommentingon lawsandspeeches is likely todrawmoreusersintothediscussion.Sofar,almostallDemocracy2.0siteshavebeenbuiltbycitizensorNGOs(anotableexceptionistheNewYorkStateSenatewebsite9).Itmay seem logical to demand that the parliament bureaucraciesgatheringdatashouldalsomakeitavailableontheirwebsitesinthewaysdescribedabove.Thereareseveralreasonswhythisismaynotbeagoodapproachhowever.Parliamentwebsitesareusuallyrunby librarian‐types concerned with archiving stuff for posterity.Theirgoal is tocreate tools thatmakepoliticalprocesses functionas smoothly. Having citizens clog up records with spurious com‐mentslooksmorelikealiabilitythanlikeabenefit.Politicians,whousually closely oversee running of parliament, cannot be countedontoreliablysupportDemocracy2.0effortseither.Politiciansmayfeelintimidatedbyincreasedoversightandscrutinyoftheiractivi‐ties (or lack thereof),or feel thatDemocracy2.0maycompromise

205

STATEOFTHEEUNION

their ability to work effectively with lobbyists. Activemoderation(deleting offensive comments, for example) could potentially be‐come a very prickly subject if carried out by state‐employed sitemoderatorsseentobecurbingthefreedomofspeech.MuchbetterthatDemocracy2.0sitesarebuiltandrunbyengagedcitizenswhounderstand Web 2.0 and are concerned solely with increasingtransparencyandparticipation.Parliamentsandpoliticiansdohavean importantrole toplayhowever, inmakingsure that theneces‐sary data is available, either through properAPIs or throughwebsitesthatarereasonablyeasytoscrapeautomatically.This essayhasoutlinedwhywe shouldbuildDemocracy 2.0web‐sites and how we can go about building them. The core ideas ofDemocracy2.0istograbpoliticaldata,analyzeit,aggregateitandmashitupsocitizenscanuseittomonitorpoliticiansandletthemknowhow they feel about theway they arebeing represented.Byempowering citizenswithWeb 2.0 tools,we can level theplayingfieldandre‐enterthepoliticalarenainforce.Michael Friis is a prolific hacker and writer living in Denmark. MichaelsprojectsincludeLINQtoCRM,apopularLINQqueryproviderforDynamicsCRMand“Popcorn”,aFacebookapplicationforcinematicketdiscoveryandreservation. He has hijacked several million EU public procurement con‐tracts from“TendersElectronicDaily”andcreatedaGoogleMapsmashupat tedbot.itu.dk. Michaels latest project is “Folkets Ting” (Peoples Parlia‐ment),abetterwebsitefortheDanishparliament.OnFolketsTing,citizenscantrackpoliticians,askquestionsanddebatelawsandspeeches.1http://folketsting.dk/2http://www.theyworkforyou.com/3http://www.opencongress.org/4http://mps‐expenses.guardian.co.uk/5http://earmarkwatch.org/6http://www.congressspeaks.com/7http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/8http://www.politifact.com/truth‐o‐meter/promises/9http://www.nysenate.gov/

207

#18

FOCUSINGONCITIZENS1

JoanneCaddyCounsellor,OECD

The current financial, economic and – increasingly – social crisishasaddedanewsenseofurgencytothesearchforgovernancear‐rangementsfitforthe21stcentury.Governmentsalonecannotdealwith complex global and domestic challenges, such as climatechangeorsoaringobesitylevels.Theyfacehardtrade‐offs,suchasrespondingtorisingdemandsforbetterqualitypublicservicesdes‐pite ever‐tighter budgets. They need to work with citizens andotherstakeholderstofindinnovativesolutions.Theraceisonandtimeisofessence.Thegoodnewsisthatgovernmentsarenotalone.Theycancallonawiderpooloftalent,expertiseandexperiencetodevelopnewso‐lutionsforbothintractableandemergingpolicyproblems.Todosowill require them tounlock thedoors of their policymakingpro‐cesses and adopt new roles in facilitating autonomous action byothersactinginthepublicinterest.

208

CADDY

Thebadnewsisthatmanygovernmentsaresaddledwithaseriousdeficitinpublictrust.Bettereducated,well‐informedandlessdef‐erentialcitizensarejudgingtheirgovernmentsontheir“democraticperformance”, i.e., the degree to which government decision‐makingprocessesliveuptodemocraticprinciples,andtheir“policyperformance”,i.e.,theirabilitytodelivertangiblepositiveoutcomesfor society.2 On either measure, citizens in many countries havefoundtheirgovernmentstofallshortoftheirexpectations.Investing inmore open and inclusive policymaking offers part oftheanswertobothchallenges.Moreoftenpromotedasameansofimprovingdemocraticperformance(whichitis),openandinclusivepolicymakingcandomuchmore. Itoffersaway forgovernmentstoimprovetheirpolicyperformancebyworkingwithcitizens,civilsocietyorganisations(CSOs),businessesandotherstakeholderstodeliverconcrete improvements inpolicyoutcomesandthequalityofpublicservices,e.g.throughco‐designandco‐delivery.Open and inclusive policy making is transparent, accessible andresponsive to as wide a range of citizens as possible. Opennessmeans providing citizenswith information andmaking the policyprocess accessible and responsive. Inclusion means including aswide a variety of citizens’ voices in the policy making process aspossible. To be successful, these elements must be applied at allstagesofthedesignanddeliveryofpublicpoliciesandservices.OECDmembercountries’experienceindicatesthatopenandinclu‐sivepolicymakingcanimprovepolicyperformancebyhelpinggov‐ernmentsto:

• Better understand people’s evolving needs, respond togreaterdiversityinsocietyandaddressinequalitiesofvoiceandaccesstobothpolicymakingprocessesandpublicserv‐ices.

• Leveragetheinformation,ideasandresourcesheldbybusi‐nesses,CSOsandcitizensasdriversforinnovation.

209

STATEOFTHEEUNION

• Lower costs and improve policy outcomes by galvanizingpeopletotakeactioninpolicyareaswheresuccesscruciallydependsupon changes in individuals’ behavior (e.g. publichealth,climatechange).

• Reduce administrative burdens, compliance costs and theriskofconflictordelaysduringpolicy implementationandservicedelivery.

Openness,whilenecessary,isnotsufficienttoensureinclusivepub‐licparticipation. Inclusion is important for reasonsofefficacyandequity.Efficacy,becausethetruevalueofopeninguppolicymakinglies in obtaining a wider range of views (beyond the “usual sus‐pects”) as input for evidence‐based decision‐making. Equity, be‐cause defining the “public interest” in a democracy requires gov‐ernmentstomakeextraeffortstoreachouttothosewhoareleastequippedforpublicparticipation(e.g.newcitizens,youth).Granted,therearemanygoodreasonsforpeoplenottoparticipateinpolicymakingandpublicservicedesignanddelivery.Twobroadgroupsmay be identified: People who are “willing but unable” toparticipateforavarietyofreasonssuchasculturalorlanguagebar‐riers,geographicaldistance,disabilityorsocio‐economicstatus;andpeoplewhoare“ablebutunwilling”toparticipatebecausetheyarenotveryinterestedinpolitics,donothavethetime,ordonottrustgovernmenttomakegooduseoftheirinput.To engage the “willing but unable”, governments must invest inloweringbarriers (e.g. byprovidingmultilingual information). Forthe “able but unwilling”, governments must make participationmoreattractive (e.g.bypickingrelevant issues,providingmultiplechannels for participation, including face‐to‐face, online andmo‐bile options). Above all, governments must expect to “go wherepeopleare”whenseekingtoengagewiththem,ratherthanexpect‐ingpeopletocometogovernment.

210

CADDY

One of the places people are is online and the emergence of theparticipativewebhasprofoundlychangedwhatpeopledothere.Nolonger justpassiveviewers,peopleofallagesandwalksof lifearerapidly becoming active producers, rankers, raters and linkers ofcontent.Somegovernmentshavebeenswifttograspthetransformativepo‐tentialofferedbythisenhancedinteractivity.Anumberhavebeguntoexplorethisnewfrontier(e.g.theUKPrimeMinister’sOfficeonTwitter@DowningStreet)andbeguntodevelopguidancefortheircivil servants (e.g.NewZealand’s 2007Guide toOnline Participa‐tion3).Governmentshaveevengonesofarastoenshrinetheiram‐bitionsinjointpolicydeclarations,suchthe2008SeoulDeclarationfor the Future of the Internet Economy. Issued byMinisters frombothOECDandnon‐OECDmembercountries, theSeoulDeclara‐tionunderlines thepotentialof the Internet, and related informa‐tion and communication technologies (ICT), to improve citizens’qualityoflifeby“Enablingnewformsofcivicengagementandpar‐ticipationthatpromotediversityofopinionsandenhancetranspar‐ency,accountability,privacyandtrust.”4Thetoolsandpracticesoftheparticipativewebcanhelpmakebothonline and face‐to‐face public participationmore open and inclu‐sive. The participative web is transforming three factors, whichhavealwaysunderpinnedsuccessfulpolicymakingandservicede‐liverynamely:

• Knowledge, which flows freely in a digital world with themovefroman“economyofscarcity”toan“economyofsur‐plus”.

• Connections,whichareno longerbinary,privateandhier‐archicalbutmultiple,publicandnetworked.

• Actors,whoarenotjustisolated“atoms”butareembeddedinadensenetworkoflooselinkswithmanyothers.

There are at least three main benefits of participative web ap‐proachesforpublicpolicymakingandservicedelivery:

211

STATEOFTHEEUNION

• Efficiency: Turning the many separate strands of bilateral

‘traffic’ between individual citizens and government into apublicinformationresourcecanhelpreduceadministrativeburdens for both the administration and the citizen (e.g.FixMyStreet.com, a UK website which allows citizens topinpointproblemsonavirtualmapandthenautomaticallysendsittolocalcouncils).Forexample,bypublishingonlinethe resultsofa specific request filedunderaccess to infor‐mationlegislation,otherscanavoidhavingtofileanewre‐quest and governments can avoid the burden of having torespond to identical requests in the future (e.g. ePeo‐ple.go.kr, Korea’s one‐stop online petition service). An ap‐proach that could offer significant benefits for all non‐personaldatatransactions.

• Accountability:Thesymbolicpowerofgovernmentseekingto enhance transparency or develop policy on an online‘public space’ is itself an important asset in establishingpublic trust (e.g.Recovery.gov,USRecoveryBoardwebsitewhich tracks billions of dollars in federal governmentspending).Soisthelevelofaccountabilityexactedbyonline‘reputation managers’ where all participants are rated on,andheldaccountable for, theircommentsandsubmissions(e.g. GovLoop, a US‐based social network for government2.0 issues, see SteveRessler's chapter).Actors outside gov‐ernmentarealsobeginningtodeveloponlinetoolsforlink‐ing publicly available information in innovative ways andwithgeospatialinformation(e.g.MapLight.orglinkingcam‐paigncontributionsandlegislators’votesintheUS).

• Participation:Online collaborative tools, suchaswikis and

data‐sharing sites, allow asynchronous collaboration withactors inside and outside government (e.g. New Zealand’sParticipatioNZwiki5).Theycanbeused topoolknowledgeand ideasbutcanalsoharness thepowerof tagging, rank‐ing,datavisualizationandstate‐of‐the‐artsearchenginesto

212

CADDY

sort through information, analyze data, establish prioritiesand develop recommendations (e.g. the USOpen Govern‐mentInitiative6).

Theparticipativewebisnowproducingnewtoolsandfunctionali‐tiesatabewilderingpace.WhowouldhavethoughtjustayearagothattherewouldbeaneedforgovernmentguidelinesontheuseofTwitter?7Navigatingsuchrapidsrequiresnervesofsteelandasolidsetofprinciplesasarudder.Backin2001,theOECDpublishedasetoftenguidingprinciplesforinformation,consultationandactiveparticipationinpolicymaking,which have since been widely cited and used.8 To follow up onthese, we recently conducted a survey that asked government re‐spondentshowtheyhadfaredwhenimplementingthem.Basedonresponsesfrom23countries,andfeedbackfromcivilsocietyorgani‐sations in 14 countries, the principles have been updated and re‐released(seeendofthischapter).Our survey showed that, over the past six years, for themajority(58%) the greatest progress had beenmade in establishing rights.Indeed,all30OECDcountriesexceptLuxembourg(wheredraftingisunderway)nowhave legislationtoensurerightsofaccess to in‐formation.Thesecondmostimportantareaofprogresswasthatofactive citizenship, citedbyover a third (38%)of respondents, fol‐lowedbycommitment,citedbyaquarter(25%).Whenaskedwhichprinciplesprovedhardest toapply,almosthalfthe respondents (45%)pointed toa lackof resourceswhileover athird(36%)sawtimefactorsasthemostchallenging.Almostathird(32%) felt that evaluation was the hardest. Overall, governmentsappear to be saying: “we have established rights, we have activecitizensandacommitmenttoengagetheminpolicymakingbutwefacechallengesofresources,timeandalackofevaluation.”

213

STATEOFTHEEUNION

The value of open and inclusive policymaking is nowwidely ac‐ceptedamongOECDcountries.Translatingthatcommitment intopracticeremainsachallenge.Governmentsnowneedto:

• Mainstreampublicengagementtoimprovepolicyperform‐ance. Real investments are needed to embed open and in‐clusive policy making as part of government’s “core busi‐ness”,buildskillsamongcivil servantsandestablishasup‐portivepoliticalandadministrativeculture.

• Developeffectiveevaluationtools.Evaluatingthequalityofopen and inclusive policy making processes and their im‐pacts is a new frontier for most governments. Countriesneedtopooltheireffortstodevelopappropriateevaluationframeworks,toolsandtraining.

• Leveragetechnologyandtheparticipativeweb.Blogs,wikisand social media do not automatically deliver public en‐gagement. The conceptual models underpinning the par‐ticipative web (i.e. horizontal vs. vertical; iterative vs. se‐quential; open vs. proprietary;multiple vs. binary)may bemore powerful, and of wider application, than the toolsthemselves.

• Adopt sound principles to support practice. “One size fitsall”isnotanoption.Tobeeffective,openandinclusivepol‐icy making must be appropriately designed and context‐specificforagivencountry,levelofgovernmentandpolicyfield. Yet a robust set of principles can guide practitionerswhen designing, implementing and evaluating their initia‐tives.

Whatevertheirstartingpoint,governmentsinallcountriesareatacrossroads. The creative collision of three broad agendas – publicsector reform, technology and public engagement – is generatingnew ways for them to achieve tangible improvements in people’slives.Successfuladoptionwillrequireashiftfrom“government‐as‐usual” to a broader governance perspective.Onewhich builds on

214

CADDY

the twin pillars of openness and inclusion to deliver better policyoutcomes and high quality public services not only for, but with,citizens.GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR OPEN AND INCLUSIVE POLICYMAKING9These Guiding Principles are designed to help governmentsstrengthenopenandinclusivepolicymakingasameanstoimprovingtheirpolicyperformanceandservicedelivery.

1. Commitment:Leadershipandstrongcommitmenttoopenandinclusivepolicymakingisneededatalllevels–politicians,seniormanagersandpublicofficials.

2. Rights:Citizens’rightstoinformation,consultationandpublicparticipationinpolicymakingandservicedeliverymustbefirmlygroundedinlaworpolicy.Governmentobli‐gationstorespondtocitizensmustbeclearlystated.Inde‐pendentoversightarrangementsareessentialtoenforcingtheserights.

3. Clarity:Objectivesfor,andlimitsto,information,consulta‐tionandpublicparticipationshouldbewelldefinedfromtheoutset.Therolesandresponsibilitiesofallpartiesmustbeclear.Governmentinformationshouldbecomplete,ob‐jective,reliable,relevant,easytofindandunderstand.

4. Time:Publicengagementshouldbeundertakenasearlyinthepolicyprocessaspossible,toallowagreaterrangeofso‐lutionsandtoraisethechancesofsuccessfulimplementa‐tion.Adequatetimemustbeavailableforconsultationandparticipationtobeeffective.

5. Inclusion:Allcitizensshouldhaveequalopportunitiesandmultiplechannelstoaccessinformation,beconsultedandparticipate.Everyreasonableeffortshouldbemadetoen‐gagewithaswideavarietyofpeopleaspossible.

6. Resources:Adequatefinancial,humanandtechnicalre‐sourcesareneededforeffectivepublicinformation,consul‐tationandparticipation.Governmentofficialsmusthave

215

STATEOFTHEEUNION

accesstoappropriateskills,guidanceandtrainingaswellasanorganizationalculturethatsupportsbothtraditionalandonlinetools.

7. Co‐ordination:Initiativestoinform,consultandengagecivilsocietyshouldbecoordinatedwithinandacrosslevelsofgovernmenttoensurepolicycoherence,avoidduplicationandreducetheriskof“consultationfatigue”.Co‐ordinationeffortsshouldnotstifleinitiativeandinnovation,butshouldleveragethepowerofknowledgenetworksandcommuni‐tiesofpracticewithinandbeyondgovernment.

8. Accountability:Governmentshaveanobligationtoinformparticipantshowtheyuseinputsreceivedthroughpublicconsultationandparticipation.Measurestoensurethatthepolicy‐makingprocessisopen,transparentandamenabletoexternalscrutinycanhelpincreaseaccountabilityof,andtrustin,government.

9. Evaluation:Governmentsneedtoevaluatetheirownper‐formance.Todosoeffectivelywillrequireeffortstobuildthedemand,capacity,cultureandtoolsforevaluatingpub‐licparticipation.

10. Activecitizenship:Societiesbenefitfromdynamiccivilsoci‐ety,andgovernmentscanfacilitateaccesstoinformation,encourageparticipation,raiseawareness,strengthenciti‐zens’civiceducationandskills,aswellastosupportcapac‐ity‐buildingamongcivilsocietyorganizations.Governmentsneedtoexplorenewrolestoeffectivelysupportautonomousproblem‐solvingbycitizens,CSOsandbusinesses.

JoanneCaddy(@joannecaddy)iscurrentlyCounsellorandCommunicationsManagerattheOECDDirectorateforEducation.Sheledworkonopengov‐ernmentandpublicengagementattheOECD'sDirectorateforPublicGov‐ernanceandTerritorialDevelopmentforclosetoadecade.In2006,shewasseconded to theNewZealandState ServicesCommission (SSC) for a year,wheresheservedasSeniorAdvisorandhelpeddrafttheSSC“GuidetoOn‐lineParticipation”onawiki,with inputsfromabroadcommunityofprac‐tice.JoanneisaBoardmemberofE‐Democracy.organdamemberofIAP2.

216

CADDY

SheearnedaBAinNaturalSciencesatCambridgeUniversity(UK),anMAinPoliticalScienceatTheJohnsHopkinsUniversityandadoctorateinPo‐liticalScienceattheEuropeanUniversityInstituteinItaly.1TheopinionsexpressedinthischapterarethesoleresponsibilityoftheauthoranddonotreflectthoseoftheOECDorofthegovernmentsofitsMemberCoun‐tries.ThischapterisbasedonFocusonCitizens:PublicEngagementforBetterPolicyandServicesISBN978‐92‐64‐04886‐7©OECD2009.Thefullreportin‐cludes14in‐depthcountrycasestudiestoillustratecurrentpracticewhileshortopinionpiecesfrom18governmentandcivilsocietypractitionersproviderichinsightsintocurrentchallenges.Formoredetails,multilingualsummariesandavideosee:http://j.mp/13BNMv

2KlingemannD.andD.Fuchs(eds.)(1995),CitizensandtheState,OxfordUniver‐sityPress.

3StateServicesCommissionofNewZealand(2007),GuidetoOnlineParticipation,seehttp://j.mp/4nlIp

4 Formoreinformationsee:http://www.oecd.org/FutureInternet5http://wiki.participation.e.govt.nz/wiki6http://www.whitehouse.gov/Open/7http://j.mp/3wpN148Thetenguidingprinciplespublishedin2001were:commitment,rights,clarity,time,objectivity,resources,co‐ordination,accountability,evaluationandactivecitizenship,CitizensAsPartners:Information,ConsultationAndPublicParticipa‐tioninPolicy‐Making,ISBN:9789264195394,©OECD2001,p.15.

9TheGuidingPrincipleswerereviewedbytheOECDPublicGovernanceCommit‐teepriortopublicationinthe2009reportFocusonCitizens:PublicEngagementforBetterPolicyandServicesISBN978‐92‐64‐04886‐7©OECD2009,p.17.TheyhavenotbeensubjecttoOECDCouncilapprovaland,assuch,donotconstitutealegalinstrumentandarenotbindingonOECDMembercountries.

217

#19

E‐PARTICIPATORYPLANNING:NECESSITYANDADVANTAGE

RolfLührs,BengtFeil&HaraldRathmannTuTechInnovationGmbH

The European Union is an area inhabited by approximately 500millionpeople,whichtranslatesasadensityof 114 inhabitantspersquare kilometre1, making it one of the most densely populatedareasintheworld.Insuchanenvironment,andespeciallyinurbanareas,thedecision‐makingprocessesrelatedtotheuseof landarebeset with conflicts and competing interests. Spatial planning isthereforeacoretaskofpublicadministrationsinEurope.To address this difficult situation, the European Union and itsmember states have put in place highly formal procedures,whichare aimed at resolving the conflicts and problems in the field ofspatial planning. These procedures are codified in European,nationalandlocallaw,andestablishandclearlydefinetheneedforpublic involvement in spatial planning processes. From the 1970son,theparticipatoryaspectsofplanning“begangaininginimport‐

218

LÜHRS,FEIL&RATHMANN

anceastherecognitionofdifferencesintheidentityandknowledgebase of people became a central issue.”2 Consequently, public ad‐ministrationsatdifferentorganisationallevelsinEurope,andespe‐ciallyatthelocallevel,areobligedbylawtoopenupparticipatorychannelsintheirspatialplanningprocesses.In this chapter we argue that electronic tools can provide manyadvantagesover the traditional analoguewayoforganising formalparticipationinspatialplanningbydiscussingthedifferentexpecta‐tions and needs of the stakeholders involved and describing thepositiveimpactofelectronictools.Furthermore,thediscussionwillshow how electronic tools in formal participation in spatial plan‐ningcanbridgethegapbetweene‐Participationande‐Governmentby simultaneously meeting the sometimes varying needs of allstakeholders. The different legal frameworks, which require thatparticipationby thegeneralpublicandpublicagencies is formallyorganizedbylawintheEuropeanUnion,willbediscussed.Thefindingswillbeillustratedandvalidatedusingthetrialproject“SpatialPlanningOnlinePilot”(BOP)3inHamburg/Germanyasanexample.Thisprojectemployedanonlineparticipationplatformtotransfer the offline process of mandatory participation in spatialplanningtotheweb.The participatory elements in the spatial planning process try tofulfil a number of different aims in this conflict‐laden field4. Thethreemainaimsare:

• Fulfillingthedemocraticneed:Spatialplanninghasadirectinfluenceonthepublic,businessesandtheenvironment,forexample.Sincetheresultsofplanninghaveadirectimpactonthepublic,thereisademocraticneedtoopenuppartici‐patorychannelstopreventpublicplanningproposalsthatareinconflictwiththepublicinterest.

• Producingbetterplans:Byinvolvingpublicagencies,thegeneralpublicandotherstakeholders,suchaspartsofthepublicadministrationnotdirectlyinvolvedwithspatial

219

STATEOFTHEEUNION

planning,energysuppliersorenvironmentalNGOs,thequalityoftheplanningproposalisimproved.Forexample,publicagenciesareabletoprovideadditionalinformationabouttheplanningareaorspecificcircumstancesrelatedtotheplansunderdiscussion.

• Improvingtheacceptanceofplanningdecisions:Byallowingthepublictogetinvolvedearlyintheplanningprocess,thelevelofacceptanceforthefinaldecisiononhowacertainareashouldbeusedisimproved.Bothpublicagenciesandthepublicareabletofeedintheircommentsandcriticisminaformalisedway.

Theclearneedforparticipationbyboththegeneralpublicandpub‐licagenciesinspatialplanningisrepresentedinlegalframeworksatthe different organisational levels in Europe. The EC directive onthe assessment of the effects of certainplans andprogrammesontheenvironmentstatesthat“itisnecessarytoprovidethatauthori‐tieswithrelevantenvironmentalresponsibilitiesandthepublicaretobeconsultedduringtheassessmentofplansandprogrammes.”5The2003directiveforpublicparticipationinrespectofthedrawingup of certain plans and programmes relating to the environmentsupports this point6. Therefore public involvement is necessary ineverycaseinwhichenvironmentalimpactcouldbepossible.The law concerning participation in spatial planning at nationallevel has to be compliant with these EC directives and in manycasesbuildsuponalonghistoryofparticipatoryelements.GermanyandEnglandwillbeusedasexamples for legal frameworks,whichgovernparticipationinspatialplanning.InSweden7andDenmark8similarprocedurescanbefound.InGermany,theBaugesetzbuch(PlanningandBuildingLaw)statesin§3thatthepublicshouldbeinformedearlyintheplanningpro‐cess and should have the possibility to comment on the planningproposals9. In§4 the same is stated forpublic agencies10. In2004the above mentioned EC directives were incorporated into theGerman legal framework. In summary, the participatory methods

220

LÜHRS,FEIL&RATHMANN

institutedbyGerman law are an effectiveprocesswhichhas beenimprovedbythelegislatorandsecuresahighlevelofparticipatoryquality11.The basis for participation in spatial planning in England is the“TownandCountryPlanningAct1990”(TCPA)12.TheTCPAstatesthat all natural persons should have the possibility of influencingthe planning process at an early stage. The law orders the localplanning administration to consult the “local people” and “otherinterested bodies” in the planning process. This situation will befurther developed by the Planning Bill introduced by Secretary ofStateforCommunitiesandLocalGovernmentHazelBlearsin2007,whichclearlyindicatesthedutytoconsultthelocalcommunity13.Theaforementionedlegalframeworksinsomecasesalreadyrefertothepossibilityofusingelectronictoolsintheparticipatoryprocess.Thedirectiveforpublicparticipationinrespectofthedrawingupofcertainplansandprogrammesrelatingtotheenvironmentrequiresthat “thepublic [be] informed,whetherbypublicnoticesorotherappropriatemeanssuchaselectronicmedia.”14Anotherexampleisthe German Baugesetzbuch, which states that electronic informa‐tiontechnologymaybeused,andthatthepublicagenciesinvolvedandthegeneralpublicmayprovidetheirfeedbackusingelectroniccommunicationmethods(§4,Abs.4).The discussion in the field of participation and spatial planningsuggests, that “participation can be enhanced through the use ofgeographic information technologies (GIT).”15 The example givenlater in this chapter will support the argument that geographicalinformationsystems(GIS)haveapositive influenceonthequalityandefficiencyofparticipationinspatialplanning.The European Union is working on harmonising the Geo DataInfrastructure(GDI)inEuropethroughtheINSPIREproject16.TheINSPIREdirectivehastoberatifiedby15May2009byallmemberstates17. The directive clearly defines the goal for a consolidatedEuropeanGDI,includingexchangestandardsbetweenthedifferent

221

STATEOFTHEEUNION

organisationallevels.Theratificationofthedirectiveinallmemberstateswillthereforeforcelocalandnationaladministrationstoim‐prove andmodernise their GDIs to be INSPIRE compliant. Thesemodernisationeffortswillalsohaveapositiveinfluenceonthede‐velopmentandimplementationofelectronictoolsforparticipationinspatialplanning.

Hybridofe‐Governmentande‐ParticipationThree main parties are involved in official planning processes.Thesearethepublicadministrationresponsibleformanagingplan‐ning, public agencies representing specific interests in the com‐munityandthemembersofthepublicaffectedbytheplannedpro‐ject. These three groups have different and sometimes conflictingexpectations and interests related to the spatial planning action;thustheparticipatoryelementsofthisprocessshouldallowthemtosubmit their comments and criticism. This chapter will discussthesedifferentexpectationsandinterestsandarguethatelectronictools can help all three involved parties to reach their own goalsandproduceabetteroverallresultfromtheplanningprocess.Theinformation presented is mainly based on the results of the BOPproject.Public administrations organize the planning processes and theparticipatory elements according to laws and regulations. Besidesfulfillingthelegalobligationtoinvolvethecommunityintheplan‐ningprocess,theadministrationalsogainsanumberofadvantagesthroughe‐Participation.Byconsultingthepublicagencies, thead‐ministrationcollectsusefulinformation,forexampleaboutpossibleenvironmentalor infrastructure issueswhichmayhavebeenover‐looked in the planning process. Furthermore, the public adminis‐tration isdependenton theacceptanceof the finalplanningdeci‐sionbothbypublicagenciesandbymembersofthepublicaffected.Thein‐depthinformationandparticipatorychannelshelptosecurethisacceptanceandidentifyissuesoftheproposedplan,whichmaybeinconflictwiththepublicinterest18.

222

LÜHRS,FEIL&RATHMANN

Theworkload for the public administration is very high for everyplanningprocess.InthecityofHamburg,forexample,theaveragelengthofaplanningprocessis2.3yearsandmorethan6000sheetsofpaperaresentouttotheinvolvedpartiesifjustoneparticipatoryaction is required.Comments frompublicagenciesandthepublicreach theadministration inmanydifferent formats (letters, email,telephone calls, etc.) and the administration is forced to organisethisfragmentedflowofinformation.Electronictoolscandrasticallyimprovetheefficiencyoftheplanningprocessforthepublicadmin‐istrationbyreducingpaperworkandbringingconsistency intothestream of information. The Hamburg case showed that, eventhough thiswas an early attempt and the involved parties had togetusedtothesystem,thecoststothepublicadministrationwereconsiderably reduced. In addition to the gains in efficiency, thequality of information provided by the participants can be higherusingelectronictools.Inparticular,thepossibilityofincorporatingGeoInformationTechnologyintothetool,allowingtheparticipantsto add geographical data to their comments, is very useful in thisrespect.ForPublicAgencies, the involvement inplanningprocesses is im‐portantforreasonsotherthanthoseapplyingtopublicadministra‐tions.Aspublicagenciesrepresentaspecificprofessionor interestgroup, they are interested in making sure that their specific rec‐ommendationsandviewsaretakenintoaccountbythepublicad‐ministration. Inmanycases thepublicagencies involvedareunitsinside the public administration, as for example the environmentagencies. However, external parties such as the local energy sup‐plierorNGOsarealsoinvolved.Oftentheinvolvementinplanningprocessesisalsomandatoryforthe public agencies, which results in a significant amount of re‐sourceshavingtobecommitted.Accordingly, it is intheir interestto improve the efficiency of planning processes. By providing allnecessary information on specific plans, feedback channels andinformation about the status of planning processes through elec‐tronic tools, the public agencies involved can improve their own

223

STATEOFTHEEUNION

workflows. A large majority of the involved parties in Hamburgagreedthattheefficiencyofplanningprocesseswouldbegreaterifsuchtoolswereused.Publicagenciesarehighlyspecialisedorgani‐sations that inmany casesmake use ofGIS tools themselves. Forexample,energysuppliersuseGIStomanagetheirpower linesys‐tems and environmental organisations to keep track of pollution.By using Geo Information Technology in the planning process,these systems can be linked directly into the process, helping toimprove the quality of comments and remarks and therefore sup‐portingthespecificrecommendationsmadebypublicagencies.Thethird involvedparty isthemembersofthepublicaffected.Theinputofthispartyisveryimportanttoensurethatplanningactionsdonotviolate thepublic interestand that local circumstancesaretakenintoaccount.Thetwomainadvantagesforthepublicarethattheyare informedindetailabouttheplanningactionandthat,byparticipatingintheplanningprocess,theyareabletointerveneandinfluencetheoutcomeofaplanwhichdirectlyaffectsthemintheireverydaylives.Theycanalsousethefeedbacksystemtobringtheirownindividualintereststothepublicadministration’sattention.Inaddition to theseadvantages, theactofparticipating in importantdecisionsatlocallevelisanimportantelementofparticipatoryde‐mocracy19.The general public may be the group gaining the most improve‐ments fromtheuseofelectronic tools toorganisemandatorypar‐ticipationinurbanplanning.Inmanycases,asforexampleinGer‐many20, there is no requirement for public administrations to in‐formthepublicaboutongoingplanningprocessesotherthanbyanotice intheadministrativebuildingandanannouncement intheofficial administration publication. The plan under discussion canthenonlybeviewedandcommentedonbymembersofthepublicduringofficehours in thepublicadministration’s facilities.Conse‐quently,thevisibilityandaccessibilityoftheplanningprocessandthe related provisions for participation are dramatically improvedbyofferingthe informationandfeedbackchannelsonline.Thisal‐lowsmembers of the public to review and comment on plans on

224

LÜHRS,FEIL&RATHMANN

theirown termsandopensup theparticipatorychannels to thosewhowouldhavenotbeen able touse the analogue channels.ThevisualisationprovidedbyGITaspartofanelectronictoolcanhelpmembers of the public understand the issues related to the planbetterandalsoprovidethemwithamorehapticwayofinteractingwith the planningmaterial. This assessment is strongly supportedbytheresultsoftheHamburgtest.Thedifferentexpectationsandneedsof the involvedparties rangewidely, from efficiency in administrative processes to better localdemocracythroughcommunityinvolvement.Aselectronictoolsforparticipation inspatialplanningdonotseektoreformthepartici‐patoryprocessitself,buttosupportitbyopeningupnewandeasytousechannelstoallpartiesinvolved,theycanbeseenasahybridbetweene‐Governmentande‐Participation.Whileelectronic toolshelp to reduce the workload of public administrations related tomandatoryparticipation, theyalsoopenupchannels formembersofthepublictoparticipateinlocaldemocracy.

DevelopmentandtestinGermanyThecityofHamburgstartedtheproject“SpatialPlanningOnline–Pilot"21 (BOP) in November 2007. The aim of the project was todevelopane‐ParticipationsolutionforthespatialplanningprocessintheHamburgmetropolitanarea.Thecity’sgoalsweretoimprovetheinformationavailabletomem‐bersofthepublicandpublicagencies,andincludetheminadmin‐istrativedecisions.Hamburgdecided thatelectronic tools (e.g. In‐ternet‐based ones)were the bestway to achieve these goals. Thisstrategywas in linewithcitypolicy,as includingthepublic inthespatialplanningprocessviae‐ParticipationhasbeenapartofHam‐burg’se‐Governmentstrategysince2005.The spatial planning process inHamburg is very complex and in‐volvesmanydifferentparticipants.Eachplanningprocess involvesseveralpublicagenciesandthemembersofthepublicaffected.The

225

STATEOFTHEEUNION

cityadministrationcarriedoutanin‐depthanalysisofallconditionsandprocesses related to spatialplanningbefore starting to imple‐mentanelectronicparticipationoperation.ThefirststepoftheBOPprojectwasabusinesstransactionanalysisofthespatialplanningprocessinthecityofHamburg22.Theanaly‐sis showed that the planning process consists of three buildingblocks– information,communicationandcoordination–andthatformalparticipationprocedurescanberesponsibleforupto60%oftotalplanningcosts.Basedontheseresults,TuTechInnovationGmbHdevelopedacon‐cept for an Internet‐based participation platform for the spatialplanningprocessinthecityofHamburg.Thedevelopmentusedtherapid prototyping approach, whichmeant that all stakeholders intheplanningprocesswereinvolvedinthedevelopmentoftheplat‐form from the earliest stages of the project onwards. Discussionswereheldwithallstakeholdersandthefunctionsoftheindividualdepartments were examined. After the development phase, theplatformwastestedin2008usingtwogenuineformalparticipationprocesses concerning spatial planning in Hamburg. The first testwas aimed at involving the public agencies and the second at thegeneralpublic.Bothtestswerehighlysuccessful.The participation platform presents all relevant planning docu‐mentsandmakesthemavailableinoneplaceandinaselectionofformats. The comments of public agencies and members of thepublic on the respective plans were delivered electronically andcouldthereforebeusedforfurtherprocessingwithoutanyconver‐sion. Statements could be referenced both to specific parts of theplanningtextsandtheactualmapsoftheplan.Thecombinationofdigital statements and web mapping exceed the possibilitiesrealised in other municipalities to date. The developed platformofferedextensivepossibilities foroverlayingpersonalgeodatawiththe existing plan data using international standardised interfaces(OGC conformity23). For the representation of the spatial plans

226

LÜHRS,FEIL&RATHMANN

used,thenewGermanstandardXPlanung24,25wasusedforthefirsttimeinHamburg26.InHamburg,60‐90publicagencieshavetotakepartineachplan‐ningprocess.Thecontactdata forall theseagencieswasmanagedinacentralregisterbytheplanningauthorityanduserswerepro‐videdwithanaccount to log inon the Internetplatform. Inmostcases,theplanningdocumentswerenotsentinprintedform.Onlyif theagencyexplicitly asked for thematerialwas it alsoprovidedonpaper.Afterregistration,publicagencieshadaccesstoallplan‐ning documents on the platform. Furthermore, public agencieswere able to involve others in the planning process. Commentswerestoredasdraftsontheplatformandcouldbesenttotheplan‐ningauthorityafterafinalcheckbytheagency.Inordertokeepthehurdlefortheparticipationbythegeneralpub‐lic as low as possible, users were allowed access to the platformwithoutregistration.Allplanningdocumentsforthepublicpartici‐pationwere available freely.Comments couldbemade in relationtotextdocumentsorapointinthewebmappingtool.Theuserwasaskedtogivehisorhername,addressandvalidemailaddresswhensubmittingastatementonthedraftplans.The planning agencymust consider the submitted comments andprepare themfor tablingbefore thedecision‐makingbodies (townplanning committee)27. All submissions were administered in aspecial areaon theplatform,whichcouldonlybeaccessedby thestaffmembersoftheadministration.Variousfunctionsforadminis‐teringthesubmissionswereavailabletoplanningauthorityperson‐nel. All steps taken by personnelwere separately saved in a data‐basetomakesuretheprocesswastransparent.Theplanningauth‐orityprovideditsanswertothecommentsdirectlyontheplatform.Inthefinalstep,thelistofthecommentsandanswerstothemwerepreparedforthedecision‐makingbodiesinprintedformusingtheexportfeaturesoftheplatform.ThislistofcommentsandanswerscouldbeexportedintoanyofficesuiteorbearchivedintheHam‐burgdocumentmanagementsystem.

227

STATEOFTHEEUNION

In the context of the project, many requirements of the involvedpartieswereidentifiedandinmostcasesdirectlyincorporatedintothesystem.Anefficiencyanalysisconfirmedthatthesystemmadegoodeconomicsense.TheHamburgpilotprojectwillbefinishedbyearly2009.AfterwardstheparticipationplatformisscheduledtobemergedintotheHamburgIT‐infrastructureandlaunchedaspartoftheparticipationprocessforspatialplanningaffairs.The tool developed inHamburg has won the second price in the8the‐GovernmentCompetitionheldbyCiscoandBearingPoint28inlate2008.The Hamburg participation platform is a fully developed e‐Participationsolutionforspatialplanning.Afirstindependentver‐sion,calledDEMOS‐Plan,hasalreadybeenimplementedinanotherGermanregion.This chapter touches on a number of interconnected topics andseeks to provide a step‐by‐step argument in favour of electronictools forparticipationinspatialplanningandoutlinetheadvanta‐ges which all stakeholders could gain from implementing thesetools. The results of this discussion, and the recommendationswhichcanbederivedfromthem,arelaidoutinthischapter.ThelegalframeworksattheEuropeanlevel29clearlystatethatpub‐licparticipationinspatialplanningismandatoryforeveryplanningactioninwhichenvironmentalimpactcouldbepossible.Asalmosteveryplanningactioncouldhaveanenvironmentalimpactofsomesort,thisisadefactocallforpublicparticipationinallpublicplan‐ning.NationallawinthememberstatesoftheEuropeanUnioninmanycasesalreadycontainslanguagewhichmakesparticipationinplanning mandatory, as shown by examples from Germany andEngland.SomelegislativetextsatEuropeanandnationallevelsalsoexplicitlymentionthepossibilityofusingelectronictoolstoorgan‐isetheparticipatoryelements intheplanningprocess.These find‐ingsleadtotherecommendationthatplanningauthoritiesinpublic

228

LÜHRS,FEIL&RATHMANN

administrations should work on setting up or improving the par‐ticipatoryelementsoftheirplanningprocessesandtrytomakeuseofelectronictools.Another conclusion of this article is that participation in spatialplanning involves a set of different parties with strongly differingand even competing interests in participating in the planning ac‐tion. These interests range from the gathering of professional in‐formationfrompublicagenciesandtheneedforpublicadministra‐tionstobuildacceptanceforaplanamongthelocalpopulation,tothewishbymembersof thepublic tobe involved in localdemoc‐racy.Thesedifferingviewstranslatetothevaryingadvantagesthatcouldbegainedbythedifferentpartiesfromusingelectronictoolsforparticipationinspatialplanning.TheHamburgcaseshowsthatthese needs have to be taken into account and integrated whenimplementinganelectronictoolforthispurpose.Electronic tools forparticipation in spatialplanningmustandcancover the different and competing needs and interests of the in‐volved parties. They could be seen as a hybrid between e‐Government and e‐Participation tools. This ability could lead tomandatory participation through electronic tools being seen as afirststepintothefieldofe‐Participationforpublicadministrationsbecauseitanswersaspecificrequirementtheyhavetofulfil,whileformembers of the public it opensup a participatory channel re‐lated to an issue that directly affects them. Other forms of e‐Participation,suchasideagenerationorparticipationinthelegisla‐tiveprocess,couldbeaddedlatertothee‐Participationprofileofacityorregionthatcametothesubjectviaspatialplanning.Finally,mandatoryparticipationinspatialplanningisanimportantfield both for e‐Participation and e‐Government related activitiesandopensuppossibilities forpublicadministrations,publicagen‐cies,thegeneralpublicandelectronictoolproviderstoimprovethequalityofplanningandlocaldemocracyinaprofoundway.

229

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Rolf Lührs (@somed)heads the department of InteractiveCommunicationat TuTech Innovation GmbH,Hamburg's agency for knowledge and tech‐nology transfer.Rolfhasworked foralmostadecade in the fieldsof socialscience,technologyassessmentandonlineresearch.Heholdsadiplomainsociology and has been involved inmany different national and Europeanresearchanddevelopmentprojects.During1999‐2003,Rolfwasthescientificandtechnicalmanagerof theEuropeaneDemocracyprojectDEMOS(Del‐phiMediationOnlineSystem).Since2008heisthecoordinatorofPEP‐NET,thePanEuropeaneParticionNetwork.Bengt Feil (@bengtfeil) holds a diploma in political science and works atTuTech’sdepartmentInteractiveCommunicationsince2007,mainly inthefield of E‐Democracy and increased citizen participation in planning anddecision‐making processes.Mr. Feil has experience in the fields the socialweb, internet and democracy and web‐technologies. His work combinessocial,politicalandtechnologicalunderstanding.Harald Rathmann holds a diploma in environmental sciences and has astrong focus on the topic citizen participation on the Internet. Before hecame to TuTech heworked as a specialist for internet based geographicalinformationsystemsandgainedintensiveexperienceregardingthefieldsofregionalplanningandgeographicalinformatics.AtTuTech,heisinvolvedinseverale‐participationande‐democracyprojectsandisanexpertforpublicparticipationinurbanland‐useplanning.

230

LÜHRS,FEIL&RATHMANN

1http://j.mp/3Hb4G2Lethonen,S.(2005).PublicParticipationinUrbanPlanningandStrategies–LessonsfrommediumsizedcitiesintheBalticSeaRegion,online:http://j.mp/2FLAyL,p.2.

3InGerman:BauleitplanungOnlinePilot(BOP).TheGermanabbreviationwillbeusedinthearticle.

4Hagenauer,M.(2006).InstrumentederÖffentlichkeitsbeteiligungimVerfahrenderBauleitplanung.DieRechtslageinDeutschlandundEngland,Würzburg:Hemmer/Wüst,p.1.

5DIRECTIVE2001/42/ECOFTHEEUROPEANPARLIAMENTANDOFTHECOUNCIL(27June2001),ontheassessmentoftheeffectsofcertainplansandprogrammesontheenvironment,online:http://j.mp/2GLpHi

6DIRECTIVE2003/35/ECOFTHEEUROPEANPARLIAMENTANDOFTHECOUNCIL(26May2003),providingforpublicparticipationinrespectofthedrawingupofcertainplansandprogrammesrelatingtotheenvironmentandamendingwithregardtopublicparticipationandaccesstojusticeCouncilDirec‐tives85/337/EECand96/61/EC,online:http://j.mp/18m9a7

7Becker,R;Rebsch,S.Wasgehtmichdasan?–ÖffentlichkeitsbeteiligungbeiderUmsetzungderWasserrahmenrichtlinie.Online:http://j.mp/6Y8Y2,p.1.

8graenselandsportal.eu.RaumplanunginDänemark.Online:http://j.mp/6Bpwn9Baugesetzbuch§3,Abs.1:„DieÖffentlichkeitistmöglichstfrühzeitigüberdieallgemeinenZieleundZweckederPlanung,sichwesentlichunterscheidendeLö‐sungen,diefürdieNeugestaltungoderEntwicklungeinesGebietsinBetrachtkommen,unddievoraussichtlichenAuswirkungenderPlanungöffentlichzuun‐terrichten;ihristGelegenheitzurÄußerungundErörterungzugeben."

10Baugesetzbuch§4,Abs.1:“DieBehördenundsonstigenTrägeröffentlicherBelange,derenAufgabenbereichdurchdiePlanungberührtwerdenkann,sindentsprechend§3Abs.1Satz1Halbsatz1zuunterrichtenundzurÄußerungauchimHinblickaufdenerforderlichenUmfangundDetaillierungsgradderUmwelt‐prüfungnach§2Abs.4aufzufordern."

11cf.Hagenauer,p.10812UnitedKingdom(1990),TownandCountryPlanningAct,online:http://j.mp/3y7vHv

13PlanningBill(2007).introducedbyHazelBlears,DepartmentforCommunitiesandLocalGovernmentandBaronessAndrews,CommunitiesandLocalGov‐ernment,online:http://j.mp/oXKjl

14DIRECTIVE2003/35/EC,article2.15Howard,D.(1998).GeographicInformationTechnologiesandCommunityPlanning:SpatialEmpowermentandPublicParticipation,APaperPreparedfortheProjectVareniusSpecialistMeetingonEmpowerment,Marginalization,andPublicParticipationGIS,p.1.;cf.Roeder,S;Voss,A.(2002).GroupDecisionSup‐portforspatialplanningande‐government.InGlobalSpatialDataInfrastructure(GSDI),online:http://j.mp/2lwI1I,p.3.

231

STATEOFTHEEUNION

16http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu/17DIRECTIVE2007/2/ECOFTHEEUROPEANPARLIAMENTANDOFTHECOUNCIL(14March2007),establishinganInfrastructureforSpatialInformationintheEuropeanCommunity(INSPIRE),online:http://j.mp/VVFZQ

18cf.TuTechInnovationGmbH(2008).BauleitplanungOnline–PilotPro‐jektbericht–Version1.0(BOPProjectReport),notpubliconDecember10th2008.

19Comparabletotheconceptof“strongdemocracy"byBenjaminR.Barber.20BundesrepublikDeutschland.Baugesetzbuch.Lastchanges:21.12.2006(BGBl.IS.3316)m.W.v.01.01.2007.

21AprojectdescriptionwillbeprovidedtoePractice.euinearly2009.22Giesenhagen,A.(2006).GeschäftsprozessanalyseundeGovernmentPotenzialedesPlanfeststellungsverfahrensfürBebauungspläneinderFreienHansestadtHamburg,ManagementSummary,KnowlogySolutionsAG/B.I.T.ConsultGmbH,Hamburg.

23OpenSpacialConsortium(OGC).OfficialWebsite.Online:www.opengeospatial.org

24XPlanungE‐GovernmentProject.Officialwebsite.Online:www.xplanung.de25DeutschlandOnline(2008).DeutschlandOnlineVorhabenGeodaten,Teilpro‐jektXPlanung–AustauschstandardinderBauleitplanung,Berlin.

26Geschäfts‐undKoordinierungsstelleGDI‐DE(2007).AbschlussberichtzumModellprojekt“XPlanung",Frankfurt.

27FreieundHansestadtHamburg,BehördefürStadtentwicklungundUmwelt(2008).“PlanenSiemit",Hamburg.

28http://www.egovernment‐wettbewerb.de/292001/42/ECand2003/35/EC

233

#20

WASHINGTONGOESTOMR.SMITH:GLIMPSESOFTHEFUTUREOFAMERICANDEMOCRACY?

MattLeighningerExecutiveDirector,DeliberativeDemocracyConsortium

In themovieMr.SmithGoes toWashington,our innocent leadingman,playedby JimmyStewart,becomesa senatoralmostbyacci‐dent. He has only one legislative priority: setting up a summercamp for boys inhis home state. In order to accomplishhis goal,andensurethatthevoicesofhisconstituentsareheard,heisforcedtoshoutabovethedinofbigmediaandcorruptpoliticians.Duringadramaticfilibuster,thestrengthofhisconvictionshinesthrough,andhewinstheday.Foravarietyofreasons,agrowingnumberoffederalmanagersaretryingtoreversetherolesinFrankCapra’sscript.Inordertokeeppublicdecisionsfromturningintopoliticaldebacles–andinordertomake their own voices heard over the din of activists and themedia–theyarebringingthosedecisionsdirectlytocitizens.Theywant citizens to take on an intermediary role in policy develop‐ment, somewhere between utter ignorance and absolute control.

234

LEIGHNINGER

They want ordinary people to become more informed about theissues,settlesomeoftheirdisagreements,andappreciatethetoughchoices that officials are forced tomake. In agencies asdiverse astheCentersforDiseaseControl,EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,FederalHighwayAdministration,andtheNationalNanotechnologyCoordinatingOffice,WashingtonisgoingtoMr.Smith.Thistrendhasbeenevidentforsometime,butthe2008presiden‐tial election and the advent of the Obama Administration havegivenitaddedmomentum.Theelectionshowedthatthenewatti‐tudesandcapacitiesofordinarycitizenscouldbeharnessedaspartofanationalelectoralstrategy;thechallengeofthenewadministra‐tion is to transfer thatenergy into theday‐to‐dayworkofdemoc‐raticgovernance.When they turn towardMr. (andMs.) Smith,managers generallyhaveseveralgoalsinmind:

• Gatheringpolicyinputfromabroadcross‐sectionofciti‐zens

• Defusingtensionandconflictaroundparticularpublicdeci‐sions

• Rebuildingpublictrustandhelpingcitizensunderstandhowdifficulttheroleofgovernmentcanbe

• Gainingabetterunderstandingofthelanguageandideastheywouldneedtouseinordertoreachevenlargernum‐bersofpeople

• Encouragingcitizens(andthenonprofitorganizations,ad‐vocacygroups,businesses,andfaith‐basedgroupstheybe‐longto)totakeactionsthatsupportandcomplementpublicpolicies.

Allofthesegoalsrespondto,andcapitalizeon,thenewcapacitiesand concernsof 21stCentury citizens.The change in citizenship ismost evident at the local level,where ordinary people are playingincreasinglyactiveroles–sometimesproductive,sometimesdisrup‐tive–inpublicdecision‐makingandproblem‐solving.Citizensmayhave less time forpublic life, but theybringmoreknowledge and

235

STATEOFTHEEUNION

skills tothetable.Theyfeelmoreentitledtotheservicesandpro‐tectionofgovernment,andyethavelessfaiththatgovernmentwillbe able to deliver on those promises. They are less connected tocommunityaffairs,andyettheyseembetterabletofindtheinfor‐mation,alliesandresourcestheyneedtoaffectanissueordecisiontheycareabout.Thebottomline isthatcitizensarebetteratgov‐erning,andworseatbeinggoverned,thaneverbefore.Atthelocallevel,thesetrendshavebeenevidentforsometime.Forthelastfifteenyears,thisshiftincitizenattitudesandcapacitieshascreated new tensions between residents and elected officials, pro‐ducednewpublic actors andproblem‐solvers, and inspired anewgenerationof civic experiments.The limitationsof the traditional,‘child‐parent’ relationship between citizens and government arebecomingmore obvious, and we are struggling to establishmoreproductive‘adult‐adult’formsofgovernance1.TheNationalLeagueofCities,theInternationalCity/CountyMan‐agement Association, and Philanthropy for Active Civic Engage‐menthavedescribedthisworkinreportslikeChangingtheWayWeGovern2andTheNewLaboratoriesofDemocracy3.Toaddressthesechallengesandopportunities,publicofficials,pub‐licemployees,andotherkindsof leadersaretryingvariousways–some successful, some not – of working more productively withcitizens.Severalsuccessfulprincipleshaveemergedfromthiswork:

1. Recruitingpeoplebyreachingoutthroughthevariousgroupsandorganizationstowhichtheybelong,inordertoassemblealargeanddiverse“criticalmass”ofcitizens.Thebestinvolvementprojectsmaptheircommunities,figureoutwhatpeoplebelongto,andconvinceleaderswithinthosegroupsandorganizationstorecruitpeopletheyal‐readyknow.

2. Involvingthosecitizensinacombinationofsmall–andlarge‐groupmeetings:structured,facilitatedsmallgroups

236

LEIGHNINGER

forinformed,deliberativedialogueandlargeforumsforamplifyingsharedconclusionsandmovingfromtalktoac‐tion.Oneoftheworstpracticesintraditionalcitizenin‐volvementhasbeentouselargemeetingsforthings(likedialogue)thatcanonlybeeffectiveinsmallmeetingsandviceversa.

3. Givingtheparticipantsinthesemeetingstheopportunitytocomparevaluesandexperiences,andtoconsiderarangeofviewsandpolicyoptions.Peoplehavetobeabletoconnecttheseissuestotheirownlivesandwhatmatterstothem.

4. Encouragingandeffectingchangeinanumberofways:byapplyingcitizeninputtopolicyandplanningdecisions;byencouragingchangewithinorganizationsandinstitutions;bycreatingteamstoworkonparticularactionideas;and/orbyinspiringandconnectingindividualvolunteers.There‐sultofthismorecomprehensiveapproachisessentiallypol‐icywithasmall‘p,’meaningnotjustlawsandordinances,butallthethingsthatallofuscandotosolvepublicprob‐lems.

Resources like Democracy, Growing Up4, Where Is DemocracyHeaded?5,FundingandFosteringLocalDemocracy6,andDemocracyasProblemSolving?7describehowthese sharedstrategiesevolved,spurredbychangingcitizenattitudesandcapacities.Thecoreprin‐ciplesunderpinningtheseprojectsaredescribedbyWillFriedman8,whopoints out that our attempts to involve citizens in federal is‐sues should capitalize on, and help to strengthen, these local de‐mocraticstructuresandopportunities.Manyoftheseeffortsuseonlinetoolsandtechnologiesasawaytocomplement face‐to‐face meetings. Others are purely online ex‐periments:PublicAgenda’sCenter forAdvances inPublicEngage‐ment(CAPE) 9categorizesthesedifferentkindsofprojectsandof‐fers practical suggestions for conducting them. Some of themostexcitingandsustainedprojectsareonlineneighborhoodforumslike

237

STATEOFTHEEUNION

theonesdescribedbyStevenClift10.Overall,theInternethasbeenunder‐utilizedinthiswork;onlinetechnologiesofferterrificpoten‐tial for trackingandmeasuringpublicengagement,providingnewincentives for people to participate, helping participants find theinformationtheyneed,andprovidingnewvenuesfordialogueanddeliberation.Though many of these examples show how democracy can workmore effectively and equitably on a temporary basis – on a singleissue for a short period of time – there are fewer instanceswherethenewstrategieshavebeen‘embedded’intothewaythatgovern‐ments and communities function. InhisEmpoweredParticipation,Archon Fung11 describes several communities where this has hap‐pened,andidentifiessomekeyingredientsforsuccess.Understand‐ingneighborhoodgovernanceisanessentialpartofthisquestion12.Weshouldn'tneglectthedemocracylessonsbeinglearnedinotherpartsoftheworld,particularly intheGlobalSouth.“ReversingtheFlow"13makesthisargumenteloquently,andanumberofstudies14summarize some of thework being done to revitalize governanceand strengthen democratic accountability in other parts of theworld. The British organization Involve15 has also produced manyexcellentreportsontheattemptstoreformdemocracyintheU.K.Thiswork has introduced new twists on timeless questions aboutpower, justice and equity.Do these forms of engagement providepowerfulnewopportunitiesforpeoplewhohavetraditionallybeenexcludedanddisadvantaged,orcan theyactuallyexacerbate long‐standingdivides and inequities?AlisonKadlec andWill Friedmanrecap16 this conversation, and lays out new directions for aligningdemocracy,equityandjustice.Buildingon theseprincipleswill be critical ifwewant to enhancedemocracyat the federal level.Thefederalagencieswiththemostexperience in citizen involvement tend to be the ones thatmakelocaldecisions–howtomanageatoxicwastecleanup,forexample,orwhethertoprotectanold‐growthforest–andtheirinteractions

238

LEIGHNINGER

with citizens usually focus on those local policies rather than na‐tional ones. However, citizen participation projects dealing withstateandfederalpoliciesareontherise,partlybecausesomeoffi‐cialsatthose levelsofgovernmentarenowfeelingthesamekindsof pressures as their local counterparts. Leading agencies like theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Centers forDiseaseControl andPrevention (CDC)have incorporated someofthese strategies into their work. In his Investing in Democracy,CarmenSirianniprovidesacomprehensiveoverviewandofferssub‐stantiatedproposals.Severalotherreportssupplyrecommendationsof,andfor,pioneer‐ing federal managers. On March 30‐31, 2009, at an event called“ChampionsofParticipation,” thirty‐fourmanagers from23differ‐ent federal agencies and departments came together to developrecommendations17forthePresident’sOpenGovernmentDirective.Also,onMay12,2009,nineteenseniorleadersfrom13federalagen‐cies and departments came together at the headquarters of theTransportationSecurityAdministrationtoofferideas18. InAugust2009,around100Americanexpertsandadvocatesofde‐mocracyreformcametogethertocreatenewmomentumandplansfor strengtheningdemocracyby engaging all citizens in the selec‐tion of their leaders, influencing laws and regulations, and takingpublicaction.AttheStrengtheningourNation’sDemocracyconfer‐ence, key leaders from the Obama Administration shared theirplansandaccomplishmentsintheareaofdemocraticparticipationandreform.Theparticipants,inturn,createdasetofprioritiesforadvancing democracy reform and open government, which theypresented toAdministration leaders. The conference resulted in apracticalagendaforaddressingtheincreasinglossofpeoples’trustin–andsenseofconnection to–our systemsofpoliticsandgov‐ernance. Participants developed 10 detailed recommendations andactionstepsforboththeAdministrationandthedemocracyreformmovementitself19:

239

STATEOFTHEEUNION

1. InvolvetheAmericanpublicinmeaningfuldeliberationsaboutimportantpolicyquestions

2. Supportandpromoteanelectoralreformagenda3. Improvefederalpublicparticipationandcollaboration4. ExplorelessonsfromtheOpenGovernmentDialogue5. Recognizeandsupportengagementcarriedoutbytradi‐

tionallydisenfranchisedcommunities6. Createareportonthehealthofourdemocracy7. Buildskillsandcapacityforpublicengagement8. Increasetheavailabilityoffederalfundingfordemocratic

participation9. Conveneaninternationaldemocracyconference10. Createanongoingmechanismforsustainingleadership

Theseattemptstoreachouttocitizensare,ononelevel,areversalofMr.SmithGoesToWashington.Buttheyaremotivatedbymanyof the same impulses apparent in Jimmy Stewart’s character: theneedtounderstandandexplaincitizenvalues inWashington,andthedesiretorebuildtrustandcommunicationbackhome.Thenewdynamic in 21st Century politics has given us a newurgency, andnewopportunities, to recast the relationshipbetweencitizensandgovernment.Matt Leighninger is the executive director of the Deliberative DemocracyConsortium. Portions of this essaywere adapted fromhis book,TheNextFormofDemocracy(VanderbiltUniversityPress).

240

LEIGHNINGER

1Forabrief,humorousvideodescribingthistransition,seehttp://j.mp/AIqgH2http://j.mp/2QZVXa3http://www.pacefunders.org/publications/NewLaboratoriesofDemocracy.pdf4http://j.mp/1Mpqj5http://j.mp/vy9GA6http://j.mp/vxco97http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=116278WillFriedman(2006)“DeliberativeDemocracyandtheProblemofScope,"Jour‐nalofPublicDeliberation:Vol.2:No.1,Article1.

9http://j.mp/2op5u10http://stevenclift.com/?p=15211http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7762.html12ThePromiseandChallengeofNeighborhoodDemocracy.http://j.mp/d806d13http://www.alliancemagazine.org/node/225914Seeforexample,http://j.mp/1SncBtandhttp://j.mp/1f3khr15http://www.involve.org.uk/16AlisonKadlecandWillFriedman(2007)“DeliberativeDemocracyandtheProb‐lemofPower",JournalofPublicDeliberation:Vol.3:No.1,Article8.

17http://j.mp/7IMHM18http://j.mp/KL28619ArchonFungetal(2009)WorkingTogethertoBuildaStrongerDemocracy:APreliminaryReportonTenProposalsforStrengtheningourNation’sDemocracy.August14,2009.http://j.mp/b00DZ

241

#21

PEOPLEPOWERCANREBOOTANATION

LeeBryantCEO,HeadShift

Weareluckytohaveastableandrelativelyfunctionalpoliticalsys‐temintheUK,foralltherecentdrama,andweshouldavoidthrow‐ingawaythatheritageinpursuitofchangeforitsownsake.But in addition to the obvious short‐term challenge of rebuildingfaith in our political and economic system,we face somedifficultlong‐termissuesthatrequire21stcenturysolutions.Facedwiththeplunderofthebanks,thegovernment'sanswerhasbeentobailout thebankersandhope(again) for trickledownef‐fects, ratherthan invest inpeopleandservicestocreatevalueandwealth.Theyhavespectacularlyfailedtodealwithbothboomandbust,andtheycontinuepullingtheirbig20thcenturyleversdespitethe fact these are no longer working. Although the governmentrealizestheinternethasakeyroletoplay,therecentDigitalBritainreport1 shows just how little they understand the online world.Asidefromtheobviousconclusionthatuniversalbroadband(whichshouldbe8Mbasaminimum)isanecessaryenablertoaninclusive

242

BRYANT

digitaleconomy,thereportseemsfirmlylocatedinthe1990sworldof‘contentproviders’,copyrightrestrictionsandnetworkoperators.Weneedtoshowthepoliticalelitewhattodo,andgetonwithfix‐ingthingsbeforetheygetmuchworse.Over the past decade, we have learned a lot about how networkthinkingandspecificallythesocialwebcandramaticallyreducethecosts of co‐ordination and collective action, allowingnewways ofinvolvingpeople inorganizational,democraticor socialprocesses.Many people have argued that government and industry shouldtakeadvantageoftheseinnovationstocreatemorepeople‐poweredorganizations.Now, in the faceof seriouscrises inboth theecon‐omyandthepoliticalsystem,andfacedwitharecessionthatcallsinto questionwhetherwe can even afford ‘business as usual’, it istime to take a serious look athowwe can leveragehuman talent,energy and creativity tobegin rebooting the system to create sus‐tainable,affordable,long‐termmechanismsforpublicengagement.Wehavebeentalkingaboute‐governmentforyears,andhavemadesteady progress with some of the enablers, such as online serviceprovision, the Government Gateway2 and a growing awarenessamong civil servants about online public engagement. But so far,this work has remained verymuch within existing organizationalboundaries. It has focused on how to enable communication andlimited interaction between government and citizens, but has notyetchangedeither theworkingsofgovernmentor theroleofciti‐zensinthatprocess.Thenextstagemustbetolookathowweleveragethevasthumanresourcesthatexistbothwithingovernmentandamongcitizenstoaccelerateprogressandhelpdevelopmodern,affordableservices.Debatesabouttheroleofgovernmenthavetraditionallyfocusedonthe rather fatuous issue of ‘big government’ versus ‘small govern‐ment’, more investment in public services or cuts. Yet, there isplentyofscopeforgovernmentthatis‘big’intermsofwhomitin‐cludes,but‘small’initsapproachtoinvestmentandbureaucracy.

243

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Smarter, simpler social technology has a key role to play here. Inthe 1980s and early 1990s, we saw ideologicallymotivated cuts inkeypublicservices,andtheeffectsofthesearewithustodayintheformofsocialproblemsandagrowinggapbetweenrichandpoor.From1997onwards,wehaveseenthatitispossibletospendagreatdealofmoneyonthesupplysideofpublicserviceswithdiminish‐ingreturnsatthepointofdelivery,asthemanagerialclasssoaksupa largeproportionof this spend.Perhapsmoreworrying,wehavealso seen a gradual disempowermentof front‐line staff in favor oftargets,‘bestpractice’andcentralized,process‐basedthinking.Wecanhavebothbiggerandsmallergovernmentatthesametime.Our society is capable of running itself better, and cheaper, if wetrustpeopletobepartofthesolution,ratherthanpassive‘consum‐ers’ofserviceswhojustgettoswaptheirrepresentativeseveryfouryears or so.We need to see government as an enabler or a forcemultiplierthatcancombinewiththeenergyandresourcesofordi‐nary people to improve governance and public service delivery.Therearemanyexamplesofhowwewasteenergyandresourcesbytreating citizens as passive recipients of services. Call centre‐stylecommunicationisoneexamplethathasbeenbadlycopiedfromtheprivate sector, where government spends a great deal of moneycentralizing a communication function that prevents interactionandtreatspeoplelikechildren.Attheotherendoftheline,citizensare forced to waste minutes (often hours) of their time for littlebenefit.Similarly, inhealthcare, ‘customers’areoftenhighlymoti‐vatedandwant to takeanactive role in theirdiagnosisand treat‐ment,but theyarenotalwaysallowedtodoso.Thisareaalone isone inwhich the potential for participative approaches to servicedesign and delivery could save many millions of pounds, whilstproducing better clinical outcomes, since feeling empowered andinvolvedtendstomakepeoplefeellessill.But this alsomeans re‐balancing our expectations of governmentandencouraging(andpossiblyeducating)ustotakemoreindivid‐ualandcollectiveresponsibilityforoursociety.

244

BRYANT

Socialtoolssupportingrealconversationbetweengovernmentandcitizenscanhelpthisprocessandhelppeopledeveloprealisticex‐pectations,ratherthanunlimiteddemands(e.g.Scandinavianserv‐iceswithAmericantaxes).Wehavealreadybeeneducatedaspas‐sive consumers, rather than equal participants in the process ofidentifying and solving problems. Taking more responsibility forourownlivesisnotalwayseasy,butitisbetterthansimplythrow‐ing demands at government and then being surprised when theycannotmeetthemall.Thefirstandmostimportantthingwecandoistomakebetteruseof government spending to make it go further. Government pro‐curementshouldbetreatedasastimulusfund,andusedtodeliversocial and economicbenefits aswell asproducts and services.BigticketprojectsinareassuchasIT,HealthandDefensehaveahighfailurerate,which ismadeworsebythetendencytoselecta largesupplierandrequire themtospendall themoneyup front inonebig hit. Instead, it makes more sense to adopt an investmentmindset and provide seed funding to various potential suppliers(ideallycommunitygroupsandsmallcompaniesaswellasgenericcorporations that specialize in outsourcing contracts), and thenprovidemore substantial first and second round funding to thoseprojectsthatshowpotential,untilaclearwinneremerges.Thisway,fundingcanbeleveragedtostimulateinnovationaswellasdeliveraservice,andaniterativemulti‐roundapproachismorelikelytopickwinnersthanjusthandingoverthewholethinginonego.Perhaps,drawingonthe lessonofSocial InnovationCamp3and4iP4,apro‐portionofalldepartmentalbudgetsshouldbeearmarkedforopeninnovationfundsinthehopethatwemightdiscoverthenextSur‐eStart5orsimilaridea.Ifwearetotargetspendingonpublicservicesbetter,thenwealsoneedbetterwaysofsurfacingandidentifyingneed.Toomanypub‐licsectorbodiesarecreatedaspartofashinypoliticalinitiativeandthenwastehuge sumsofmoneyconsolidating theirownposition,ratherthanhelpingpeople,beforefinallybeingwounddownaftera

245

STATEOFTHEEUNION

few years. The logic of the Vendor Relationship Managementmovement6 – thatpeople express theirneeds and intent and theninviteserviceproviderstofulfillthem–haspotentialtocreatemoreefficient public service deliverymechanisms. If governmentwantstousesocialmedia,thenagoodstartingpointistolistenandlearn.Beyond that, there shouldbemore thinkingabouthow to sampleneeds and demand in general, rather than the purely supply‐sidefocusthatgovernmentsareusedto.The second thing we can do is harness people power to improveexistingdemocraticandpublicservices.Oneofthebest lessonsofthe socialweb is the ideaof rapid feedback‐driven iteration as anevolutionarymodel.Thelaunchofaserviceisjustthebeginningofaprocesswherebyuser involvementandfeedbackisusedtomakeimprovementsandrefinements.Givingfeedbackneednotbeoner‐ous.Thereisawealthof(oftenignored)behavioralandusagedatathatcanprovideusefulfeedbacktodevelopersanddesigners,evenwhere it needs to be anonymized. Instead of ‘experts’ gatheringrequirements,obtainingahugebudgetandthenspending itall inone go, this evolutionary model seeks to co‐create services withusers.Thereisalotofgoodthinkingemergingaroundconceptsofservice (co‐)design in the public sector, and perhaps it is time toapply thisonabiggerstage.There isbothacostandaqualityra‐tionaleforcitizenstobeparticipantsintheprocessofservicedeliv‐ery,which impliesgoingwaybeyondthecurrentpracticeofocca‐sionalconsultation.Butcreatinguser‐drivenorganizationsisnotjustaboutrapidfeed‐backfromexternalusers;itmustalsoapplyinternallyaswell.Ingovernment,as inbusiness,wesufferfromorganizationalmod‐elsthataretooexpensiveandinefficienttosucceedinthecurrentclimate.Weneedtoplacepeopleaboveprocessand–assumingwehavehired the right individuals and trained themwell – let themgetonwiththeir job.Keytothis istheintroductionofsimple,so‐cialtoolsthatletpeopledeveloptheirownnetworkswithinorgani‐zationsandusethesetogetthingsdone.CorporateIThasbecome

246

BRYANT

a blocker, not an enabler, andweurgently need a new,more hu‐man‐scale approach to internal communications and knowledgesharingwithinorganizationsinboththeprivateandpublicsector.Theboomtimesofrecentyearshavehiddenagreatdealof ineffi‐ciency,andasrevenuesrecede,weneedflatter,moreagileorgani‐zational structures instead of the stultifying middle managementbureaucraticmachinesthatexistbecauseorganizationsfundamen‐tally don’t trust their own people, let alone their customers andusers.ThethirdpriorityforactionhasbeenwelldocumentedandarguedinthePowerofInformationTaskforceReport7(seeRichardAllan'schapter),which is theneed to openupdata of various kinds thatgovernment collects and holds. It should be a requirement of allgovernment‐fundedprojectsthattheysharetheirdataopenly,evenifitneedstobeanonymized.ProjectssuchasGapminder.orgshowhow hidden statistical data can be opened up to create new in‐sights, and the Show us a Better Way8 proof of concept projectshowsjusthowmuchvaluecouldbeunlockedbyencouragingnewandinnovativeusesofexistingdatasets.The big question, though, is how to achieve any of this. In theUnitedStates,federalCIOVivekKundrahasoutlinedplansforpur‐suingtheseideas,whichisunsurprisingsincetheinternetwascru‐cialtoObama’sspectacularrefactoringoftheUSbodypolitic.TheUSdata.govinitiativehassetthebarhighintermsofaccesstodata,and it is reasonable to expect that this translates into better gov‐ernmentandpublicservicesoverthemediumterm.IntheUK,therecent Cabinet Office initiative, prompted by Tim Berners Lee’sadvocacy of open data to PrimeMinister Gordon Brown over thesummer, is also a good start. Their new data site9 makes over athousand data sets available for developers to build on, many ofwhichhavebeenconvertedfromolder,lessaccessibleformats.Thisisagoodstart,ifsmallcomparedtothetraditionalITspendingthatcontinuesdayinanddayoutelsewhereingovernment.

247

STATEOFTHEEUNION

In theUK,we are still laboringunder a late 20th century govern‐mentinitsfinalphase,soweshouldnotexpecttoomuch.Perhapsitisbetterforallofustosimplygetonwithitandcreateourownstructures and services, as mySociety.org and others have pio‐neered,untilwehaveagovernmentthatunderstandstheinternet.LeeBryant(@leebryant)isco‐founderanddirectorofHeadshift,nowpartofthe Dachis Group, and is aiming to focus on the emerging area of socialsoftwareandsocialnetworking.Hehasbeenplayingwithwordsandcom‐puterssincetheageof10,andhasastrongbeliefintheempoweringpoten‐tialoftheinternet.Heisalsoaboardmemberofasocialenterprise,Involve,andatrusteeoftheFoundationforScienceTechnologyandCulture.1http://j.mp/xaQUv2http://www.gateway.gov.uk/3http://www.sicamp.org/4http://www.4ip.org.uk/5http://www.surestart.gov.uk/6http://j.mp/BGKsM7http://j.mp/1rTEPi8http://showusabetterway.com/9http://hmg.gov.uk/data

249

SectionIV

CO‐CREATION,INNOVATION&VALUES

250

ÖSTBERG

#22

PUBLICADMINISTRATION:LETTHEREBEE‐UNIFICATION,

AGAINANDAGAIN

OlovÖstbergProfessorEmeritus,MidSwedenUniversity

TheGovernmentofSwedenin2008decided1toreclaimworldlead‐ership in the e‐Gov ranking circusby 2010.Easier said thandone;policy documents alone will not overcome the age‐old gaps be‐tweenthethreelayersofpublicadministrationcontainingsomesixhundredindependentlymanagedagencies.At best, the agencies in the state sector capability cloud may bemanaged tomarch to the whole‐of‐government tune. Among theproblemsfacedintheattemptedparadigmshiftarenevertheless(i)unrealistic time scale, (ii) governance not possible without enter‐prise architecture, (iii) modeling end user needs cannot be leftsolely to individual agencies, (iv) clustersand federationsmustbedefinedbymeansof federation levelagreementsaswellas servicelevelagreements,(v)lowadherenceleveltoEU’sdirectivesonServ‐icesandPublic information re‐usagewillbe rewardedwith lowe‐

251

STATEOFTHEEUNION

GovEU ranking, and (vi) there are very fewmandatory standardsandprofilesforSwedishagenciesandnoSwedishNationalInterop‐erability Framework at the horizon. Among the positive signs arethatveryambitiousworkistakingplaceinthedefenseande‐healthsectors.Tocompensatefortheunrealistictimescale,andtosecurepublic value, it’s an absolute must that forums for e‐Gov discus‐sions, architectingworkand informationexchangeget establishedassoonaspossible.The term e‐Gov(ernment) has been around long enough to haveearned the epithet ‘traditional’. In the case of Sweden, there havebeen fouractionprograms tailored toevermore sophisticateduseof computingmachines in the public administration. Action pro‐gram #1 came about when a social democrat government in the50iesembarkedonamassivewelfareprogram,andstartingin2009,a centre‐right government is implementing program #4 so as tofirmly position Sweden as an international e‐Gov leader. On theotherhand,sincealmostallofoureverydaytasksinvolvetheuseofinformation and communication technology, it has been arguedthat it ismeaninglesstousetheprefix ‘e’asadescriptor.Yes, it ispossible todiscusspublicadministrationmodernizationandpara‐digmshiftswithouteverusingthat ‘e’,butthenitmerelybecomesanexercise, justaswhentheFrenchauthorGeorgesPerec in 1969managedtowritealongnovelwithouteverusingthevowel‘e’.Coming of age. As indicated by the series of action programs inSweden, today’s e‐Gov thrust has a sixty year’s history, and that'snot just in Sweden. The International Council for InformationTechnology in Government Administration (ICA2), a non‐profitorganization established to promote the information exchange ofknowledge, ideasandexperiencesbetweenCentralGovernmentITAuthorities, inOctober2009heldits43rd(!)annualconferenceinBrussels.InternetintermsoftheTCP/IPprotocolhasbeenaroundforfortyyears,andtheWorldWideWebprotocolHTTPfortwentyyears.

252

ÖSTBERG

One forAll, All forOne. This slogan has ever has since 1902 beenconsidered the motto of the Federal State of Switzerland. Themotto has been used to evoke a sense of duty and solidarity andnationalunityinthepopulationoftheyoungnation.Itcanalsobeused as a catchword for a federation in general — and for whatseemstobehappeningintoday’snetworkization.Amottomaybeseenasa ‘tool’ tocreateanaura. Inthesensesoftheperceivers,allmaterialorimmaterialobjectsandconceptshaveauras.Inhisseminal1935‐essayWorkofArt,GermanculturecriticWalterBenjamin(1892‐1940)noted3that:

"Just as the entiremode of existence of human collectiveschangesoverlonghistoricalperiods,sotoodoestheirmodeofperception.Thewayinwhichhumanperceptionisorga‐nizedthemediuminwhichitoccursisconditionednotonlyby nature but by history. The era of themigration of peo‐ples,anerawhichsawtheriseofthelate‐Romanartindus‐tryandtheViennaGenesis,developednotonlyanartdiffer‐ent from that of antiquity but also a different perception.[…]Thestrippingoftheveilfromtheobject,thedestructionoftheaura,isthesignatureofaperceptionwhosesenseforallthatisthesameintheworldsoincreasedthat,bymeansof reproduction, it extracts sameness even from what isunique.”

In thewritingsofMarshallMcLuhan (1911‐1980), and inparticularthrough“themediaisthemessage”message,theauradeformationtraitsoftechnologywereextendedandpopularized.Today’s digital gadgets and social software are doing just that;spreadingoftoolsandartifacts,taggingforsameness,instantshar‐ing, etc. In 2009, Sweden actually saw the formation of an e‐Communityof Interestpoliticalparty—thePirateParty4,winningone seat in the EU parliament— sharply focused on the view (i)thatOneforAll,AllforOneoverridesintellectualpropertylaws,(ii)thatcitizens' rightstoprivacyshallberespected,and(iii) that the

253

STATEOFTHEEUNION

patentsystemneedsanoverhaul.AsofOctober1,2009,PiratePar‐tieshavebeenestablishedin35countries5.Theoverarching2010objective for theSwedishe‐GovernmentAc‐tionPlan [2008] is “Assimpleaspossible forAsmanyaspossible.”Not toodifferent fromthatof thePirateParty.Perhaps this is thefirst sign of a worldwide Reclaim the Government concept in themaking—p‐Gov?Not justthee‐Govauraisreshapingitself,theverytimescalealsoseemstobechanging.Theequivalenttothedevelopmentthattookplaceinthepastthousandyearswillprobablybecompletedwithinthe coming hundred years. Developments are simultaneously andinteractively taking place in disciplines at an accelerating pace,makingitfutiletomakepredictions,evenaboutthenearfuture.RayKurzweil6talksabout“afutureperiodduringwhichthepaceoftechnologicalchangewillbeso rapid, its impactsodeep, thathu‐man life will be irreversibly transformed.” Neither utopian nordystopian,hedescribeshowthisepochwilltransform“theconceptsthat we rely on to give meaning to our lives, from our businessmodelstothecycleofhumanlife,includingdeathitself.”ToquotetheSingularityInstitute7:

"The Singularity represents an ‘event horizon’ in the pre‐dictabilityofhumantechnologicaldevelopmentpastwhichpresentmodelsof the futuremaycease togive reliablean‐swers, following the creation of strong AI or the enhance‐mentofhumanintelligence.”

As noted in the introduction, theGovernment of Sweden in 2008decidedtoreclaimworldleadershipinthee‐Govrankingcircusby2010.Strangelyenough,theGovernmentofSwedenalreadyin1994set the same goal for the very same 2010. Well, perhaps not sostrangeinthelightofAlice’sAdventuresinWonderland(LewisCar‐oll,1865):

254

ÖSTBERG

"Well,inourcountry,”saidAlice,stillpantingalittle,“you'dgenerallygettosomewhereelse—ifyourunveryfastforalongtime,aswe'vebeendoing.”

"A slow sort of country!” said theQueen. “Now, here, yousee,ittakesalltherunningyoucando,tokeepinthesameplace. If youwant toget somewhere else, youmust runatleasttwiceasfastasthat!"

The e‐Gov challenge is to become better at becoming better. To‐gether.OlovÖstberg(@OlovOst)servesasinternationalliaisontotheprogramonPublicInformationSystemsatMidSwedenUniversity.PriorthispositionasProf. Emer., Olov for twenty years held positions as e‐Gov adviser to theSwedishCentralGovernmentOffices,notablyone‐Democracyandthe24/7e‐Govagenda.Beforethathehadaprolificacademictrack—includingaCVlisting 236 publications and professor positions in Sweden, UK, USA, andJapan—inareasrelatedtoHumanFactors.1InJanuary2008,theMinisterforLocalGovernmentandFinancialMarkets,MatsOdell,announcedtheSwedishGovernment's“ActionplanforeGovernment–NewgroundsforIT‐basedbusinessdevelopmentinPublicAdministration"(HandlingsplanföreFörvaltning–NyagrunderförIT‐baseradverksamhetsut‐vecklingioffentligförvaltning).Englishdescription,seehttp://j.mp/njwjA.

2http://ica‐it.org/3WalterBenjamin(2008)WorkofArtintheAgeofItsTechnologicalReproduci‐bility,andOtherWritingsonMedia.HarvardUniversityPress.Originallypub‐lishedasDasKunstwerkimZeitalterseinertechnischenReproduzierbarkeitinZeitschriftfürSozialforschungin1935.

4http://j.mp/jA3d95http://j.mp/1PXLaC6RayKurzweil(2005)TheSingularityisNear.VikingPenguin7“Inthecomingdecades,humanitywilllikelycreateapowerfulartificialintelli‐gence.TheSingularityInstituteforArtificialIntelligence(SIAI)existstoconfront

255

STATEOFTHEEUNION

thisurgentchallenge,boththeopportunityandtherisk."http://www.singinst.org/

257

#23

CO‐PRODUCTIONOFPUBLICSERVICESANDPOLICIES:THEROLEOFEMERGING

TECHNOLOGIES

TonyBovairdINLOGOV,UniversityofBirmingham,UK

ElkeLöffler

GovernanceInternational,UK

JamesDowneCardiffBusinessSchool,CardiffUniversity,UK

Co‐production is rapidly becoming one of the most talked‐aboutthemes when working in public services and public policy inEurope,NorthAmericaandAustralia,asourrecentPolicyPaperforUKgovernmentdemonstrated1.However,asyettherehasbeennocoherentapproachatgovernmentlevelorintheacademiccommu‐nitytobringtogethertheevidenceonthepotential–andthelimi‐tations – of user and community coproduction of public servicesandpublicpolicies.

258

BOVAIRD,LÖFFLER&DOWNE

Thischapter2explorestwoverydifferenttheoreticalstrandsincur‐rent thinking on co‐production, which can deliver very differentrolesandoutcomes.The first approach–userco‐production– fo‐cuses on how co‐production can deliver individualized benefitsfromthedesignandoperationofpublicservices,whilethesecondapproach–communityco‐production–concentratesonmorecol‐lectivebenefitswhichco‐productioncanbring.Weshowthat thissecond approach is currently under‐developed and then go on toexplore how the potential benefits of ‘collectivized’ co‐productionmightbemoreeffectivelycapturedbypublicserviceorganizations.Wesuggestthatthetechnologicalsolutionsrequiredfor‘collectiveco‐production’aredistinctlydifferentfromthoseinvolvedin ‘indi‐vidualized co‐production’ and that collective co‐production basedonWeb 2.0 applications may in the future offer major improve‐mentstopublicserviceoutcomes.Theacademicliteraturehasviewedco‐productionthroughtheper‐spectivesofeconomics–lookingatjointnessinproduction;servicemanagement – where Richard Normann has argued3 that serviceeffectiveness depends critically on mobilizing the contributionswhichusersareuniquelyabletoprovide;andconsumerpsychology– which suggests that giving users a major role in service designand/oroperationbringsmoreusersatisfactionandcommitmenttothe service. But these approaches have severe limitations – theyshare the assumption that co‐production depends on individualsinteractingwith service professionals, either as users or as volun‐teersinthecommunity.Thismeansthattheoutcomesofuserandcommunity co‐producers can be calculated as the sum of users’outcomes.However,thisradicallyoversimplifiespublicserviceco‐production.First,theuserisoftennottheonlypersontobenefitfromthewaythe service is co‐produced –many others in the communitymayalso benefit. Secondly,much co‐production is engaged in becauseofdesiretohelpothers,ratherthansimplytoproducebenefitsforoneself.

259

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Inpractice,improveduser’soutcomesproduceaseriesofdifferenttypesofbenefitsforothers.Theseexternalbenefitsinclude:

• Thoseclosetotheuser(carers,friends,volunteers,etc.),whoexperiencetwokindsofbenefitwhentheuser’sout‐comesimprove:

o Areductioninthelevelofefforttheyneedtomaketomaintaintheserviceuser’squalityoflife

o Pleasureintheuser’simprovedqualityoflife• Otheruserswhocanlearnhowtomakebetteruseofthe

servicebytheexamplesetbytheserviceco‐producer(e.g.the‘expertpatient’whohaslearnttocopewithchronicdia‐betesorself‐administereddialysis)

• Othercitizenswhoanticipatethattheymayneedtousetheserviceatsometimeinthefutureandreceivebenefitsfromseeingthattheservicecanbemorecost‐effectivethantheyhadpreviouslysuspected.

Thesebenefitstosocietyarerealandtheyare important.Buthowaretheytobeproduced?Theyarereapedbyothersthanthepersonwhosebehaviorproducesthem.Co‐productionwhichisengagedinasaphilanthropic,ratherthanselfish,act,isnoteasytorationalizeunder the normal analysis of welfare economics or public choice(unlessonehypothesizestheexistenceofsomedirectreturntotheactivegiverbywayof ‘feelgood factor’,whichunfortunately isnotmeasurableandisalmosttautological–weonlysuspect it istherebecause the giver’s behavior suggests it is there). However,much‘collective co‐production’behavior, suchasvolunteering, isof thistypeandproducescollectivebenefitswhichcanbeofmajorsignifi‐cance.Somelightisthrownonthelevelofco‐productioninpracticebyarecent research project4 undertaken for the European Presidency,comparingthecurrentstateofuserandcommunityco‐productionin the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany and the UK,basedonasurveyofabout 1,000citizens ineachof the fivecoun‐tries,focusgroupswithserviceprofessionalsandmanagersineachcountry, and some in‐depth interviewswith a range of officers of

260

BOVAIRD,LÖFFLER&DOWNE

publicserviceorganizations(inpublic,privateandthirdsectoror‐ganizations) and with representatives of users and communitygroups.Thestudyfocusedonthreedifferentsectorswhichreflectdistinctlydifferenttypesofgovernmentfunctions:

• Communitysafety,asanexampleofcoerciveactiononthepartofthestate

• Localenvironment,asanexampleoftheregulatoryfunctionofthestate

• Publichealth,asanexampleofthewelfareimprovementfunctionofthestate.

Co‐productionbycitizens incommunitysafety, localenvironmentand public health may involve a whole range of activities, fromhelpingtoidentifytheproblems,helpingtopreventtheproblems,rightthroughtosolvingtheproblemsanddealingwiththedamagedone by the problems. In the survey, given the limited resourcesavailable and the short time afforded by telephone interviews,wedecidedtosurveyallcitizens,ratherthansurveyserviceusersonly(since it is much harder to achieve representative samples of thelatter).Thesurveyfocusedparticularlyonpreventativeactivitiesofcitizens,askingthemwhattheycurrentlydo–andwhattheywouldbepreparedtodointhefuture–tohelppublicagenciestopreventproblems from arising. However, in the community safety ques‐tions,citizenswerealsoaskedabouthowtheypersonallydealtwithsomeproblems,specificallyhowtheyreactwhentheycomeacrosscrime and anti‐social behavior – do they try to help the police todeal with the problem (or even take some form of direct actionthemselves)?

Howimportantistheroleofcitizensinpublicservicedelivery?Whenweaskedthisquestionofthefocusgroupsinthefivecoun‐tries, theoverall reactionofprofessionalserviceproviderswas“wedon’tknow…butprobablyratherlimited.”Afewparticipantseven

261

STATEOFTHEEUNION

complained about the relevance of this question. In particular, inthe three Danish focus groups sessions, representatives of publicagencies initiallyhadgreatdifficulty inunderstandingthetopictobe discussed. The same applied to the focus groups focusing onhealthissuesinmostcountries,whereparticipantshadtobechal‐lengedagainandagainbythefacilitatorstocomeupwithexamplesofcitizeninvolvementinservicedelivery.OnlytheGermanandUKfocusgroupsonhealth issues shared theview thatpreventionhasbecome amore important area inhealth care and that citizen in‐volvementplaysanimportantroleinthisarea.However,indramaticcontrast,whenweaskedcitizensabouttheirlevelof involvement inpreventionactivities related tocommunitysafety,localenvironmentandhealth,andwhenweaskedthemhowtheyco‐operatewiththepolicewhenbeingconfrontedwithcrimeoranti‐socialbehavior,theresultsshowedasignificantlevelofco‐productionbycitizensinthefivecountriesstudied,inallthreesec‐tors.Looking atwhat kind of contributions citizensmake on a regularbasis in each of these sectors, an interesting pattern emerges. Ingeneral, European citizens in the five countries show particularlyhighlevelsofengagementwhentheycanundertakeactivitieswhichdonotneedmucheffortbythemselvesanddonotrequiregettingin touch with third parties. This applies, for example, to lockingdoors and windows in their home before going out, recyclinghouseholdrubbishandsavingwaterandelectricity,whichabout80percent of citizens indicate as doing often. All these activities donotrequireinteractionswithothercitizensorpublicsectororgani‐zations.Whenitcomestomakingchangestothepersonallifestyle,thereisasharpdrop–e.g.inthenumberofcitizenswhowalk,cycleorusepublic transport, change to amorehealthydiet or try to exercise.Justabout50%ofcitizensreportedundertakingtheseoften.

262

BOVAIRD,LÖFFLER&DOWNE

Clearly, there are also activities that citizens are less inclined toundertake,atleastonaregularbasis.Interestingly,alltheactivitiesatthebottomoftherankinglistimplygettinginvolvedwithothers–beitaneighbor,adoctor,thepoliceorstrangers.At the very bottom of the responses on prevention activities is‘seekingadvice fromthepoliceonsafety issues.‘Only5%ofEuro‐peancitizensoftenaskthepoliceforadviceonhowtobestprotecttheir property,while 14 percent sometimes do so.UK citizens aremost inclined tomakeuseof this freeserviceprovidedby thepo‐lice,whereasDanishandCzechcitizensare themostreluctant. Inparticular, the Czech case is interesting. As the citizen surveyshows, Czech citizens feel relatively unsafe in their neighborhoodand we know from national crime statistics that property‐relatedcrimesmadeup70percentofallcrimes in2004.Eventhoughthenumberofpolicestaffdealingwithcrimepreventionhasincreasedin recent years, crime levels have stayed persistently high. In thisdifficultsituation,theCzechMinistryofInteriorlaunchedthe‘SafeLocality’Programin2007,whichencouragescitizenstotakeactionto protect their property. According to a Czech survey on safetyperceptions of the population, 40 percent of citizens know aboutthisprogram(seetheinterviewwiththeCzechMinistryofInteriorat www.govint.org). However, as representatives of the local andnationalpoliceandotherparticipantssuggestedinPragueduringadiscussion on the role of citizens in public safety issues, levels oftrust in the police are still low, which may be why only 1.3% ofCzechcitizensinthesurveyoftencontactthepoliceforcrimepre‐ventionadvice.There are quite a few other activitieswith rates of response simi‐larlylowtothoseincitizensseekingadvicefromthepolice.Inpar‐ticular, there were very low numbers of respondents who partici‐pate regularly in groups, whether the topic is community safety,localenvironmentorhealth.Thisclearlydemonstratesthatseekingto tackle these issues simply through organized associations hasmajor limitations–and these limitationsare likely topersist.Thisindicates the importance, towhichwewill return later, of getting

263

STATEOFTHEEUNION

people involved on an individual basis, and not simply throughthirdsectororganizations.Itisinterestingtoseehowmanypeoplearepreparedoftentotakestepstoencourageotherstobehavemoreappropriately,e.g.tellingthemnottodroprubbish(26%)andinterveningtostopanti‐socialbehavior(17%).Giventhatthesearehigheffortactions,andnottobeundertakenlightly,thisindicatesthatthereisasignificantgroupof thepopulationwho see themselves as real ‘activists’, at least inthose areas aboutwhich they genuinely care. It also suggests thatthe deterrent to involvement in group activities is not inherentlytheeffortinvolved.Inmany cases, these ‘activists’might be identical to the so‐called‘usualsuspects’,agroupfoundinallEuropeancountries.However,somecountriesseemtohavemorethanothers.Wecanseethatthelevel of regular participation of European citizens in groups andorganizationsishighestinhealth(9.7%),followedbyenvironment(7.9%) and then safety (5.9%).This is an interesting finding sincetheindexofoverallco‐productionactivitiesofEuropeancitizensishighestinlocalenvironmentandnotinhealth.Thefactthatmorecitizens ‘co‐produce’ inhealthbygettingorganizedmayindicatealackofavailabilityofindividualformsofco‐production,whichmaypartly be due to the attitudes of professionals working in healthcare as participants in several focus groups on health issues sug‐gested.Thenumberof ‘organizedactivists’ incommunitysafetyandenvi‐ronmentalissuesislowestinDenmark(2.4%insafety‐relatedorga‐nizations and 3.5% in environmental organizations), whereas theUK has the highest proportion of citizens who often take part inorganizationstoimprovesafetyintheirneighborhood(12.2%).Thisfindingisnotsurprising,giventhattherearemorethan10millionmembers inUKneighborhoodwatchgroups.TheUKalsohas thehighestnumberofcitizenswhooftengetinvolvedinenvironmentalgroupsandorganizations(9%),butalsoahighproportionofCzech

264

BOVAIRD,LÖFFLER&DOWNE

citizensoftenparticipateingroupsororganizationstoimprovethelocalenvironment(8.4%).As far as the participation of citizens in groups andorganizationsdealingwithhealthissuesisconcerned,13.5%ofCzechcitizensin‐dicatethattheyparticipateofteninsuchgroupswhereasinFranceonly6.5%ofcitizensdoso,withcitizens inothercountries fallingbetweenthesefigures.Insummary,thesurveyhasshownthat:

• Thereisalreadyalotmorecitizeninvolvementinpublic

servicedeliverythantheprofessionalstakingpartinourfo‐cusgroupswantedtoacknowledge.Thisisparticularlyevi‐dentinlocalenvironmentalandhealthissuesbutalso,thoughtoalesserdegree,incommunitysafetyissues.

• Thereislikelytobemorecitizeninvolvementinservicede‐liveryinthefutureduetothedemographicchangestakingplaceinmostEuropeancountries.Theinvolvementofciti‐zensindeliveringpublicservicesclearlyincreaseswithage,sothatthe‘ageingsociety’isgoodnewsintermsofincreas‐inglevelsof‘co‐production’.

• Citizensaremostwillingtomakeacontributiontowardsimprovingpublicserviceswhenitinvolvestheminrela‐tivelylittleeffortandwhentheydonothavetoworkcloselywithothercitizensorstaff,orprofessionalsinthegovern‐ment.

Whatdoes this imply forpublic servicedelivery and the attemptswhichhavebeenmadetoimproveservicequality?Sofar,thequal‐ityimprovementapproachesinmostpublicserviceshavetendedtofocus on how professionals can improve service quality and out‐comes.Indeed,themostcommonlyusedqualityassurancesystemstendtoviewserviceusersandsocietyfromtheperspectiveofwhatresults are achieved for them, rather than viewing them as a re‐

265

STATEOFTHEEUNION

source.Oncetheyareseenasaresource,workingwiththemhasaverydifferentsetof implications for themanagementandgovern‐ance of public services. However, this perspective is still far fromuniversal–asourfocusgroupparticipantssuggested,notallprofes‐sionalsworking in public services are prepared yet to give serviceusersamoreactiverole.

Relativepublicvalueof‘individual’and‘collective’co‐productionWhile the results above indicate that citizens are less inclined tospend theirco‐productionefforts ingroupactivities, thisdoesnotmeanthatsuchcollectivizedco‐production isunimportant.Asex‐amplesofhowimportantitistothecreationofpublicvalue,intheUK there are about 350,000 school governors,whonot only serveoncommitteestohelprunschools,butalsohavealegalliabilityfortheaffairsoftheschool;about5.6mpeoplehelptorunsportsclubs;750,000peoplevolunteertoassistteachers inschools; 170,000vol‐unteer in the NHS, befriending and counseling patients, drivingpeople to hospital, fund raising, running shops and cafes, etc. Ofcourse, these activities often bring individual benefits, too – forexample, school governors often have children in the school andparentsoftenhelprunsportsclubs inwhichtheirchildrenareac‐tive – but the point remains that they undertake activities whichhavepotentiallyimportantcollectivebenefits.Admittedly, these numbers are small (with the exception of thesportsclubvolunteers),comparedtothe1.8mregularblooddonors,the 8m people signed up as potential organ donors, and the 10mpeoplewithinNeighborhoodWatchschemes,allofwhicharemore‘lonely’activities,whichdonotneedtobeprogrammedtothesameextentwithinaperson’sdailytimetable.Nevertheless, the value of the contributionmade by co‐producerscannotbeestimated simplybyaheadcount.Thepotential ‘exter‐nal’ benefits listed in an earlier section suggest that collective co‐

266

BOVAIRD,LÖFFLER&DOWNE

production may be sufficiently attractive to make its increase anappropriate target for public intervention, if the costs were keptcommensurate.Inthenextsections,weconsiderhowthismightbeachieved.Thereareanumberofdifferenttheoreticalapproaches,whichcanhelpus toexplainwhat liesbehindthemarkeddifferences inciti‐zenresponsesinrespectofindividualandcollectiveco‐production:Socialnetworktheory:interactionsbetweennetworkagentsleadtosystem behavior that is non‐predictable from individual expecta‐tions because of the character of the links between actors in thenetwork.Social movement theory: mobilization of mass action is achievedthroughindividualwordofmouthandcommitmentstosmall‐scalejointaction,inconnectedchainsofactors,leadingtomajorcollec‐tiveactions,whichreinforcethecommitmentoftheactorstotheirlocalizedchoices.Complexity theory: small changes in initial conditions can lead toverydifferentsystembehaviorswhereactorsareconnectedascom‐plex adaptive systems, e.g. where confidence inmedical advice isunderminedinrelationtooneimmunization(likeMMR),whichistherefore shunned by some citizens, although other vaccinationscontinuetobepopularandunproblematic.Whateachofthesetheoreticalapproacheshasincommonisthatitisbasedonanon‐linearitybetweentheinitialinputstothesystemand the eventual outcomes. While the mechanisms by means ofwhichthisnon‐linearitytakeseffectdifferbetweenthetheoriesandthemodelsderivedfromthem,theyeachresult inthecharacteris‐tics of collective behavior being very different from those of theindividualbehaviors,whichtriggeredit.The implications are important for public service organizations –for maximum returns from the potential of co‐production, these

267

STATEOFTHEEUNION

collectivebehaviorsmayneed tobeactivated, throughsome formofsystemmeta‐interventions5.Of course, there are not only positive synergies – where negativesynergiesoccur,which threaten todrive systems towards stasisorevendestruction,bythesamelogicthereisaneedforsystemmeta‐interventionswhichmaketheseeffectslesslikelyorlesspowerful.Possiblestrategiesforactivatingthepositivesynergies,whichcouldmake user and community co‐production more cost‐effective,wouldinclude:

• Increasingtheincentivesforcollectivebehavior• Decreasingthedisincentivesforcollectivebehavior• Increasingtheconnectivityofthosegivingrisetopositive

synergiesincollectivebehavior• Decreasingtheconnectivityofthosegivingrisetonegative

synergiesincollectivebehavior.Weherefocusonthelattertwostrategiesaroundconnectivity.Itsimportancederives from the fact that connectivitydetermines thelevel (anddirection)ofnonlinearities in the system through threedifferentcharacteristics:

• strengthoftheconnectivity• degreeofnon‐linearity(‘curvature’)intheconnectivityrela‐

tionship• likelihoodofchangesofdirectioninsystembehaviorover

time(determinedbythe‘recursiveness’ofthesystem,broadlythenumberof‘turningpoints’intheunderlyingre‐lationship,or‘equation’,describingsystembehavior).

Inordinarypersonalrelationships,thesecharacteristicscanbeseenrespectively intermsofhowtherelationship isviewedbyan indi‐vidual:

• astrongrelationshipwillleadmoreoftentopositiverecip‐rocalbehaviors(suchasthegivingofmeaningfulpresents)

268

BOVAIRD,LÖFFLER&DOWNE

thanaweakrelationship,whileaweakrelationshipwillleadmoreoftentonegativereciprocalbehaviors(suchastradinginsultsinpublic)

• ahighlynon‐linearrelationshipwillmeanthatquitesmallchangesinbehaviorsbyoneorotherpersonwillproducemarkedresponsesfromtheotherperson(e.g.ahintofoverworkingbyonepersonwillleadtoanofferofsharingofsometasksfromseveralcolleagues)

• ahighlyrecursiverelationshipwillmeanthatastimulusbyonepersonwill,overtime,resultinunexpectedswitchesinbehaviorbytheotherperson(e.g.allowingacolleaguetomissadeadlineatworkbecauseoffamilycircumstancesmeansthatasimilarexcuseisoftenwheeledoutinthefu‐ture,withoutanyforewarningbeinggiven).

Thesecharacteristicscanbeembeddedintherelationshipinoneoftwoways – they can eitherbe a result of the ‘personalities’ of thetwoactorsintherelationship(i.e.theirpredispositiontoactinpar‐ticular ways), or they can be a result of themechanisms throughwhichtheyinteract(i.e.the‘technology’oftherelationship).In this chapter, our interest is in how the latter of these twomechanisms, the technology of the relationship between actors,might influence the balance of ‘individual’ versus ‘collective’ co‐production.Inapersonalrelationship,thekeywayinwhichthestrengthoftherelationship is reinforced is throughmutual contact. From its ad‐vent,evenasimpleone‐to‐onecommunicationstechnologylikethetelephone greatly increased the possibility of frequent contact be‐tweenpeopleinanykindofrelationship(atleast,forthosewhohadthemeanstouseit).However,increasedfrequencyisnotenoughtohelp a relationship to flourish – the content of the interaction isalso important.Wecanhypothesize,then,thatthetelephonemayhave polarized relationships – where the content of calls was re‐garded as positive, the increased frequency was likely to producestrongerbonds,whileweakerbonds(andevenoutrightantipathy)

269

STATEOFTHEEUNION

mayhavebeenproducedinthosecasesofincreasedcontactwherethecontentwasregardedasunattractive.Asregardstheeffectofthetelephoneonthe‘curvature’ofrelation‐ships,weneedtoaskiftheintensityofrelationshipswasinanywayenhancedbytheadventofthetelephone.Theevidencebaseisnotdetailedorscientific,butneverthelessverycompelling–peoplefoundthatitwasverymuchmorepersonalandintimate to talk to each other on the telephone than to write. Itseems likely that this new form of connectivity had a more thanproportionate effect on the ability of people to sustain their rela‐tionshipswhileapart.Finally, theeffectonarelationshipofusingthetelephonetokeepin constant contact is not necessarily monotonic – satiation canmeanthata turningpointoccurs,beyondwhichdiseconomiesareexperienced. For example, someone who rings too often can be‐come perceived as a nuisance, rather than a close friend, or canevince a reaction which is either one of delight or irritation, de‐pending on the circumstances (and irrespective of the content ofthecall).Itseemslikelythatthereplacementoflandlinesbymobilephoneshasnot fundamentally altered the effect of the telephoneon con‐nectivitywithinrelationships,althoughithasstrengthenedeachofthe threeelementsof connectivity.However, the internet, andes‐peciallyWeb2.0platforms,nowofferratherdifferentpotentialforthethreedimensionsofconnectivity.First, they are likely to lead to substantially stronger connectivitybecause of the ease and low cost of use (at least for those peoplewhoare‘wired’).Secondly, there is likely to be very strong ‘curvature’ in relation‐shipswhichareweb‐enabled,partlybecauseofthemultipleformatsof web‐enabled communication – email, webcam, Skype, Twitter,

270

BOVAIRD,LÖFFLER&DOWNE

Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, etc. Moreover, the potential for eachpartner to introduce other actors into any given conversation isgreatlyexpanded– thepowerof the ‘Reply toall’button inemail,something which is still very restricted on the telephone, whereconferencecallsarepossiblebutnoteasy(andnotcheap).Twitteractuallybroadcastsalltweetsautomaticallytoeveryonewhowantstoaccessthem.Finally,therecursivenessofweb‐enabledrelationshipsismoredif‐ficulttoestimateapriori.Ontheonehand,itisjustaspossibletoget toomanyemails (or tweetsorFacebookmessages) fromsomecontactsasitisonthetelephone.However,emailshavetheusefulcharacteristicthatthereisnoexpectationthatthepersontowhomonewriteswillbeonlineandabletoreplyimmediately.Therefore,emails retain a ‘batch processing’ expectation, which means thatthey can be dealt with when one wishes to, without necessarilyhurting the feelings of the personwho iswaiting. (Of course, notreplyingtoreminderemailshasmoreorthelessthesameeffectonarelationshipasnotreplyingtoaremindertelephonecall).Itmaybethat this latterphenomenonreducestherecursivenessof inter‐net‐enabledconnectivity.Taking these characteristics of internet‐enabled connectivity intoaccount,wemightexpectthatnotonlywouldtheinternetincreasethepotentialforcollectiveco‐production,itmightalsobroadenitsreach to a wider range of potential co‐producers. This argumentsuggests that collective co‐production is likely now to be morepracticaltomobilizethaninpreviousperiods.Itremainstobeseenwhether these improvements in connectivity will be enough toovercometheindividualistpreference‐basedobstaclestocollective‐basedco‐production,whichweoutlinedfromtheEuropeansurvey.

271

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Publicinterventionstopromoteinternet‐enabledcollectiveco‐productionOurEuropeanstudy revealed thatpolicymakersandpractitionersare still very ambivalent about the contribution which co‐productionmakesandcouldmaketopublicservice improvement.While they recognize that co‐production exists, and can both en‐sure that services aremore in line with user needs and aremorefully resourced than theyotherwisewouldbe, they are also reluc‐tanttoadmittothevolumeofco‐productionactivityandthecon‐tributionwhichitmakestopublicvalue.However, a series of internet‐enabled interventions are emergingwhichhavetheeffectofenhancingcollectiveco‐production.WelistheresomeexamplesmainlyfromtheUK,butsimilardevelopmentscanbefoundintheothercountriesinourEuropeanstudy,usingaframeworkfordifferenttypesofco‐production6.Co‐planning:SouthBristolDigitalNeighbourhoodshasbeenwork‐ingwithBristolCityCounciltohelplocalresidentstousethecoun‐cil’s consultation site AskBristol.com, which is part of the EU e‐participationprojectCitizenscape,andallowsresidents’commentsto influence council decisions. The current consultation projectfocusesontrafficnoisepollution,andthewebsiteusesvideo,soundbites,imagesanddiscussionforumstoencouragedebate.Residentscannominatetheirfavoritequietareasofthecityandplotthemona map – and this map is hosted on the interactive informationtouch screen at local shopping centers for those who don’t haveInternetaccessathome.TheinformationgatheredfeedsintohowBristolimplementsthecity’snoiseactionplan.Co‐design:TheBirmingham’s'OpenCity'projectwasdevelopedbyDigital Birmingham to create newdigital resources, going beyondforumsandblogs,whichwillenablecitizensbettertocontributetolocaldecision‐making.Itdevelopsanonlinecommunitythatallowspeople to influence theplanning anddeliveryof services, through

272

BOVAIRD,LÖFFLER&DOWNE

aninteractiveapproachwhichgeneratesdiscussionanddebatebe‐tweenwebusers. Co‐commissioning: experiments in internet‐based participatorybudgeting (PB) are becoming more common, especially in Ger‐many,whereBerlin‐LichtenberghasrunitsPBprocessthroughtheinternet, by post and through local meetings and, more recently,Kölnhasrunapurelyinternet‐basedPBexercise,whichiscurrentlybeingevaluated.Co‐managing: a ‘Smart Community’ is a neighborhood where theresidentsarebetterconnectedtoeachotherandtothebusinessesandagenciesthatservethem,includinglocalTVchannelsandlocalinformationandonlineservices,withspecialistprovisionforthosewho need it. It is intended tomake residents feelmore a part oftheir local neighborhood and to make the area as a whole moredesirable as a place to live. It is achieved through a local highbandwidth network connecting all homes, businesses and otherserviceproviders,whichalsoenablescost‐effectivemanagementofthe digital services delivered to individual homes. Originating inSanDiego in theUS, this approach has now been developed andpilotedinScotland7.Co‐delivering:CheltenhamBoroughCouncilinitiallydiscoveredthepowerofWeb2.0inJuly2007,asaresultofmassivelocalflooding,when its oldweb site could not respond to the flow of news andinformation,so it setupa 'floodblog' toprovidearesponsiveandfast service to residents. Subsequently, this has triggered wide‐spread adoptionofWeb2.0byCouncil staff and thepublic.Resi‐dentscanpublishimagestotheCheltenhamFlickrfeedandmoviesthroughtheCheltenhamYouTubechannel–directlytotheCoun‐cil'ssite,allcontrolledviaitscontentmanagementsystem.Co‐monitoring:websitessuchasFixMyStreet.comallowresidentstoreport problems in the street scene, e.g. tipped rubbishbins, pot‐holesintheroad,incorrectstreetsigns,etc.,includingpostingpho‐tosoftheproblemonthewebsite,sothatfastactioncanbetaken.

273

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Co‐evaluating:websitessuchaspatientopinion.comallowNHSpa‐tients to post their experiences of healthcare on the internet forotherusers toreadandbenefit from,andtheycanrateNHSserv‐icesoncriteriasuchasstandardofmedicalcare.In each of these cases,while individuals have been helped by theinternettoco‐producepublicserviceswithprofessionalsfrompub‐licagencies,theco‐productionprocesshashadacollectivecharac‐terandhadoutcomesformorepeoplethanthosewhodirectlytookpartintheco‐productionprocess.This chapter highlights the limitations of ‘self‐interested’ co‐production and suggests that a more systematic and coordinatedapproachtocollectiveco‐productionisneededifitistoriseabovethelevelswhichwillresultfrompurely‘self‐organizing’activities.Itsuggests that collective co‐production is likely to have particularsignificance for thepublicsector,where itcanbeencouraged,butthebehaviorofcitizensismorelikelytogiverisetoindividualco‐production, unless encouragement is given to mechanisms whichlead tomore collective co‐production. Internet‐enabled technolo‐gies fulfill the requirements that make collective co‐productioneasierandmorelikely.TonyBovaird(@tonybovaird)isProfessorofPublicManagementandPolicy,INLOGOVandCentreforPublicServicePartnerships,BirminghamUniver‐sity.HehasadvisedOECDandUKgovernmentonassessing theperform‐ance of e‐government and directed the UK component of the recent EUPresidencyprojectonuserandcommunityco‐productionofpublicservices.Elke Loeffler is Chief Executive of Governance International, a non‐profitorganizationbasedintheUK,whichpromotesgoodgovernance,participa‐torybudgetingandcitizenco‐productionofpublicservices.ShehasadvisedtheUKCabinetOfficeandmanyEuropeangovernmentsoncitizenpartici‐pationanddirected the recentEUPresidencyprojectonuserandcommu‐nityco‐productionofpublicservices.

274

BOVAIRD,LÖFFLER&DOWNE

JamesDowneisaSeniorResearchFellowattheCentreforLocal&RegionalGovernment Research, CardiffUniversity.He is an expert in local govern‐mentpolicyandmanagedtherecentmeta‐evaluationofLocalGovernmentModernization Reforms in England, on behalf of theOffice of the DeputyPrime Minister and the Department for Communities and Local Govern‐ment.1TonyBovairdandJamesDowne(2008),InnovationInPublicEngagementAndCo‐ProductionOfServices.PolicyPapertoDepartmentofCommunitiesandLo‐calGovernment.London:CLG.

2OurthanksgototheDepartmentofCommunitiesandLocalGovernmentandtheFrenchPresidencyoftheEU,bothofwhichsponsoredsomeoftheresearchonwhichthischapterisbased.

3RichardNormann(1984),ServiceManagement:StrategyandLeadershipintheServiceBusiness,JohnWileyandSons.

4ElkeLöffler,TonyBovaird,SalvadorParradoandGregvanRyzin(2008),“Ifyouwanttogofast,walkalone.Ifyouwanttogofar,walktogether":Citizensandtheco‐productionofpublicservices.ReporttotheEUPresidency.Paris:MinistryofFinance,BudgetandPublicServices.

5TonyBovaird(2005),“E‐governmentande‐governance:organisationalimplica‐tions,optionsanddilemmas"inMehdiKhosrow‐Pour(ed),PracticingE‐Government:AGlobalPerspective,NewYork:Idea‐GroupIncforOECD.

6TonyBovaird(2007),“Beyondengagementandparticipation–userandcommu‐nityco‐productionofpublicservices",PublicAdministrationReview,67(5):846‐860(2007).

7http://www.smartcommunityfife.org.uk

275

#24

OPENVALUECREATIONASASTRATEGICMANAGEMENT

APPROACH

PhilippS.MüllerCenterforPublicManagementandGovernance

In 2008, I was working for Terri Takai, California's CIO, on thequestionofhowwe can implement socialmedia andmassive col‐laboration as a tool to improve interaction betweenMexican andUSborderstates.Atthetime,debatingopenvaluecreationingov‐ernment seemed slightly foreign. In 2009we are confrontedwithnew management approaches in mediated policy initiation andformulation (Obama’s Open Government Initiative1), distributedintelligence gathering (the US intelligence communities Intellipe‐dia2),crowdsourcingofaccountability(TheGuardian’sBritishPar‐liament invoice scandalplatform3), citizen involvement (participa‐torybudgetingin160citiesinGermany)orpeerproducedpoliticalcampaigning (the Obama Campaign), and even social media en‐hancedrevolutions(Iran).Noteverythingthatbusinessorgovern‐ment does can be addressed by these newmechanisms, but with

276

MÜLLER

technologicallymediatedopenvaluecreationwehavebeenhandedapowerfultooltomaketheworldabetterplace4.TimO’ReillyasksthepertinentquestionsinForbes(andinhischapterinthisbook):

Howdoesgovernment itselfbecomeanopenplatformthatallows people inside and outside government to innovate?Howdo you design a system inwhich all of the outcomesaren’t specified beforehand, but instead evolve through in‐teractions between the technology provider and its usercommunity?

Theideaofgovernment(orbusiness)asaplatformnecessitatesanopenvaluecreationprocess.OpenValueCreationconsistsofOpenPolicyMaking(participation)andanOpenValueChain(collabora‐tion).Thedistinctionisslightlyarbitrarybutuseful.Itallowsustodifferentiate between coming up with a value generating process(policy)andrepeatedlycreatingthevalue(valuechain).

• Openpolicymaking aims to open all aspects of the policyprocess (initiation, formulation, implementation, evalua‐tion)tooutsideinputsandscrutiny.Itassumesthatthisal‐lowsbetter informedpolicymakingthat ismorelegitimateandlesscostly.

• The open value chain opens the implementation process(inputs,process,outputs,impact,outcome)tooutsidecon‐tributionsunder theassumptionthataco‐producedpublicvalueislesscostlyandmoreeffective.

Openvaluecreationcanbeachievedifitisappliedinallphasesofthepolicycycleandthevaluechain.AttheErfurtSchoolofPublicPolicy5 we refer to the IDCA framework (ideation, deliberation //collaboration,accountability)forthispurpose:1.Ideation(policy)Ideation is the process of collectively coming up with ideas anddeveloping them.What is need is a platform that allows partici‐pantstopostideas,tocommentandtoweedoutthebadapples.

277

STATEOFTHEEUNION

2.Deliberation(policy)Weunderstand deliberation best, because it has its analog in theofflineworldandthereissufficienttextaboutit.Theideaistocre‐ate a space inwhich thebetter argument andnot the structurallyadvantagedpositionwins.Whatisneededisaplatformtopresentideas, discuss them both syn‐ and diachronically, and to weighthem in concordance with the underlying governance principle(thinkDigg‐style,Reddit‐style,orIMDB‐style).3.Collaboration(valuechain)Wehavemostdifficultieswithcollaboration,becauseitisnew.Col‐laborationallowsaccesstothework‐flowbyself‐selectedoutsiders.The idea is tomake thework flowmodular, granular and redun‐dant,sothatverydifferentcontributionscanbeintegratedwithoutendangering the quality of the output. A collaboration platformmustbegovernedbyacombinationof self‐enforcingcode, simplebutstrongcoreprinciples,andaninclusiveculture(thinkCanoni‐cal’sLaunchpadorWikipedia).4.Accountability(valuechain)Accountability isoftennotwellunderstood.Wesee itasadangerand not a strategic asset. By accounting to our stakeholders, wedecrease our error rates by adding free expertise and increase le‐gitimacy,andpublicprideandownership.

CoreTechnologiesofOpenValueCreationOpen value creation is possible because of new technologies thatallowus to structure ideagenerationand informationaggregationindigitalform.Thecoretechnologiesofopenvaluecreationarethewiki(principle‐based,user‐generatedplatforms,withflexiblemod‐eration capacity), the forum (question driven user‐generatedknowledge platform), blogging (core message with feed‐back/discourseloop),andworkflowmanagementandvisualizationtools (Government resource planning, government process map‐pingtools,thinkSAP,Oracle,SugarCRM,etc.).Togethertheyallowus to structure policy and administrative public value creation

278

MÜLLER

processes, by enhancing ideation (idea‐generation), deliberation(commenting and discussion), collaboration (generating publicvalues), and accountability (parsing data to hold government ac‐countable).Inorderto fullyutilizeopenvaluecreationradicaltransparency isnecessary. Radical transparency is a management approach inwhichalldecisionmakingiscarriedoutpubliclyandtheworkflowhasopenapplicationinterfaces.Itisaradicaldeparturefromexist‐ingprocesses,where (a) decisionmakingwasnever fully open, toensure security and the discretion of the decisionmakers and (b)theworkflowwasablackbox,whereoutsideinterventionwouldbelookeduponasoutsidemeddling.

DecisionMaking(policycycle)

Ensure access to draft documents, allow com‐mentingandincludethepublicinfinaldecisions.

WorkFlow(valuechain)

Designapplication interfaces thatallowthepub‐lic to access thework flow in real time andpar‐ticipateinagranularandmodularfashion.

Whatisthevalueaddedoftheapproach?Itisimportanttorealizethatradicaltransparencyisnotarequire‐mentputuponaprocessfromoutsidestakeholders,butanactivelychosen strategy. Sowhy go transparent?Radical transparency im‐pactsvalueidentification,capacityandlegitimacyofanyproject.

Valuedefinition Value definition profits from thewider discus‐sion.Groupthinkingispotentiallyavoided.

Legitimacy Itincreaseslegitimacy,becausestakeholdersareinvolved in the decision making process andtrustisincreased.

Capacity Capacity is increased if radical transparencyallows you to integrate “self‐selected experts”into your decision cycle and resulting workflow.Itsavescosts!

279

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Whentoapplyit?As with any management strategy, radical transparency is not apanacea.Sothequestioniswhattypesofproblemsareamenabletotheapproachandwhattypesofproblemsarebetterleftinthedark.

CoordinationIssues

In today’s world,many issues are coordination is‐sues.Thelegitimacyandqualityofstandard‐settingwillapprovedramatically.

ConsensusBuilding

Manyissuestodayhavebecometrans‐nationalandcross‐sectoral.Thismeans that therearenoestab‐lishedandinstitutionalizeddecisionmakingproce‐dures. In such situations, radical transparency candramaticallyincreasethelegitimacy(andeffective‐ness)oftheprocedures.

Uncoveringdistributedexpertise

Intoday’sworldexpertiseisnotanymoremonopo‐lized by professionals. However, finding this dis‐tributed expertise is expensive.Byutilizing radicaltransparency (in combination with functioningquality control), one allows for self‐selection ofexpertise.

Utilizingtheloveoftheamateurs

Therearetopicswhereweknowthatamateurswillbeverywillingtocooperate.Thinkoftheinclusionofamateurastronomersintheidentificationofnewmeteors.

280

MÜLLER

Whennottoapplyit?There are other issues, where it is best not to pursue a radicaltransparentapproach:

Security If radical transparency endangers (national) security,thetopicshouldbeoff‐topic.However, itmakessensetoclearlyandopenlydelineatetheboundariesofsuchlimitations.

Privacy If there is no way of ensuring the anonymity of dataand if the issuewould impact theprivacyof individu‐als,theapproachshouldnotbeused.

Secrecy Ifthecompetitivenessofanenterprisedependsonthesecrecy of the process (think the Coca Cola formula),radicaltransparencyshallnotbeused.

Design Ifthedesignoftheoutputshouldfollowaspecific(to‐talitarian) idea, it isnot sensible toopenup theproc‐ess.AppleComputersusesthisapproach.

Capture If the platform is relevant enough that it can be cap‐tured by off‐topic participants, management of theprocess becomes tedious. This has happenedwith theUFObelieversandtheObamabirthcertificatedebatersontheOpenGovernmentInitiative.

Howtodesignradicallytransparentprocedures?(Aroughguidetoimplementation)At this point in time,we arenot yet very good at designingopenvalue creationpolicy cycles and value chains. For every successfulexample, there aremany failures. Therefore, a very careful imple‐mentation strategy is necessary. I have developed the following

281

STATEOFTHEEUNION

framework from themore than 10 projectswehave beenworkingoninthelastyear.

Usingtheseframeworksweareworkingonmanysuchprojectswithmunicipal (participatory budgeting, crowdsourcing security), statelevel (knowledge management, cross‐border collaboration), andfederal level stakeholders (legal ramificationsofnew formsof col‐laboration, strategydevelopment)worldwide.Openvaluecreationhasbecomeamainstreamstrategicmanagementapproach.

Scope Definewhatdatayouwillfree.

Trajectory Explain the limitations explicitly, outline the nextstepstofulltransparency.

OpenAccess Make sure youmake all data available inmachine‐readableformat,ideallyinreal‐time.Donotmassageoreditit!

EngagementPrinciples

Donot definewhowill be able to access your data,let your collaborators self‐select. But, define stan‐dards forparticipation,do this in code and conven‐tion.

Moderation Structure the conversation, define expectations, butallow for flexibility and participation in the debateaboutthecoreprinciplesofthecollaboration.Donotask open questions like “what do you think ofEurope?Howdoweintegrateminorities?"6

Reflexivity Design reflexivity into the process. Use work flowmapping and meta‐data on the deliberation proc‐essestomirrorthecommunitybackat itsmembers.Sophisticationwillincrease.

282

MÜLLER

PhilippS.Müller(@philippmueller) isvisitingprofessorforpublicpolicyatErfurt University, tenured associate professor at the Graduate School forPublicAdministrationandPublicPolicyofTecnológicodeMonterrey,Mex‐ico(EGAP–TecdeMonterrey)andadjunctprofessorattheSalzburgSchoolofManagement,whereherunstheCenterforPublicManagementandGov‐ernance.Inhisresearch,hefocusesonpolicymakinginnetworksociety.Hehas published Unearthing the Politics of Globalization (LIT 2004) andCriticizingGlobalGovernance(PalgraveMacMillan2005).1http://j.mp/3mkJnQ2http://j.mp/3ckFU3http://mps‐expenses.guardian.co.uk/4http://j.mp/12c2UT5http://www.espp.de/6http://j.mp/Lngvh

283

#25

REAPINGTHEBENEFITSOFGOVERNMENT‐LEDCHANGE:

ENGAGINGTHEPUBLICINCREATINGVALUEFROMINVESTMENTS

ChrisPottsCorporateStrategist,DominicBarrow

Governmentsinvestpublicmoneyinchangingsomethingsforthebetter while keeping others the same. Their publics – includingtaxpayersandvoters–arebecomingusedtohavinginformationinthe palms of their hands, and with it the power tomake new ordifferentchoices.Howshouldgovernmentsbestprovidetheir“2.0”publicswithevidencethatthechangestheyareinvestinginarethemostefficientwayofdeliveringthevaluetheypromised?Andhowcan they harness everyone’s increasing power as consumers, tomaximizethatvalue?Governments preside over a balance of change and stability. Butthey understandably assume that we vote for them, and judgethem,basedmoreonwhattheypromisetododifferentlythanwhatthey will keep the same. For example, Barack Obama’s 2009 US

284

ANDERSEN,SØRUM&MEDAGLIA

presidency campaign rallying call, “YesWe Can,” was talking pri‐marily about change, not the challenge of keeping things as theywereunderGeorgeW.Bush.Changeisaneasythingfornewly‐electedgovernmentstopromisewith credibility. Conversely, one of the big challenges facing anylong‐term government, such as the British government underGordonBrown,andsimilarly itsConservativepredecessors, ishowtocrediblypromise,executeanddeliverthebenefitsofchangestothestatusquo,whenthiswasthemselves.Theirmainrationaleforchangemustbefoundedonfactorsinthewiderenvironment–forexample, economic, cultural, technological – towhich thegovern‐mentmustresponddifferentlythanbefore."Government2.0”isallofthesethings.Inreverseorder,thetechno‐logical innovations that initiated “2.0” very rapidly translated intocultural changes that are starting to deeply affect the economicsystems over which governments have primary stewardship. Con‐sumers, with new forms of information in their hands and (oftenfree) tools with which to wield it, are taking both individual andcollectivecontrolofprocessesandchoicesthatwereuntilrecentlyassumedtobeinthehandsofgovernmentsandofcommercialor‐ganizations.Someofthoseorganizations,andthemarketstheyarein,arereactingbettertothisshiftinpowerthanothers.Consider the US market for telephony. Consumers, armed withinformation about the relative benefits and costs of mobile tele‐phones and landlines, are increasingly giving up their fixed‐linephones. As The Economist observed1, this technology decision isalso a socioeconomic one. Themore thatAmericans abandon thefixed‐line phone network, themore fragile it becomes as its fixedcosts have to bemet by fewer and fewer subscribers. The conse‐quences are the subject of governmental and societal, as well ascommercial, interests: landlines are the platform formany publicservices, such as emergency response; taxes on landlines providesubsidies that ensure a “universal service”,meaning an affordablephonelineforall.

285

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Government2.0 (likeEnterprise2.0 forcommercialorganizations)meansanewsettlementbetweeninstitutionsandthepublic.Whilegovernments are investing in changesonbehalf of thepublic, thepublic is empowered tomakemore choices that significantly im‐pact government.How can governmentsmake sure that everyonebenefits?For a start, by recognizing that the genie is out of the bottle. Intime, the balance of power between government and public willsettleatanewanddifferentequilibriumthanbefore.Governmentswho seek to convince their publics that they are ‘granting’ themmorechoicewillbeincreasinglyoffthepace.We,theinvestorsin,and consumers of, government services are already taking thosechoices on ourselves. Better to inform and channel the energy ofourchoices,thanassumethatitisstillwithinyourgifttogivethemto us. Government strategies for investing in change must shiftmoretowardsharnessingtheemergentchoicesofthepublic.Inmaking choices and investing in changes, there aremanyvalu‐able ways in which governments differ from commercial enter‐prises, but in this respect they are very similar: they divide theirresources into servicing today’s operational needs, and makingchanges for the future. The difference with governments is thattheyare investingpublic resources,not theirown.Make these in‐vestments transparent to the public, and they are more likely tounderstandhowtheirownchoicesaffectgovernmentdecisions(forexample,thelonger‐termconsequencesofgivingupfixed‐linetele‐phones), also to take a more active role in contributing to thosedecisionsandthechangesthatcomefromthem,andinmaximizingthevalueofgovernment‐ledinvestmentsinchange.So,withGovernment2.0comesaneedtobemuchmoretranspar‐ent about investments in government‐led change: the resourcesthat are being invested, the efficiency with which the value ofchanges is being delivered, and what choices we, the public, can

286

ANDERSEN,SØRUM&MEDAGLIA

makethatmaximizethebenefitsofthosechangesbothtoourselvesandtosocietyasawhole.For this,weneed a reasonably straightforward summary:whyourgovernment is investing in changes onourbehalf; the anticipatedvalue of those changes to us; how much is being invested; whatbenefits areactuallybeingachieved; andhowcanwe further con‐tributetomaximizingthosebenefits?Bytakingstockofthis ‘port‐folio’of investmentswecanassesswhetherourgovernment isdo‐ingthebestjobitcanand–ifwearesomotivated–moreactivelyinfluencethefuturevalueofinvestmentsinchangeunderbothcur‐rentandfuturegovernments.IntheUSanapproachthatnewly‐electedPresidentObamatooktothisopportunitywastorapidlyappointaFederalChiefInformationOfficer (CIO), Vivek Kundra, who had a track record of treatinggovernment‐led changes – more specifically those in InformationTechnology(IT)–asiftheywerestock‐marketinvestments.Inthisapproach,projectsaresubjecttoongoing,robustinvestmentman‐agement: those thatwill still deliver their expected value arenur‐tured, while those that won't are cancelled and the investmentmovedelsewhere.A key strength of a ‘projects are like stocks’ approach is that itbrings–withvital adjustments– some long‐establishedprinciplesofportfolio investment into the realmof government investmentsinchange.Thefundamentalpurposeoftheportfolioistodeliveritspromisedvalueasefficientlyaspossible.Investmentsareevaluatedontheirvaluecontribution,andrisk,totheportfolio(notsimplyontheir standalone merits). Only efficient changes get backed, andprojects that fall below their ‘stop loss’ threshold are quicklystopped.Finally, inheritingandadaptingakeyprincipleof invest‐menttheory–diversificationtoensureefficiency–theportfolio isbalanced across a range of value types, mitigating the risk thatchangeprojectsmaycollectivelydelivernotenoughofonekindofvalue,andtoomuchofanother.

287

STATEOFTHEEUNION

USGovernment responsibilities for using IT “to improve the pro‐ductivity,efficiency,andeffectivenessofFederalprograms, includ‐ingthroughdisseminationofpublicinformation"2areenshrinedinUSlaw,inthe1996‘Clinger‐Cohen’Act.InJune2009,withinafewmonths of his appointment, Kundra published on the internet aFederalITDashboardofhowwellthegovernmentwasperformingin the delivery of “IT investments”. Initially, 20% of investmentswereincluded.ByearlyAugust2009,thathadrisento100%.The Federal ITDashboard provides a new – but incomplete – ex‐ampleofhowgovernmentscanuseITtodisseminatepublicinfor‐mation about the changes they are investing in. With it, the USgovernmenthasestablisheda “2.0”modelof transparencyandac‐countability about investments in change that other governmentsmightfollow.However,thespecificfocusoninvestmentsinITcanonlybeatem‐poraryoneiftheDashboardistobeoftruevaluetothepublic.Or‐ganizations that havemastered investments in change by startingwith ‘IT investments’ know that it can be a valid initial tactic, aslongas that isnotwhere theprocessends.AsKundrahimselfhashinted, the ITdashboard should act as amodel for amuchwiderand more valuable approach: “… we need to adopt an evidencebased approach to governanceby employingplatforms like the ITdashboardsowecanreport,analyze,monitor,andpredictperform‐ance.”3HowmuchagovernmentinvestsintheITelementsofchangeisoflittlepracticalvaluetothepublic–orindeedthegovernmentitself.While ITofferspeople theopportunities todelivermorevalue,onitsownitdeliversnone.Deliveringthebenefitsofchangedemandsmore investment than just in IT. Also, in IT‐specific dashboards,changesarenaturallyexpressedmore in technological termsmak‐ingtheirmeaningopaqueto thepublic.An ‘IT InvestmentsDash‐board’canbeagoodplacetostart,andmaybequickerandeasiertocompileandpublishthanan‘InvestmentsinChangeDashboard’

288

ANDERSEN,SØRUM&MEDAGLIA

butwillbeoflittlevaluetoGovernment2.0ifthefocusremainsonITalone.Asrapidlyaspossible,before itbecomesthede factostandard,an‘IT investments’ dashboard needs to be upgraded to one that ac‐countsfortotalinvestmentsinchange,ofwhichITis justoneele‐ment.So,asgovernmentsandtheirCIOslooktoharnesstheenergyandchoicesof a “2.0”public,bydisseminating informationaboutgov‐ernment‐led investments in change, here are three things in par‐ticularworthbearinginmind:• The “projects are like stocks” approach is only truly valuable

and effective when applied to all investments in change, notjust those involving IT, and certainly not when it is only ac‐countingfortheITelementsofchange.

• Treatingprojects likestocksneedsrobustcompetencies in in‐

vestment portfolio management. Like Kundra, many CIOs inbothgovernmentagenciesandcommercialorganizationshavebeen developing these competencies, but often only for IT. Ifso, it'stimetoupgradetheirfocus,tothetotalinvestmentsinchangeandnotjustIT.

• Measures designed for choosing, targeting andmeasuring the

value of stockmarket investments are not appropriate for in‐vestingingovernment‐ledchange.Inparticular,usingasinglemeasureof'value',suchasNetPresentValue,isunrepresenta‐tiveof thediversereasonsthatgovernments invest inchange,andthereforeofthevalueofthoseinvestments.

Instead, governmentCIOsneed touse aportfolioofdifferentvaluetypes(typicallyaroundten),onesthatmakesensetothepublic,asthefoundationoftheirdashboardsandtheir‘projectsasstocks’portfoliomanagement.

289

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Transparencywiththepublicaboutgovernment‐ledinvestmentsinchange is a vital element of Government 2.0. It reflects, and in‐forms,theshift inthebalanceofpowerbetweengovernmentsandtheirpublics,inparallelwithasimilarshiftinpowerbetweencon‐sumerandcompaniesthatcharacterizesEnterprise2.0.Aswellasmakingsureourgovernmentsaretransparentlyaccount‐ingfortheinvestmentstheymakeinchangeonourbehalf,andthebenefitsthatcomefromthem,itcanhelpusallseewhatwecandoto fully exploit those changes oncemade. However, governmentsneedtobewaryoftheironythat,whileITisamajortoolforachiev‐ingtransparencyaboutourgovernment’sinvestmentsinIT–andarelatively quick and easyplace to start –wouldbe of little help ifthatwere all the informationgiven touswithwhich tomaximizethebenefitofgovernment‐ledchange.ChrisPotts (@chrisdpotts) isaCorporateStrategist,whospecializes in in‐vestmentsinchangeandexploitingIT.Heistheauthorof“fruITion:Creat‐ingtheUltimateCorporateStrategyforInformationTechnology.”

1TheEconomist,August13th20092Clinger‐CohenAct19963VivekKundrablog,http://it.usaspending.gov,August5th2009

290

#26

E‐GOVERNMENTAWARDS:FIVEPROPOSITIONSONADVANCING

THEIRVALUE

KimNormannAndersenProfessor,CopenhagenBusinessSchool(CBS)

HanneSørum

PhDstudent,NorwegianSchoolofInformationTechnology

RonyMedagliaAssistantProfessor,CopenhagenBusinessSchool(CBS)

E‐governmentrankingsandawardsaremorepopularthanever,asexemplified by theUN eReadiness rankings, the statistical indica‐torson theEuropean i2010 information society, and thenewlyes‐tablished Asia annual Government Technology Awards. Fifteenyearsofonline serviceshavenot reduced theneed to focusatten‐tionontheongoingimprovementofpublicsectorwebsites.Havinga high qualitywebsite is probablymore important now than everbefore, andgovernments todayneed topresentwebsites that em‐phasize clear missions if they are to satisfy the user’s needs andbusinessgoals.Evaluatingpublicwebsitesisalsoprofitableworkforconsultantsandpractitioners.

291

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Withyetmoreweblayers,richmedia,andweb2.0toolsbeinginte‐gratedinwebsites,webawardsarefacingnotonlythechallengeofmore websites to evaluate, but alsomore challenging tasks, sincethe use of websites in government is no longer exclusively aboutbroadcasting information to citizens, but it is also increasinglyaboutnarrowcastingandco‐creatingcontenttogetherwithcitizens.Inthischapterwewillputforwardfivepropositionsonthestateofartofe‐governmentwebawards:

1. Thevalueofe‐governmentawardsislinkedtothetechnicalassessment, the interaction that takes place during theaward ceremony, and the ex post exposure of the awardwinners;

2. Thereisaneedtorespondtothefactthatwebawardstoalargeextentignoretheactualuseofthewebsites,andthere‐forerarelyleadtobusinessbenefitsorpublicvalue;

3. Thecurrentwebawardsarewideningthegapbetweenthestrategyandtheusefulnessofe‐governmentwebsitesbyus‐ingtraditionalmethodsforwebsitequalitymeasurements–suchascrawlers,expertopinions,pop‐upusersurveys,etc.– and thus ignoring the use of publicwebsites in real set‐tings;

4. More refined indicators of success of websites need to bedevelopedinordertoreduceanimplicitpositivebiasfavor‐ing websites with high frequency of use, and thereby tovaluealsowebavoidanceservices;

5. Theunderstandingofthedynamicsofe‐governmentneedstobeextendedinorderforpractitionersandresearcherstoprogressfromknowingwhohasthebestwebsitetoalsoun‐derstandinghowtheymanagetoprogressandbesuccessful.

In the following,wewill substantiate thepropositionsbydrawingonongoingdiscussionswithin theEGovMoNetproject1,onanon‐goingstudyofwebawardsinScandinavia2,andonpreliminaryin‐dicatorsfromareviewoftheEuropeane‐GovernmentAwards.Wedonotclaimanyexternalvalidityinthepropositions;wemerelysee

292

ANDERSEN,SØRUM&MEDAGLIA

themasan input to theprogressionof the researchbody thatad‐dresses e‐government maturity models and how to approach theevaluationofwebsitequality3.Also,weaimatgivinganinputtothethinkingandfine‐tuningoftheawards.

TheEuropeane‐GovernmentAwardsAttheEUlevel,theEuropeane‐GovernmentAwardishandedoutevery second year. As shown in Table 1, about 300 e‐Governmentcases are part of the European e‐Government award process thathastakenplacefornowsixyears. Numberof

submissionsNumberoffinalists

Numberofcountriesrepre‐sented

2003 357 66 29of32eligible2005 234 52 28of33eligible2007 310 52 31of34eligible2009 259 52 n.a.

Table 1. European e‐GovernmentAwards 2003‐2009:Number of submis‐sions, number of finalists and number of countries represented. Source:DatacompiledfromtheePracticeportal,September2009.The elevenwinners during the past three award ceremonies haveexcelled in categories such as participation and transparency, andeffectiveandefficientadministration. InTable2wehaveprovidedan overview of each of the award categories. At this stage in ourresearch we have not made any explicit impact analysis of theEuropeanE‐governmentAwards,butitcanbeclearlyobservedthattheawardedcasesarehighlightedontheEUCommission’swebsiteasgoodpractices,andare intendedtoserveasaninspiration.Thewinnersin2007weredividedinfourcategories:betterpublicserv‐icesforgrowthandjobs,participationandtransparency,socialim‐pact and cohesion public services, and effective and efficient ad‐ministration.Acloserlookattheindividualcasesofwinningweb‐site provides interesting insights. The City of Amsterdam, whichwon the award for “better public services for growth and jobs,”

293

STATEOFTHEEUNION

launchedawebsite targeting thoseopeningabar,hotelor restau‐rant:

“Toopenabar,hotelorarestaurantinAmsterdam,anen‐trepreneurneedstoobtain licensesanddispensations frommorethan18differentauthorities,creatingadifficultobsta‐cle for those trying to set up a business. Through theHoReCa1one‐stopshop,anentrepreneurcaneasilyfindoutwhichselectionof40governmentaldocumentshastobeob‐tained through answering 20 questions and filling out onesingle form for seven local licenses of the City of Amster‐dam.Atthenationallevel,thereductionpossibilitiesareupto€30.2millionayearforboththeadministrativecostsandburdens.”(Source:http://www.epractice.eu/awards)

AmongtheScandinaviancountries,MypagefromNorwayandElec‐tronicInvoicingfromDenmarkhavebeenthewinnersofawardsin2007and2005,respectively.FortheNorwegianMypage,thefollow‐ingmotivationwaslisted:

"Mypage is a user‐defined and secured citizen’s portal onwhich users can carry out personalized public eServices inoneplace.Norwegiancitizenscanalsocontrol informationabout them held by various public administrations. FromMay2007,some200servicesfrommorethan40publicad‐ministrations have been provided, serving more than200,000 registered citizens. Through citizen participationandincreasingdemands,servicesalreadyinplaceandcom‐petition between the administrations, the administrationswillopenregistersandcreatenewservices.Thegoalisthatallrelevantservicesfromalllevelsofadministrationwillbeavailable through Mypage by the end of 2009.” (Source:http://www.epractice.eu/awards)

InthesubmitteddocumentationfromtheDanishElectronicInvoic‐ingawardwinnerin2005,itwasstatedthat:

294

ANDERSEN,SØRUM&MEDAGLIA

"Electronic invoicing became mandatory in Denmark on 1February,2005.15milliontransactionsthatwerepreviouslyhandled inpaperarenowmanagedelectronically.Thenewsystemhasresultedinsavingsofanestimated€120‐150mil‐lion per year. Electronic Invoicing is now compulsory inDenmark,and issupportedbyarecent lawwhichgavetheMinister of Finance the authority to establish a legislativeframework forelectronic invoicing.EIDwas theresultofapublic/privatepartnershipthatmadeuseofsuccessfulandestablished technology. The central infrastructure usesdedicated networks (VANS) and offices called Read‐In Bu‐reaus.Documents sentacross thisnetworkarebasedonastandard variant ofXML,OIO‐XML.By providing securityand convenience for the supplier, this system enables allpublic sector partners to computerize all internal workprocessesand systems.This exampleofanationalgovern‐mentshowingreadinessforeGovernmentalsodemonstrateshoworganizationaltransformationandbackoffice innova‐tiontakesplaceacrossthepublicsector.”(Source:http://www.epractice.eu/awards)

ThethreeawardwinnersfromNetherlands,NorwayandDenmarkwell exemplify the variety of websites submitted and bring atten‐tiontothevarianceinreadinessfromdifferentpartsofgovernment.WhatatfirsthandcouldbeinterpretedasaveryadvancedsolutionfromDenmark, theelectronic invoicecase, isprobablymostofallinterestingandcouldserveasinspirationduetotheuseofpoliticalandnormativeinstrumentsingettinge‐governmentprocessesdigi‐talized by asking private sector to submit electronic invoices and,throughthisexternal shock,pushingback‐office innovation in thepublicsector.

295

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Table 2. European e‐Government Awards 2003‐2007: Place of Award Ceremony,

OverallTheme,CategoriesofWinnersandWinners.Source:Data retrieved fromhttp://www.epractice.eu/awards

YearandplaceofEUministerialconference

Overalltheme

Categoriesofwinners

Winner

Betterpublicservicesforgrowthandjobs

"HoReCa1,” One‐stop‐shop forHotel Restaurant Café licenses,submittedby theEconomicDevel‐opment Department, City of Am‐sterdam,TheNetherlands4.

Participationandtranspar‐ency

"Mypage: Self‐service Citizen Por‐tal,” submittedbyNorge.no,portalof the Ministry of GovernmentAdministration and Reform ofNorway5.

Socialimpactandcohesionpublicservices

"Besancon.clic,” submitted by theCityofBesançon,France6.

2007(19‐21September2007inLisbon)

ReapingtheBenefitsofe‐Government

Effectiveandefficientad‐ministration:

"DVDV – German AdministrationServices Directory,” submitted byBIT the Portal of the FederalGov‐ernmentofGermany7.

Therightenvi‐ronment

KSI ZUS – Complex ComputerSystem (KSI) for the Social Insur‐ance Institution (ZUS) in Poland,SocialInsuranceInstitution(PL)8.

Governmentreadiness

EID–Electronic Invoicing inDen‐mark, Agency of GovernmentalManagement(DK)9.

Serviceuse Kadaster‐on‐line,Kadaster(NL)10.

2005(Man‐chester,UKNovember23‐24)

TransformingPublicServices

Impact ROS – Revenue Online Service,ROS, Revenue Commissioners(IE)11.

Theroleofe‐GovernmentinEuropeanCom‐petitiveness

Bremen On‐line Services, SenatorforFinances–DepartmentforNewMediaande‐Government(DE)12.

ABetterlifeforEuropeanCiti‐zens

HELP – Virtual Guide to AustrianAuthorities and Institutions, Fed‐eralChancellery(AT)13.

2003(Como,ItalyJuly3‐4)

GoodPracticesforImprovingPubliceServicesandTransformingGovernment

European,CentralandLocale‐Governmente‐Cooperation

Tax Information between PublicAdministrations, Agencia Tribu‐taria,DepartamentodeInformáticaTributaria(ES)14.

296

ANDERSEN,SØRUM&MEDAGLIA

ScandinavianWebAwardsFocusingonthenationalwebawardsinScandinavia,itisstrikingtonoticehowmanyof thesewebawards are complementary inhowtheymeasurewebsite quality andhave overlapping target groups.Althougheachoftheawardsaimsataddingasenseofobjectivityintheawardassessment,thetransparencyandfeedbackfromtheas‐sessmentvaries fromextensivedocumentationofmethodsandre‐sults,tomoreinformalfeedback.Ingeneral,thepublicawards(or‐ganizedbygovernments)arewelldocumentedinthewaythattheresults fromtheevaluationprocessaredetailedandpubliclyavail‐ableontheInternet, incomparisonwithmostoftheprivateones.Onthewebonecanalsofindpreviousresultsfromtheawardsor‐ganized by the government, so that they can be compared withprior results for each of each of the websites participating in thecompetition. The public awards are also generallymore extensivewith respect to thenumberofwebsites coveredand themeans togetwebsitesinvolved.RegardingaccessibilityandtheuseofWAI(WebAccessibility Ini‐tiative)principles,whichisacentralevaluationcriterion,sofarthishasbeenprimarily related to theevaluationofpublicwebsitesor‐ganized by the government itself.One example of this is that theNorwegiangovernmentstatedthat,bytheendof2007,80%ofallofficial websites shouldmeetNorge.no’s quality criteria regardingaccessibility. Accessibility has been one of the threemain qualitycriteria in the yearly evaluation and ranking of about 700 publicwebsites,organizedbythegovernmentinNorway(TheAgencyforPublicManagement and e‐Government). Using this as an evalua‐tioncriterionforpublicwebsitesisonewayoffocusingonwebsitequality aspects that the government finds important in order tosatisfycitizenswithvariousneeds.IntheNorwegiancase,thereisalarge use of very technical evaluation criteria (e.g. downloadingtime, number of clicks, etc.), at the expense of the assessment ofwebsitecontents.Denmarkfeaturesaverysimilartypeofqualityassessmentofpublicwebsites on a yearly basis, with theweb award “Best on theNet”

297

STATEOFTHEEUNION

(BedstpåNettet).InDenmarktheresultsfromtheevaluationproc‐ess are made publicly available. The prizes for best website arehanded out at a one‐day conference, which is also an importantoccasionfortheparticipantsfornetworkingandsocialinteraction.Table3,althoughitdoesnotcoveralltheawardsinthethreeScan‐dinaviancountriesNorway,SwedenandDenmark,providesanex‐ample of the types ofwebsites assessed in eachof the ten awardslisted.Intheawardscoveringbothpublicandprivatewebsites,thenumberofpubliconesseemstobeinminority.

Table3.Scandinavianwebawardsin2008:OrganizersandPrivate/PublicSectorScopeAgreatnumberofwebsitesisassessedeveryyearinthethreeScan‐dinavian countries analyzed, Denmark, Norway and Sweden,greater than the number assessed within the framework of the

Country WebAward OrganizeroftheAward Assessingpublicwebsites

Assessingprivatewebsites

Norway Norge.no TheAgencyforPublicManagementande‐Government

X

FarmandprisenBesteNettsted

FarmandActivum X X

Åretsnettsted TheNorwegianCommu‐nicationAssociation

X X

Rosingprisen TheNorwegianComputerSociety

X X

Gulltaggen Theorganizationforin‐teractivemarketing

X X

Sweden Guldlänken VinnovaandtheSwedishAssociationofLocalAuthoritiesandRegions

X

Topp100 IDGInternetworld X XDenmark BedstpåNettet TheNationalDanishIT

andTelecomAgencyX

E‐handelsprisen TheDanishDistanceSellingandE‐business

X X

Digitaliserings‐prisen

RambøllManagementConsulting

X

298

ANDERSEN,SØRUM&MEDAGLIA

Europeane‐GovernmentAwards.Around600websitesareassessedintheDanishwebawardsyearly,whilearound300areassessedfortheEuropeane‐GovernmentAwards(seetable1).The use of evaluation criteria tomeasure the quality of awebsitepresentationismostlycarriedoutthroughobjectivemeasures,thatis,measuresthatallowtheassessmentstobereplicatedwithalmostidentical results, regardless of who are the evaluators. The actualuser’svoice(subjectiveopinion)seemstobeignoredintheevalua‐tion process in these awards. The methods used and evaluationcriteria are therefore based on objective, rather than subjectivemeasures.Afteraninitialscreeningprocess,alltheparticipantsareranked by quality and then, eventually, an expert jury selects thewinner(s)oftheaward.Inmostoftheawardsthereareanumberofevaluation categories, e.g. best public website, most innovativewebsiteandbeste‐businessprovider.

Fivepropositionsonhowtoextendthevalueofe‐governmentawardsWeb awards are an increasingly popular phenomenon that publicand private institutions across Europe gather around, receivingwidespread attention from the media, the participating agenciesandpractitionersinvolvedinthee‐governmentpolicyarea.Despitethis, little research has focused on studying web awards, eventhough such phenomenon can be deemed to provide very impor‐tantinsightsintoavarietyofaspectsofe‐governmentpolicydevel‐opment.Theseaspects include,butarenotlimitedto,theimplicitcriteriaunderlyinge‐governmentpoliciesindifferentnationalcon‐texts, the adequacy of existing assessing methods, the impact ofWeb2.0andcitizeninvolvementone‐governmentevaluation,andalsotheroleofsocialnetworks increatingshareddefinitionof“e‐government excellence.” The overview of well‐established webawardcontestsatEuropeanlevelandatnationallevelinScandina‐vian countries included in this paper has provided a first body ofevidence to substantiate some insightsoncrucial issues related tothefutureofe‐governmentdesignandevaluation.Drawingonthis

299

STATEOFTHEEUNION

evidence,wecansubstantiate the fivepropositionson thestateoftheartofe‐governmentwebawardspresentedintheintroduction.Regardingproposition(1),themotivesforparticipatingarenotnec‐essarilyunevenlydistributedamongtheprivateandpublicawards.Inpublicwebawardsthewebsitesdonothavetosignup forpar‐ticipation, which is something they have to do in the privateawards.IntheDanishpublicsectorawarditismandatoryforpublicsector websites to participate, whereas in the Danish e‐businessawardtheparticipatingcompaniespayafeefortheirvoluntaryas‐sessment.InNorway,theratingbyNorge.noisnotvoluntary,butitis a high‐publicity event in which the results are made public.Therefore, thequalityofpublicwebsitescanbecomparedback intimetowhentheinitiativefirsttookplace.With respect to the second proposition (2), it is surprising thatwhatareconsideredtobetraditionalScandinavianmethods(livinglabs, situated practice, user involvement, etc.) are not addressed.Thiscallsforadditionalresearchonwhetherthewaywebsitequal‐ity is measured lacks credibility within the information systemsdevelopmentcirclesorwhetheritwouldleadtoanybenefitsforthebusiness. The winners of national web awards are highlighted asbestpracticeexamplesandserveas inspirationformanypractitio‐ners. Detailed results from the awards (evaluation process) orga‐nizedbytheNorwegianandDanishgovernmentaremadepubliclyavailable,andthereforepublicwebsiteprovidershaveanopportu‐nity to learn from each other, in order to develop a high qualitypublicwebsite,seenfromagovernmentpointofview.Adiscussionthatnaturally couldbe raised is theoneabout towhat extent theuseofevaluationcriteria intheseawardsactually improvequality,andhowandtowhatextenttheparticipantscanusethefeedbackforqualityorbusinessimprovements.Regardingthethirdproposition(3),weproposethatthetraditionaland conservative choice of variables and methods can lower thewebsite quality and endanger the future for institutionalized webawards.Web2.0 technologies allowusers (andothers) to formad

300

ANDERSEN,SØRUM&MEDAGLIA

hoc communities to give their feedback, even blunt, on the web‐sites.Factoring in this feedback(byusingblogcrawlers,etc.),andusingthisaspartoftheawardshasbeenignoredsofar,butappearsto be a road to explore in future research and practice. Conse‐quently, there is a need to extend our knowledge of practice bystudyinge‐governmentservices inuse,andourproposition is thatweshouldsupplementthepop‐upsurveysandphone‐basedsurveyswithengaged studiesof theoften low‐key technological solutions,such as SMS services and/ or public school extranet services thatattractahighandreturningnumberofusers.Regardingthe fourthproposition(4), theawardssharean implicitbias,accordingtowhichthemoreuseandthemoreusersawebsitehas,thebetter.Whileinsomecasesthiscancontradicttheoverallrationaleforgovernment,itisalsoconflicting,forinstance,withtheweb strategy for the Danish Ministry of Taxation, which aims athavingasfewusersonlineaspossible.Onthecontrary,theirstrat‐egyistodoasmuchinformationcollectionandbackofficecomput‐ingaspossible,andtoaskcitizenstodoasfewinteractionswiththeMinistry of Taxationwebsite as possible. Thus, there is a need todevelopmethodologies onhow tomeasure and awardweb avoid‐ance,thatiswhengovernmentalunitsusebackofficeoperationstoreduceoreliminatetheneedforcitizenstobeonline,andgovern‐mentalunits thatuseWeb2.0proactively to increase citizen self‐governance.Thenecessityoffocusingonthispropositioncouldalsohelp addressing the worrying figures from the i2010 informationsociety indicators on declining number of citizens using public e‐servicesin2008.Regarding the fifth proposition (5), the understanding of the dy‐namicsof e‐governmentneeds tobe extended inorder forpracti‐tioners and researchers to progress from knowing who has bestwebsite, toalsounderstandinghowtheymanagedtoprogressandbe successful.Web awards and catalogues of thewebsites partici‐pating(andranked)inthenationalandEUawardscanformasolidbasisforstudiesonwho,why,andhowsomemanagetostayatthetop every year and get awarded in one or more of the national

301

STATEOFTHEEUNION

awards for two/ three years. Is it because theymanage to attractadditionalfunding/staffduetothefactthattheywonthepreviousyear?Or it isbecausetheunitsdeveloping, implementingandup‐datingthewebsitesgetacloserandmoreconstructivecollaborationafterwinninganaward?DrKimNormannAndersen(@andersenCBS) isProfessorat theCenter forApplied ICT (CAICT) at Copenhagen Business School (CBS), and studymanagerforthee‐businessprogramattheITUniversityofCopenhagen.Hehasdone extensive researchondriversandbarriersonuptakeof IT in thepublicsector,engagedinvariousresearchprojectsandnetworksusingnor‐mativemodelsandevaluationtogiveconstructiveinputtohowgovernmentmoveforwardintheadoptionofIT.HanneSørum(@hannesorum)isaPhDstudentatTheNorwegianSchoolofInformationTechnologyinOslo,whereshealsoworksasalecturer.ShewillreceiveherPhDdegreefromCopenhagenBusinessSchool.Herresearchandpublications focuson topics suchas eGovernment,website evaluationandthebusinessvalueofhuman‐computerinteraction(HCI).RonyMedaglia (@Ronyyy) isAssistantProfessor atCenter forApplied In‐formation and Communication Technology (CAICT) at Copenhagen Busi‐ness School. His research focus is on IT in the public sector, and he hasauthored publications in international journals and conferences on e‐Government, e‐Participation and the use ofWeb 2.0 applications. He hasbeen part ofDEMO_net, a Network of Excellence funded under the Euro‐peanCommission'ssixthframeworkprogram.

302

ANDERSEN,SØRUM&MEDAGLIA

1eGovMoNetisaThematicNetworkco‐fundedbytheEuropeanCommission(CIPprojectnumber224998,Projectperiod:01‐05‐2008–01‐05‐2010)toestablishacommunitytoreviewnationale‐Governmentmeasurementframeworks.

2Sørum,H.,Medaglia,R.,&Andersen,K.(2009).AssessmentofWebsiteQuality:ScandinavianWebAwardsRightonTrack?InElectronicGovernment(pp.198‐209).

3SeeElling,S.,Lentz,L.,&deJong,M.(2007).WebsiteEvaluationQuestionnaire:DevelopmentofaResearch‐BasedToolforEvaluatingInformationalWebsites.InElectronicGovernment(pp.293‐304),andvanVelsen,L.,vanderGeest,T.,terHedde,M.,&Derks,W.(2008).EngineeringUserRequirementsfore‐GovernmentServices:ADutchCaseStudy.InElectronicGovernment(pp.243‐254).

4http://www.amsterdam.nl/ondernemen/horeca5http://www.norge.no/minside/6http://www.besancon.fr/index.php?p=5107http://www.dvdv.de8http://www.zus.pl/english.pdf9http://www.oes.dk/10http://www.kadaster.nl/11http://www.revenue.ie/12http://www.bremen.de/13http://www.help.gv.at/14http://www.agenciatributaria.es/

303

#27

GOVERNMENT2.0ANDONWARDS

JohnGøtzeLecturer,CopenhagenBusinessSchool

ChristianBeringPedersenConsultant,DevoteamConsulting

There ismuchhype,andmany ideas, in theGovernment2.0area.Blogentries,booksandconferencesareeverywhere,andnewserv‐ices,webpagesanddatasetsarebeinglaunchedonaregularbasis.Andnowalsothisbook.“Government2.0”hasbeenclimbing the steep inclineof thehypecycleveryfast.Butasmentionedintheintroductiontothisbook,aGartneranalysthasalready'seen'thepeak.Sowhathappenswhenwereachthe top,andstart to lookdownat theotherside?Whenweallagree,that“Government2.0”willnotsavetheworld,withitsopen data websites, its transparent government memoranda andmanifestos, and its citizen consultations and focus groups. Whathappens, when we realize that government is just as difficult tochange,ifnotmoreso,astheprivateorganizationscurrentlywork‐ingwithadoptingthetoolsofweb2.0asenterprise2.0takeshold?

304

GØTZE&BERING

Itwouldbeterribleforallthisgoodenergytofizzoutandfordisil‐lusiontosetin.Whatifwetrytolearnfromthepastcyclesofhypeanddisillusion,andagreethattherevolutionwillnotbetwittered,writteninawikior released in XML‐format under a Creative Commons license?What ifwe are realistic, and agree that even thoughnewways ofworkingandnewdigital toolshave tremendouspotential tobringaboutchange,itwillstillbehardwork,itwilltakealotoftimeandmanypeoplewillresistthechangeitbrings.The'hypeexperts'fromGartnersay1thatthehypecycleisinevitableand that its phases cannot be avoided, but we can at least try todampentheeffect.Sohowdowedothis?Inourview,thekeyisinadopting a pragmatic perspective,where theway to “Government2.0”blissispavedwithsmall,incrementalvictoriesandcontinuousimprovement.Itwillbeanevolutionaryprocessthatwilltakealotof cultural and organizational change to produce real and lastingresults.The concrete consequence of a pragmatic approach is a differentstrategy.Itstartswiththerealizationthatnoperson,institutionorregioncanforcethroughsignificantchangeontheirown,butalsoinrealizingthatuntilmoreexperienceisgainedwiththenewtoolsand in working with Government 2.0, a lot of organizations andentrepreneurswillbeexploringnewterritoryontheirown.Becauseof this,projectswillbestarted thatwill turnout tobeunrealistic;somewill blow the budget, otherswill bemired bymistakes andcontroversy.Thisisanevolutionaryprocessandthesemistakesareunavoidable,sotherewillbeplentyofopportunitiestogainexperi‐encewithwhatworksandwhatdoesnotwork.Thesedays,weseemanynewservicesbeingbuiltandreleased,par‐ticularlywith regards toopeningup thedata silosofgovernment.Makingdatareadilyavailableislargelyatechnicalchallengeinthebeginning.Nota trivial challenge,butneverthelessmainly techni‐cal. Likewise, a number of similar initiatives about launching col‐

305

STATEOFTHEEUNION

laborativeportalswith citizens, crowdsourcing ideas and reachingoutthroughnewcommunicationchannelslikeYouTubeorTwitterhave initially focusedon the technical side.This isnatural, as thetechnical side iseasy toworkwithand takes lesspoliticalmaneu‐veringandagreementbetweendifferentparties.Althoughtherehavebeensetbacksandproblems,theoverallexpe‐riencewiththesetoolshasbeengood,asitisdocumentedbymanyofthecontributorstothisbook.Partsofthepublicisinterestedininteracting, the employees of the public sector are interested inusingnewandbettertools,anditisgenerallyeasyforthepeopletosee the point of using new tools that are more social, open andflexible. It is a very interesting time to work in andwith govern‐ment,andtheprogressthathasbeenmaderecentlyisveryencour‐aging.Asuccessfulinitiativeonopeningupgovernmentdataorprocessescanleadtobiggerthings.Therelativesuccessofsomeprojectshaspavedthewayforthenextphase,andamongtheearlyadoptersofGovernment2.0somearereadytomovetothenextlevel.Aftertheinitialperiodofpicking the low‐hanging fruit isover, theworkofchanging how government works starts to get more challenging.Demands,bothfrominsideandoutsidegovernment,arebecomingmoresophisticated.Whendevelopersstartusinggovernmentdata,therearegoing tobedemands for theactualityandavailabilityofthis data.When citizens get used to interactingwith the govern‐mentonsomeprojects,theynaturallyexpectthis interactionfromallpartsofthegovernment.Sowith time comes theneed for seriousorganizational change inorder to furtheropenupgovernment andworkmore closelywithcitizens.Theorganizationalchangeisnotgoingtohappenbyitself,anditisnotgoingtobearevolution,wherethemillenials,Genera‐tionY,oranotherparticularlyidentifiablegroup,takecontrol.Itismuchmore likely that changewill happen if the newkids on theblock learn to speak the language of the old guard, and put thebenefitsofthenewmodelinwordsthattheycanunderstand.One

306

GØTZE&BERING

of the words that the people in charge understand is “return‐on‐investment”,ROI.Itisasimplequestion:“whatisinitforme?”andithastobeansweredtomoveforward.Thisshouldbeanimportantpriority for the early adopterswho are now ready tomove to thenextphaseofdevelopment:prove theROIof theearlyprojects togetfundingforthenextbigthing.Themathmaybefuzzyonhowtoquantifythe'valuecontribution'and'businesscase'ofaboostincitizeninteractionorprivateentre‐preneursusinggovernmentdata,butvaluecomesinmanydifferentforms,andinmanycases,thevaluecontributionswillbesoobviousthatitdoesnotmatterifitisunquantifiable.Bothof the authorshave a background in enterprise architecture,and as an enterprise architect it is intriguing, but sometimes alsopainful,towatchthecurrentinitiativesunfold.Government 2.0 projects often lack time and resources to thinkabout standards, compliance, governance, procurement, service‐levelagreements,scalability,securityandallthemoreformalthingsthatcomewithenterprise‐levelinitiatives.Manyprojectsarerunbyenthusiastswhoalreadyhaveadayjob,andwhoarealreadytakingonmuchmorethanwhattheirjobdescriptionsays.Thismeans that there is a risk of constructing new silos of data,informationandexpertise,whenthereisnocoordination.Butthereisnosenseintryingtocontrolthedevelopmentoftheseprojectsorevenworsestopthemfromhappening.Theenergyoftheentrepre‐neurs cannot and shouldnotbe impeded. Sohowcanwe start toapplysomeofthesamearchitecturalcoordinationtothenewgov‐ernment 2.0 solutions that already is in place with a lot of othersystems,withoutruiningtheenergyoftheentrepreneurs?Thisbookcanbeseenasanattempttoaidwithoneimportantas‐pect: communication. By providing examples of what is takingplaceindifferentplacesaroundtheworld,weareaddingtoagrow‐ingbodyofknowledgeinthearea.Hopefullythecommunitiesthat

307

STATEOFTHEEUNION

alreadyexist,likeGovLoop(asdescribedbySteveResslerinchapter4), will help facilitate the communication. There is a big span inmaturity among the different organizations working with govern‐ment 2.0, and it should be possible for the more conservative tolearnfromtheexperienceoftheearlyadopters.Anotherimportantaspectiscoordination.Althoughitisimpossi‐ble to establish common standards in the beginning, with somepracticalguidelinesinplaceatanearlystage,itmaybepossibletoavoidthemoresimplemistakes.Agreeonprovisionalstandardsfordataformats,choosevendorsthatletyoukeepcontrolofyourdataandcallouttheonesthatuselock‐intogainacompetitiveadvan‐tage. Compare solutions with others and prepare to negotiate indifferentareasandaccept solutions thatare “good‐enough” in thebeginning,togetsystemsandpeopletalkingtoeachother.ProvingtheROIofanewinitiativeandidentifyingthefuturearchi‐tectural challenges can make government 2.0 advance muchsmoother.Butitisimportanttorememberthatpartofthenewwayof doing things is adapting an iterative process. So developmentdoesnotstopwhenasystemislaunched,andinteractionwithciti‐zensdoesnotstopjustbecausetheproject isover.Usingthecon‐stant flowof feedback that comes fromopeningup is key to con‐tinuousimprovement.Thepublicsectorwillhavetochangeinalotofwaystolearntousethefeedbackfromthepublic,buttherearealotofpositivesignsthatthingsaremovingintherightdirection.Often,majorinnovationswillbeaccompaniedwithataglinesuchas “this will change everything”. The advances discussed in thisbookcertainly fall into thiscategory.Ofcourse, there is theques‐tionofpreparedness,butgenerally,thereisanacceptancethatthiswillchangeeverything.Perhapsthen,itisbesttoendonanoteofself‐controlinthistimeofexuberance.Letusrememberthattherearemany,manythingsthatwillnotchangeintheGovernment2.0world.People,theelec‐tors,willstillrelyonthepoliticians,theelected,torepresentthem

308

GØTZE&BERING

andmanage theaffairsof their jurisdiction.The fundamental ideaof democracy doesn't change. TheAmerican governmentwill stillbea“governmentofthepeople,bythepeople,forthepeople”,withabitmore“withthepeople”.Taxeswillstillexist,andmanytimesyouwillhavemanypeopledisagreeingwiththegovernmentdirec‐tion.Things,however,arereallychanging.Wenowhavemillionsofpeo‐ple that rally on the internet, protest and even become amob ofsorts.However,evenifmillionsprotestagainstsomething,govern‐mentscannotinterpretthatasamandate.Sure,theremaybepeo‐pleraisingtheirvoice,liketheydointhestreet,butthereisstilltherule of democracy where one person gets one vote.Millionsmayneverjoininthee‐fray,buttheyhavetherightnottodoso.Sowemustmove forward remembering some of these basic democratictenants.Governmentisnotapuppettothevocalminority,thepowerfulfewnorthee‐involved.Oneperson,onevotestillworks.However,poli‐ticiansare facedwith the riskof thebureaucracygettingcloser tothe citizens than they can. Government functions on the basicpremisethat:

A) Peopletellpoliticianswhattheywantbyelectingthosethatpromisetherightthings,andthen

B) Theelectedpoliticiansdirectthebureaucrats.

Politicians, after all, have crisscrossed the land, held countlessmeetings, kissed babies, shook hands and made promises. Theyhavebeenelectedbasedontheirabilitytounderstandtheneedsofpeople,andconvincedpeoplethattheycanmakeithappen.Intheolddays(1990andbefore),thatworked,butnowwehaveanaccel‐erateddemocracy.Unfortunately,insomecases,thebureaucracyisdoingthetalking,conducting theopinions, sharing and talking.Even if all of this is

309

STATEOFTHEEUNION

donewith the permission of the politicians,we have changed thedemocraticmodeltolooksomethinglike:

A) People talk to bureaucrats (via newmedia) and tell themwhattheywant,then

B) Bureaucratstellpoliticianswhatthepeoplesaid,then

C) Politiciansagree(aftersomedegreeofvalueaddedmodifi‐cationsinlinewithgeneralpartyplatforms),then

D) Politicianscrisscrossthelandforthenextelection.Butwhatshouldtheypromise?Shouldtheysay“Iwon'tpromisetodoanything other than be a good listener when the timecomes”?

It is called “disintermediation”, and it will be an interesting chal‐lengeintheGovernment2.0world.Although,itshouldbesaidthatpoliticians are certainly getting into the act, somaybe it is just amatteroflimitingtherangeof(bureaucrat‐citizen)dialoguethatisacceptable,soasnottocauseaproblem.Whatever the answer might be, we do have, however, a startlingreality upon us now. We designed our democratic operationalmodellongago.Theprinciplesandgoalsarestillvalid,butperhapsit is timetochangesomeof thewayswedothings.Wereallycanallowgreatervisibility,dialogueandparticipationintogovernment,andsoweshould.Afterall,itreallyshouldbe“bythepeople”.1http://j.mp/16qY0R

311

INDEX

22008 presidential election,234

2011 census,152

44iP,244

55 statements on IT-

supported government

business projects,164

66 Simple Rules,54,55

88 principles of Open

Government Data,104

AAccess Aware Applications,55

Access layer,154Accountability,211,215,277Active citizenship,215Activity Logging in a

Common Format to a

Service,55

Adhocracy,2,31,39Advisory Panel on Public

Sector Information,146AgeofLinks,191AgeofPaper,191Alabama,138,142AmericaSpeaks,112Amsterdam,292,293,295Apps for Democracy contest,64

AppsForDemocracy.org,147architecture,19,53,66,185offruition,20ofillumination,18ofparticipation,19

AskBristol.com,271Australian Government 2.0

community,80,93

BBankruptcy Abuse

Prevention and Consumer

Protection Act,177Basic Resources for

Integrated Distributed

Group Environments,112Baugesetzbuch (Planning

and Building Law),219BBC Backstage,156,159BBC data sets,156Berlin-Lichtenberg,272Blogger Bob,36Brandeis,169,173,174,178

312

INDEX

BRIDGE,21,34,35,39,49,50,51,52,53,54,57,58,59

Bristol City Council,271British Medical Journal,181Brussels,107,251

CCanada,22,45,112Canonical,277Center for Advances in

Public Engagement (CAPE),236

Center for Responsive

Politics,176Centers for Disease

Control,234,238Centre for Policy

Development,86,95Champions of Participation,238

Changing the Way We Govern,235

Cheltenham Borough Council,272

Cisco and Bearing Point,227Citizenscape,271Clarity,214Click-use licensing

service,157Clinger-Cohen Act,289Cluetrain Manifesto,22,73,77,194

Co-commissioning,272Co-delivering,272Co-design,271Co-evaluating,273Collaborative government,63

Co-managing,272Commitment,214Community safety,260Co-monitoring,272Complexity theory,266Comprehensive Knowledge

Archive Network,157Congress Speaks,201Connections,210Co-ordination,215Co-planning,271Co-production,257,259,260Core Capabilities

Available via Web

Services,55Corporate IT,245Craigslist,43,182,183,187Creative Commons,25,157,304Crowdsourcing,2,47,137,142Crown Copyright,157C-SPAN,171Culture change,90Czech Ministry of Interior,262

Czech Republic,259

DDanish Ministry of

Taxation,300Dansk IT,164Data,3,128,129,130,131,132,133,135,141,142,154,159,171,230,292,295

Data apathy,131Data.gov,171Defense,31,38,39,244

313

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Democracy,2,3,6,12,13,14,23,24,26,30,34,50,59,95,189,196,197,198,200,201,202,203,204,205,233,236,238,239,240

Democracy 2.0,3,13,23,196,197,198,200,201,202,203,204,205

Democracy 2.0 websites,197,200,203,205

Democracy as Problem

Solving?,236Democratic National

Convention,190DEMOS-Plan,227Denmark,20,25,162,163,164,167,205,219,259,263,293,294,295,296,297

Department for Employment

and Learning,119Digg,198,199Digital Birmingham,271Digital Britain,241Digitaliser.dk,162,163DirectGov,156DirectionLessGov.com,98Directorate of Digital

Engagement,144Disclosure requirements

for federal elections,171Discoverable/Linkable

Artifacts,55District of Columbia,136,137,138,142

DKAL,164

EEarmark Watch,200

Earmarks,200EasyTrade,163EC directives,219e-citizen effect,111Economist,284,289e-consultation,112e-democracy,64,109,110,112,113,114,116,229

Efficiency,211e-government awards,25,291,298

EGovMoNet project,291Electronic Frontier

Foundation,184Electronic Invoicing,293,294,295

Electronic tools,222,228Empowered Participation,237England,219,220,227,230,274Enhancing the Relevance of

Space,123Enterprise 2.0,59,79,141,285,289

enterprise architecture,25,52,59,250,306

Environmental Protection

Agency,42,234,238ePeople.go.kr,211e-petition,119,120Erfurt School of Public

Policy,276ErnestMarples.com,152EU,15,20,99,100,106,107,109,111,119,143,146,159,205,250,252,271,273,274,292,295,300

EU Commission,292

314

INDEX

EU Directive on Public

Sector Information,146,159

EU ICT research program,100Europe,7,9,16,22,62,106,158,217,218,219,220,257,281,298

European i2010 information

society,290European Presidency,259Evaluation,107,215,302Everyblock,27

FFair Elections Now Act,186FarmSubsidy.org,98,99Federal Chief Information

Officer (CIO),286Federal Election

Commission (FEC),172Federal Highway

Administration,234Federal IT Dashboard,287Filesharing,184FixMyStreet.com,211,272Flickr,31,125,198,199,270,272Forbes,30,276France,259,264,295FriendFeed,64Funding and Fostering

Local Democracy,236Future Melbourne,119

GGapminder.org,246Gartner,16,20,104,303,304

Geo Data Infrastructure

(GDI),220Germany,184,218,219,223,224,227,259,272,275,295

Gettysburg Address,15GetUp!,86Google,41,64,80,93,138,147,150,158,176,182,198,201,205

Google Maps,138,147,150,158,205

Google News,182Goverati,2,31,32,33,34,35,39Governance in the Digital

Economy research program,110

Government,26,39,59,77,95,107,122,159,230,254,274,302

Government 2.0,1,2,6,9,10,13,14,16,17,21,22,26,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,39,43,62,63,67,69,70,72,73,75,76,77,79,80,81,83,84,88,90,91,92,93,95,97,109,284,285,288,289,303,304,305,306,307,309

Government 2.0 Taskforce,82,88,90,91,93,95

Government Data and the

Invisible Hand,107,155,159Government Gateway,242Government Information

Licensing Framework,82,157

Government Technology,116,122,290

Government Technology

Awards,290

315

STATEOFTHEEUNION

GovLoop,2,21,33,35,41,43,44,45,46,72,77,211,307

Green Party,184Growing Up,236Guardian,200,275

HHabermas,Jürgen,86Hamburg,218,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,231

Here Comes Everybody,39,107,144

How Money Watered Down the

Climate Bill,172

IIBBT Inca award,100IdeaStorm,120Inclusion,208,209,214InfoConnect program,128Information Asset

Registers,157Innovation Council,145Institutional Relations

and Communication,119Intellipedia,77,275,282International City/County

Management Association,235

Internet,8,10,11,13,19,23,35,69,71,72,73,80,85,92,105,110,116,137,169,170,179,181,182,185,187,189,197,198,199,201,210,226,229,237,251,271,296

Investigate your MP's

expenses,200

Investing in Democracy,238Involve,237,239,247iPhone,28,29,43,52,128,153,154,159

Iran,27,85,275IT ServUs team,138

JJobcentre Pro Plus,153John Curtin Institute of

Public Policy,88Journal of the American

Medical Association

(JAMA),180

KKnowledge,26,210

LLabor Party,86Launchpad,277Legacy systems,116Lincoln Memorial

University,181Local environment,260Location-based services

(LBS),134Long Tail,198Luxembourg,212

MMachiavelli, Niccolo,90Maplight.org,172,188Meetup.com,27Meso-level,98

316

INDEX

Microsoft,57,183Microsoft Office,57Mixedink.com collaborative

writing tool,106MMR,266Mr. Smith Goes to

Washington,233Mypage,293,295MySociety.org,97MySpace,42,64

NNapster,183NASA,123,124,125,126National Academy for

Public Administration,130National League of Cities,235

National Nanotechnology

Coordinating Office,234National Rail,153,159NemHandel,163,164Net Present Value,288Netherlands,129,136,294,295Nevada,138New Laboratories of

Democracy,235New South Wales CityRail,153

New York,36,38,70,76,77,142,177,179,182,204,274

New York Times,36,70,77,177,179,182

New Zealand,45,82,83,87,91,128,210,211,215,216

Newspapers,197NGOs,118,198,204,219,222

NHS,145,158,265,273NHS Choices,145No Government scenario,105Norge.no,295,296,297,299Norway,293,294,295,296,297,299

NSW,83Number 10,120NZGOAL,82

OObama,11,13,17,21,28,29,31,33,42,44,73,76,84,98,104,116,119,120,130,136,138,169,186,187,200,202,234,238,246,280,283,286

Obameter,202Objectivity,3,189,191,192OECD,23,114,207,208,210,212,213,215,216,273,274

Office of Public Sector

Information,147,148,157Open and inclusive policy,208

Open conversation,145Open Declaration on Public

Services 2.0,105Open feedback,145Open Government Dialogue,239

Open Government Directive,238

Open Government Initiative,17,39,212,275,280

Open information,145Open innovation,145Open Policy Making,276

317

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Open Source,81Open Value Chain,276Open Value Creation,4,275,276,277

OpenAustralia,86,93OpenCongress,200,201,203OpenSpace,150,151OpenStreetMap,151Ordnance Survey,150,151,158Organizational risk

aversion,117

PPanopticon,18Parliament,82,146,158,203,204,275

Parsing,201Participation,19,26,28,29,34,50,62,65,69,76,85,91,109,110,111,113,120,121,122,161,164,197,204,205,210,211,212,214,215,216,218,219,220,225,227,230,238,263,264,276,281,292,295,309

PatientOpinion.org,98Peoples Parliament,197,205Personal risk aversion,117Philanthropy for Active

Civic Engagement,235Pirate Party,252,253Planning Bill,220,230PlanningAlerts.com,153Policy limitations,118Postcode Address File,151,152

Power of Information,22,143,144,145,147,150,154,155,158,159,246

Power of Information

Review,143,144,150,159Power of Information

Taskforce,22,246Power of Information

Taskforce Report,246Prague,262President Memorandum on

transparency,104Privacy,179,280Private funding,185ProPublica,184,186Public administration,106,218,221,222,223,224,228,250,251,295

Public agencies,118,223Public Agenda,236Public engagement,214Public health,260Public interventions,271Public sector,8,9,10,17,20,23,48,81,82,83,84,87,89,91,92,111,118,143,144,146,147,153,156,162,165,213,244,245,246,261,273,290,294,299,305,307

Public Sphere,82,86Public Whip,202PublicExperience.com,145Punch-Clock Campaign,169

RRadical transparency,278Read-In Bureaus,294

318

INDEX

Reclaim the Government,253Recovery Implementation,130Reddit,198,199Resources,214,236Reversing the Flow,237Rewired State,100,102Rights,214Royal Mail,150,151,152RSS feeds,203

SSafe Locality,262San Diego,272SatLav,149Scandinavia,291,296Scotland,272Screen-scraping,201SecondLife,64Securities and Exchange

Commission,174SenateSite.com,65Seoul Declaration for the

Future of the Internet

Economy,210ShowUsABetterWay.com,147Sichuan earthquake,85Singularity Institute,253,254

Skype,269Slideshare,64Smart Community,272SMS,164,300So Damn Much Money,187Social Inclusion agenda,83Social Innovation camp,100,101,102,244

Social media,39,75

Social movement theory,266Social network theory,266Softwareboersen.dk,163South Bristol Digital

Neighbourhoods,271Spatial planning,217,218Speaking Freely,176Sprint plans,167Stackoverflow.com,204Stumblesafely,27Subversion,163Sunlight Foundation,30,43,103,169,188,201

Supreme Court,173,186SureStart,244Sweden,15,18,24,25,219,250,251,252,253,254,297

Switzerland,252Swivel,64

TTechnology,8,17,26,39,42,54,57,58,59,61,62,67,71,76,81,101,107,119,142,159,222,223,247,251,286,289,290,301

Technology Availability

Level (TAL) rating,58TheyWorkForYou.com,86,98,146,200

Time,214Trading Fund,150Transparency,3,17,18,26,38,73,76,104,163,167,169,174,189,190,191,192,289

Transparency and Open

Government,17,26,38,73

319

STATEOFTHEEUNION

Transportation Security

Administration,36,238TuTech Innovation GmbH,217,225,229,231

TweetMP,86Twitter,27,31,36,37,41,42,43,44,45,64,65,70,72,73,86,115,119,161,198,199,210,212,269,305

UUN eReadiness rankings,290Unified Authentication,55US Congress,123,169US Congress Subcommittee

on Space & Aeronautics,123

US Government,157,287US Patent Office,20,48,138UStream,64,65Utah,21,61,62,64,65,66,67

VVANS,294Vendor Relationship

Management movement,245Viewpoint Learning,112,122Vimeo,64Virtual Alabama,138,142

WW3C,104WAI (Web Accessibility

Initiative),296Wall Street Journal,70,180,181

Washington, D.C.,30,31,41Web 2.0,8,11,21,27,35,39,41,43,47,48,49,55,56,59,65,77,79,80,98,107,110,111,113,114,116,117,118,119,122,143,147,168,197,198,199,200,205,258,269,272,298,299,300,301

Web Awards,296,302Web User Interface,55Westminster City Council,149

Where Is Democracy Headed?,236

Wikipedia,98,199,277Work of Art,252,254WriteToThem.com,204

XXPlanung,226,231

YYahoo,64YouTube,27,31,41,42,64,65,69,73,75,119,120,270,272,305

Visit21gov.net

320

INDEX

Every government leader, every elected official and every gov‐ernmentemployeeshouldreadthisbookandgetinvolvedinoneofthemostexcitingchallengesofourtimes–transforminggov‐ernment for effectiveness, relevance and success, enabled by anewmediumof communicationsand required for the emergingcitizensofthe21stcentury.Thestakesareveryhigh.

‐DonTapscott,inforewordEdited by JohnGøtze andChristianBering Pedersen,State ofthe eUnion is a compilation of contributions to the debateaboutthecurrentandfuturestatesofgovernment.ThemescoveredincludeGovernment2.0;OpenGovernment;Democratizing Government; and Co‐Creation, Innovation &Values.Contributors:

• RichardAllan• KimNormannAndersen• TonyBovaird• LeeBryant• JoanneCaddy• StephenCollins• DanDoney• JamesDowne• MarkDrapeau• BengtFeil• DaveFletcher• MichaelFriis• MattLeighninger• LawrenceLessig• RolfLührs• ElkeLöffler

• RonyMedaglia• PhilippS.Müller• DavidOsimo• TimO'Reilly• TommyDejbjergPedersen• ChrisPotts• SteveRadick• HaraldRathmann• SteveRessler• AlexandraSamuel• W.DavidStephenson• HanneSørum• ArielWaldman• DavidWeinberger• OlovÖstberg