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