designing governance

Designing GovernanceGaïa Jandelle Chaine

Critical Evaluative Report

Gaia Jandelle-Chaine

Major Project

Word count:9616

Submission Date: 20th March 2015

Outline

Introduction

I Democracy as model of governance1.1 The promise of democracy

1.2 Law and democracy

1.3 Democracy at stake

II The social promise of technology2.1 Technology beyond tools

2.2 Problem solving as intelligence

2.3 Hybrids

2.4 Emergence cycle of model of governance

2.5 Prototyping models of governance

III Open Government 3.1 Discourse of Open Government

3.2 Open Governement in France

a- history

b- expectations of the actors

c- network

d- dynamics

3.3 The practice of designing Open Governement

a- strategy

b- tools

Conclusion

BibliographyTable of imagesAppendix

Many thanks to my host, Territoire Numerique,

A special thanks to Jean Marie Bourgogne for being so generous with his knowledge and transmission of experience

PrefaceMany of my readers who are expecting a traditional academic text might be surprised to find that this thesis is articulated not only in words but also in sketches. As a designer I naturally started this writing process as a sketching experience in order to visualise and organise complexity as well as to keep an holistic approach. This thesis is the product of a conversation between the visual and written languages, I decided to keep the sketches for a variety of reasons.

The first is that exposing the process as well as the end result is a shared practice among designers (Johans-son Sköldberg et al. 2013). This ‘open mindset’ aims at engaging the interlocutor in an active journey where he gets the possibility of appropriation and reshuffling of the ‘source’ informations as well as diving into the generative process undertaken by the writer.

The second, is that the use of visuals here is more than a descriptive version of the text. And although semi-otics posit that the meaning of the visual exist through their relationship with words(Pierce/book on semi-otics), I would argue that first of all, there is at times gaps between words and visuals due to their different degree of precision. There is also a growing number of visual concepts that appear on the web that have no word or phrase equivalent, like ‘memes’. Then, there is the fact that visuals such as maps are able to use space (and time if they are dynamic visuals) as agency for complexity.

Sketching also offers an alternative thinking process to writing as it creates distance between the concept and the ego in the same way any concept/idea is incarnated by an object, post it for example (Johansson Sköld-berg et al 2013), a different approach to processing and organising information (Sunni Brown 2014; Gang-sterer, 2011) as it allows more organic, dynamic and non centric interactions and agency of concepts. More importantly, “diagrams (meaning crossing out and rewriting again and again in ancient greek) provide the piloting device for (his) continuous mapping of conceptual topography”. Diagrams are inherently dynamic objects perfect for fast prototyping as they engage the writer within the continuum loop of making, testing and modifying (Knoespel, 2001).

Academic texts and diagrams are two complimentary languages which share different temporality. Diagrams are part of visual language which are adapted to real time/short time understanding and production (dom-inant language of the virtual world) at the opposite of the temporality of the written. The facing of the two different languages create a parallel temporality such as described by Gerard Genette, which generates gaps, friction and tensions. In some part of this thesis, one language might illustrate the other in order to leverage the gaps of the dominant language and create a more subtle and dynamic environment.

This thesis is foremost about designing for the public, therefore the hybridisation of words and visuals builds an experience that offer the possibility to engage with different audiences and allows each reader to create its own unique experience, its own paths (giving them the opportunity to modulate their level of engagement and participation). As communication is an important matter to open governement, I seek to make this space, an open lab for thinking with you how the two languages interact, merge, connect and disrupt one another. The full content of this thesis will be available online as an open material that you can feed and edit.

7

Introduction

The thesis is composed of three parts: the first will explore democracy as a model of governance through its

promise, its relationship with the law and its transformation hopes, the second will question the dynamic

between technology and model of governance through the social promise of technology, the problem solving

intelligence, circumstances of emergence of new governance model and the current practice of imagining

those models, and the last part will question the discourse of open gov, examine the french Open Gov ecosys-

tem and its expectations, and reflect on the practice of designing Open Gov tools.

9

I Democracy as model of governance

1.1 The promise of democracy

Athenian democracy of the V century BC is recorded to be one of the many democratic governance experi-

ment at that time in Greece, however its successful direct democracy model, where citizens are actors (δεμος,

common people and κρατος, power), active participants who shaped their city, their environment (Aristotle,

1993) was the main inspiration of enlightenment period and still remains in our collective unconscious as the

ultimate democratic model. However, democratic models which emerged in Europe and in the US during the

Enlightenment period (second half of the XVIII century) while influenced by the greek model, were built on

a national rather than local (city) level, making direct participation of citizens technically impossible at that

time. Therefore, representative democracy, where citizen loose their legitimacy of public action to the benefit

of elected representatives became and remains the dominant model of democracy.

The initial promise of democracy is that common good must lead governance (More, 1966), putting the inter-

est of the public above the interests of the private. In the athenian experiment, this promise was sustained by

two main dynamics: active citizenship as the engine of trust and responsibility, and by the law as guardian of

the governance model and as essence of social norm. This complementary dynamics sustained an auto regu-

lation of behaviours through social,peer pressure which legitimated citizens as actor of the public, as one was

held accountable for its actions Indeed, this auto-regulation process sustained the concept of the wiseness of

the crowd which gave citizens the legitimacy of public action (Aristotle, 1993).

As the active citizenship dynamic was removed from the later democratic models, western democracies have

built themselves around the law as agency of the people and therefore law has became the central element of

those models which led some to believe that the existence of the public was only possible through a previous

agency of people by the law. This is sustained by Hobbes for whom only a higher authoritative agency can

transform the multitude (the superimposition of private interests, private circles) into a public(Hobbes, 1982).

10

This strengthened the position of the law in democratic governance model as not only the guardian of the

public interests but also as the entity which defines commons. However, this law centric approach, of the

emergence of the public has been criticised by Rousseau, for which the law as the maker of the public is

unjustified as the law is created and agreed to by people who choose this agency and are consequently

previously organised (Rousseau, 1992). This argument of natural emergence of the public is continued later

by Dewey which considers that a community emerges when there is a consciousness of mutual interconnec-

tions followed by behaviour changes(Dewey, 2005).

1.2 Law and democracy

It is necessary at this point to try to define the public and the private, as this division has shaped the frame of our

democratic models. The definition of the boundaries between the public and the private shapes the realm in which

the public is legitimate . In ancient greek, the word private was, ιδιος which gave the word idiot, this gives us some

indication of the value of the public over the private in european cultures. The most accurate understanding of this

divide is defining it through: ‘The consequences [of human actions] are of two kinds, those which affect the per-

sons directly engaged in a transaction, and those which affect others beyond those immediately concerned. In this

distinction we find the germ of the distinction between the private and the public’(Dewey, 2005, p.12).

The law also works as a double dynamic: preserving the core identity of democracy in its constitution, pre-

venting the obsolescence of democracy through the iterative process of common law which regulates new

interactions according to their compatibility with the core identity. However the law’s weakness in Europe

and the united states is to have a logic based on the paradigm of public private divide in a system where this

divide is blurred, almost on the edge of disappearing. This paradigm shift along with the exponential speed at

which new interactions emerge, are adopted or left behind have completely redefined the social context to the

point that the law is failing at performing its iterative process* to preserve the survival of democratic models

as we know them. Those two trend will be further explored later in the technology part.

11

1.3 Democracy at stake

The legitimacy crisis of democratic governance is very visible in France, the distrust of citizen towards democracy

is at its peak, 89% of the citizens think that their politicians do not care about the opinion of the common people

(dec 2014, + 8 points compared to 2009) and 73% think democracy isn’t working properly in France (dec 2014,

+25 points compared to 2009) (CEVIPOV, 2014). This two major trends show current popular resentment against

democracy, visible through symptoms such as: the broken trust between citizen and their representatives and the

distrust in the efficiency and fairness of the system (law, regulation), this threatens the existence and unity of the

nation because without trust, there is no community (Seligman, 1997).

The internet is considered by many of those who sustain active citizenship as an opportunity to finally implement

a participatory democracy (Roberts 2004), aiming to rebuild this golden age democratic model they found in the

athenian model. Even OECD prognosis to country with a trust issue advice to go back to essentials values of democ-

racy, among which openness, better regulation and inclusive policy making (OECD, 2015). Indeed, the internet is

even considered to remove the implementation barriers (widely exposed by its opponents) of participatory democ-

racy: the inefficiency of the crowd and its possible radicalisation (due to a lack of knowledge or understanding).

Crowdsourcing and auto regulation of extremism by social media pressure are believed to make the implementation

of participatory democracy possible on a large scale, national level (Roberts, 2004; Kelley, 2012).

However, the internet is already a 50 years old invention and internet aided participatory democracy is still very

experimental under the forms of crowdsourced ideas and votes, like Podemos platform in Spain or used for specific

tasks like participatory budgets, (city council of Paris, participatory budget platform) inlcuded in a traditional gov-

ernance. Many previous technological inventions have each in their time spread the hope of enabling participatory

democracy at a state level, without success (Flichy, 2001). This hope emanates from the expectation that new inter-

actions made possible by a technology would modify the relationship between governance agencies and the people

through the redefinition of their respective role (Kelley, 2012). Those past failures along with fear of techonology

have led some pro-participatory governance actors to radically reject technological innovation.In the next chapter

we will explore further the relationship between technological change and models of governance.

13

II The social promise of technology

2.1 Technology beyond tools

Every new technology is endorsed by a wide range of different people as being the strong dynamic for so-

cial change, wether the upcoming technology is rejected or embraced. In many cases, the expected impact

is often bigger than what actually happens (Flichy, 2001). In his study of the discourse of the internet, Flichy

also notices that we tend to immediately give a social purpose to new technology, while using the semantics

of ‘repair’ and ‘resolve’*.The digital era continues to advocate the cyber libertarian promises of the internet

period. Cyber libertarianism builds up on the american self made man, its anti State position is ,above all, a

critic of the reduction of individual freedoms through regulations which are believed to be the cause of the

inertia of the current social agency (Sola Pool, Toffler, Gilden, Mueller). Therefore it builds a mindset around

the dynamics of freedom and open participation.

This dual dynamic is very similar to the freedom of information** and active citizenship dynamics that sustained

athenian participatory democracy (considered by many as the golden age of democracy), the idea that the internet

enable us to break up with hierarchy and finally allow us to build some kind of participatory democracy (Noveck,

2009). The hope that first the internet and then, later digital technologies would disrupt the representative democrat-

ic governance model is a constant in the silicon valley discourse, where companies and individuals feel empowered

to act and disrupt beyond their initial realm (technology) and increasingly in the public sector, as Eric Schmidt,-

CEO of google and Silicon Valley preferred gourou, has declared: “If we get this right we can solve the worlds prob-

lem”(Schmidt, 2012 cited in Morozov 2013). Digital technologies are not neutral, they carry political values that are

embedded within the interactions they create, which in turn modifies behaviours.

*the use of ‘repair’ refers to going back to a fantasised golden age of social agency, while the use of ‘resolve’ refers to our possible use of this technology as a multi-purposes problem solving tool- a meta solver.

**the freedom of access to information was during the Enlightenment considered as the condition for the emancipation of the in-dividual from their dependancy to any master (Kant). One might think that one of the ambition of the silicon valley is to break the dependancy of individuals to a previous agency and foster auto organisation.

15

Much like Hollywood through movies and Tv shows, the Silicon Valley uses soft power to influence the agen-

cy of the system.This analysis is sustained by McLuhan argument : ‘the medium is the message’ which states

that the content is secondary to the characteristics of the medium, as it is the latter that has an affect on society

(McLuhan, 1977). The internet is intrinsically a participation enhancer, as a cool media, it leaves space for

interpretation contrary to hot media like the radio and books, and this space is creating a dynamic of partici-

pation especially in societies that are accustomed to the supremacy of hot media (McLuhan, 1977).

And the technology was adopted as such,the president of a french open gov think tank confirms that ‘internet

is more than just a tool, it’s a place for democratic expression’ (Benchoufi, 2010)

2.2 Problem solving as intelligence

Big tech companies are committed to ‘make this world a better place’, this promise which is the expression of

the urge to make a positive impact, is correlated to problem solving practice.Problem solving is valued as the

ultimate form of intelligence as it based on the same standards as the one used we use to describe intelligence:

pattern recognition, building systematic agency from patterns.

The fame of the following quote, which is attributed to Einstein, shows the extreme value our culture puts in

problem solving: ‘We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them’ , this

tells us that only way to solve a problem is to adopt a different mindset from the one it was created with, but

also that show us how embedded the practice of problem solving is. This quote has had such an impact that

we are today experiencing a dynamic of obsolescence of mindsets (defining mindsets as way of thinking that

dictates our behaviour), through the perpetual substitution of one mindset by another, as each new gener-

ation of problem solvers try to escape previous mindset by using external inputs from more or less exotic

practices, sometimes a mix of those practices (like design, meditation, gaming) which are then transformed

through the sieve of problem solving culture into decontextualised, systematised and best practice labelled

tools that form the toolbox of the supposedly ‘new’ mindset. However, if we look closely at this dynamic we can see

that only the tools are different to some extend, while the same problem solving mindset remains all along.

17

When a ‘mindset’ is considered obsolete, it also affects the legitimacy of the practices (and can obsolesce them to

some extend) which inputs were used to create the toolbox*. Problem solving presents several other issues but remains a

prominent practice in a wide range of sectors from digital tech(Morozov 2013), to policy design (Howlet and Ramesh 2003).

Problem solving flatters our ego by telling us that if we solve a problem, we create a better place, thus that we have made

a positive and a real measurable impact on society, and breaks down complexity into fragmented apparently solutionable

problems. Not having to face complexity removes our barrier to action, so it pushes us into action, however it also reduces

or prevents us from having a holistic approach which in most case is essential to get a productive outcome which doesn’t

generate sequential ‘problems’ (Junjingen, 2014).

While collective intelligence is sustained as the panacea of this problem solving mindset culture, collective intelli-

gence in the virtual take essentially the form of crowdsourcing. The two main forms of crowdsourcing however, the

gathering of micro data from a large crowd or the production of information from a limited and competing crowd

(Mergel ,2014), highlight the fact that collective intelligence in the virtual is only the addition of small individual

actions or the competition of individual actions. In both cases, collective intelligence in the virtual realm is nothing

more than the sum or competition of individual actions, according to Jeff Howe inventor of the word crowdsourc-

ing, says he prefers the word ‘collective intelligence’ as people in that case don’t act like a crowd, ‘ it works only when

a bunch of individuals are expressing their individuality to the utmost’ (Howe to Duff 2009) . Alike problem solving,

collective intelligence seems to avoid complexity through fragmentation, of the context for the former and of human

interactions for the latter, probably for the sake of efficiency and purity (Morozov, 2013).

But most of all, problem solving is so internalised by many actors that they experience the world as a juxtaposition of ever

emerging problems, therefore like Sisyphus, they are in this continuous dynamic starting over and over again(Camus, 1985),

indefinitely, with the task of adjusting experience of the past to the present rather than building the interactions of the future

(Junjingen, 2014). This dynamic while highly addictive by the impact expectation and the ‘white hat’ feel, also constitutes

some form of alienation, shaping our experience of the world as a fast race towards an impossible optimum efficiency.

*the wide use of design thinking tools for example create the risk for the different design practices to be considered as obsolete when the tools will be changed.

19

2.3 Hybrids

The hybridations of current technologies are increasing the number and nature of social interactions, de-

fining new paths and opportunities. When those interactions are adopted, those new paths transform the

agency of the system (Hert, 1999; Foucault, 2012) therefore, we can acknowledge that current digital technol-

ogies hybridations are constantly reshaping the agency of the system through the immense number of new

possibilities of interactions it generates. One of the product of the hybridisation of new and past technologies is

the virtual.

The understanding of the virtual is quite fragmented, a consensus forms around the fact that the virtual is the

opposite of the real (Schields in Flichy 2001) but at times the virtual is considered as a separate space (Slater

2002). The virtual is polysemic and the intend here is not to be exhaustive of the different understanding of the

virtual, however one understanding of the virtual by Deleuze stands out, as it will nourish our understanding

of the beliefs we put in the virtual as a potential for our social utopia [the virtual as] an aspect of reality that is

ideal but real, the opposite of the actual,(Deleuze, 1990). If we accept the common understanding of the virtual

opposed to the real, and the real being defined by the following characteristics: space, time and matter, we could

define the virtual in as having the opposite characteristics. This leads Pine to argues that the virtual is defined

by having no space (virtual), no time(autonomous), no matter(bits), (Pine, 2011),however physics makes more

sense in its understanding of the real defined by its space on earth as finite, time as linear and matter as tangible.

We could consequently define the virtual as infinite space, non linear time and non tangible matter.

The multiverse theory defines the virtuality and reality not as worlds but as realms of this same unique world

along with six other realms which are intermediaries between the former and the latter.(Pine, 2011).Those eight

realms are: reality, augmented reality, physical virtuality, mirrored virtuality, warped reality, alternate reality,

augmented virtuality and virtuality.

20

The touch points and cross-use of those realms generate an incredible amount of new possible interactions

that is exponentially growing at a fast pace Pine (2011), as the paths become a more complex combination

of the former and latter. The mergence of the real and virtual in our daily life is imposing itself by our non

acknowledgement of shifting from one another. This is enhanced by cross realms experience which leads ‘our

identity [to be] increasingly hybrid’ (Flichy, 2001, p.54).

The hybridation of our identity, and the management of this identity across the realms as well as the nature of

the virtual (open, transparent) also impacts on our conception of the private and the public.

Japanese culture has never defined clearly the boundaries between the public and the private, for Berque,

author of a book analysing space in Japan,‘the indecision between the private and the public is physically

embedded in the Japanese territory: landowners could’t separate their land from the collective even if they

wanted’ (Berque, 2004, p.131) because water and the irrigation systems on which the base of their survival

and culture depended on could not be divided as private individual properties. This dependancy on a vital

resources is similar to the dependancy we experience in the digital age towards the network and its resources

(services, apps,data) and comes to the price of sharing our private informations. like japan dependency on

their irrigation system, we depend on virtual network as a vital flux.There seems to be no possible independ-

ence from this, but through disabling, devaluating oneself in an ultra competitive environment, which would

be a self destructive dynamic (Rama Murthy et al. 2013). Lean management, initially an american business

strategy to rebuild japan economy after WW2, has build on this japanese culture of merging the private and

the public to successfully enhance efficiency through productivity (Meissonnier, 2014).

Our transition from a clear distinction of the public and private to a mergence on the two is changing the

way we interact,such as the progressive disappearance of office hours, the exposition of ones private life to

the media and community’s judgment, the careful management of one’s identity, and therefore it impacts our

behaviours and mindset.

21

The following dynamics disrupt the law in its iterative role in democratic models: the abandon of historic

processes, the impossibility to regulate the expanding ever changing, adoption of alternative paths in the

virtual or cross realms and the mindset/paradigm shift due to the mergence of public and private life, for an

agency intrinsically based on a clear divide between the public and the private.

The redefinition of behaviours by new and emergent interactions is a widely sustained argument from Mc

Luhan to Stephane Vial. But while the former talks about the media’ s impact (McLuhan, 1977), the latter, a

philosopher and practitioner of digital interactions, claims that the environment created by a technology era

impacts our sensory experience of the world to the point that we experience it through its filter, its interac-

tions, and therefore we are being moulded by the mainstream technologies of our time (Vial, 2013).

This emergence of new interactions and their wide adoption creates circumstances for tensions between some

mainstream, existing -ultra designed (by top down) and controlled (regulated)- institutionalised paths, what

Foucault calls process (Hert, 1999), and emergent, open paths made possible by virtual and cross realms

interactions. The relationship of actors toward the historic processes is modified as, processes as mean of

control (Foucault in Hert 1999, pp.93) are disrupted by a mainstream trend of deviation of processes by users

(Certeau, 1990), this creates a power shift dynamic from historical process makers to the designers of deviat-

ed paths.The virtual and cross realm interactions empower and free the people from controlled process and

offers them a whole new sensitive experience of their environment. However, it might be necessary to nuance

the fact that deviation of processes as a mainstream activity, by stating that it is rather a mainstream con-

sumption of already deviated processes, which is the activity of a minority actor who turn those deviations

into business models*. While the virtual frees us of many constraints of the real (law), most of us experience

the virtual as tourists looking for the best bargain rather than as Certeau’s ‘flanneur’.

* Transferwise is a typical example of those business which base its competitive edge by deviating processes. It is a startup that transfers money, it uses the possibility of the digital to go around the conversion process by pairing transfers so that no conversion is done,eliminating the cost of the process of traditional conversion.

23

2.4 Emergence cycle of model of governance

Literature about the cycle of emergence of governance model can help us analyse further those dynamics

which reshape the agency of the system. In his lecture about governance, Foucault takes the modification of

the alethurgic cycle, the way truth is assimilated, as the trigger for the dynamic of emergence of a new gov-

ernance model. This would modify the way knowledge is produced and diffuse and in turn create a paradigm

shift (Foucault, 2012). If we understand paradigm shift as a collective modification of individual’s mindset,

leading to new responses, new behaviours, the different models of governance emergence cycle offer some

similitude in their understanding of the dynamics*. However there is some subtleties, Dewey and Flichy con-

sider that technology is the initial trigger, while for the former it is technological innovation, for the latter it

is the hybridation of technologies (new technologies hybrids but also old tech- new tech hybrids). In this cur-

rent period it seems undeniable that technology hybrids are the triggers of the emergence cycle we presently

experience, technology doesn’t have the monopoly of creating this dynamic of emergence if we look back at

previous emergence of new governance model like the disruption of the roman empire model by christianism

(Foucault, 2012) . This leads us to consider hybridation dynamic as a potential trigger. But rather than con-

sidering that it is solely the hybridation of techs that creates a paradigm shift (Flichy, 2001) we can acknowl-

edge the following powerful dynamics generated by polyhybrids: superimposition of public-private, virtual

and real, technology hybrids, cultural hybrids.

We can then imagine a new model of emergence of governance model based on poly hybrids dynamic as

trigger that generates new interactions which when adopted forms new paths. Those new paths disrupt the

previous agency of the system through the obsolescence of past processes, and reshapes it in parallel of mod-

ifying behaviours. This double dynamic generates a strong pressure on a non iterative governance model, this

tension transforms into a transition from one model to another, most of the time through a violent rupture

after a latence phase of ‘surface’ inertia**(Dewey, 2005).

* when Foucault uses paradigm shift to refer to the modification of mindsets, its very macro level, whereas Dewey and Flichy model refers to it as the sum of individual’s new behaviours, this micro approach to mindset change is more nuanced and less systematic?

**This phase is paradoxically consolidated by the tandem of mainstream innovation and design (as design thinking) doc I in appendix

25

As we have discussed earlier, in representative western democracy, the law plays to some extend the iterative

process that allow the model of governance to sustains itself even when hybrids generate new interactions, as it

absorbs and regulate them. However, the ultimate stability of the governance model (and consequently the re-

duction of the law as iterative process) is needed to sustain a high level of productivity demanded by a post ide-

ology, efficiency based mindset of the administration (as well as the rest of actors) (Lyotard, 1979). Today how-

ever, we consider that living systems (governance model are one of those) are not still but dynamic (Heppenstal

et al. 2012), it is easy to understand that a fixed agency in a dynamic system which is permanently reshaped and

intrinsically unstable is subject to a number of tensions and disruptions which decreases efficiency.

In a period where the speed of emergence of new interactions is increasing at a fast rate and the adoption

time of the former by actors is consistently decreasing, the length of survival of non iterative or low iterative

model of governance is reduced (and will continue to decrease as the poly hybrid dynamic continues).This

instability of the system agency means that model of governance that are based on stability are extremely

vulnerable, fragile and could create, through a succession of ruptures of governance model a high level of

tensions and latence, which would considerably decrease efficiency. Therefore, if the aim is to create an opti-

mised, ultra efficient system, governance needs to build as an antifragile model, which allow it to transforms

along the transformation of the system (Taleb, 2014). As we have seen before, the law as an iterative apparatus

is not sufficient to sustain the malleability of the governance model in current context due to the temporality

of the law and its regulation approach to interactions. It is necessary to question the cultural drivers which

push us to value stability in european culture, and shift from an efficiency through stability to an efficiency

through malleability mindset, what we will understand as ‘open’ mindset from now.

27

2.5 Prototyping models of governance

A number of alternative models of governance experiments are being tested presently. Contrary to previous

attempt to invent new social agency in past latence/transitional periods like Moore’s utopia in the 16th centu-

ry or socialist utopia in the 20th century, current experiments are carried out as ‘scientific like’ experiments (

imagining through practice) on defined territories. Utopia from the grec υτοποζ, the non place is a narrative

exercise which aims at defining interactions within a social system(Moore 1966), practopia however is a prac-

tice which builds alternatives rather than ideal (Toffler, 1983).

The city or similar sized area become the living labs for these practice, defining cities as the new node/scale of

governance. Cities are increasingly gaining independence from the states while growing strong partnerships

and networks with cities over the world, which share some similar visions.(Moreno, 2014)

Their relative autonomy, the competition between cities and its scale make cities an interesting place for

experimenting interactions. Practopia are using heterotopia: determined spaces where the interactions differ

from the rest of the world (Hert, 1999) as playground to build governance model prototypes.

However disconnected from ideals they claim to be, those experimentations are of course not neutral,we

will explore further the three dominant typology of practopia which emerge from those experiments spread

around the world: the smart city, the open governance and the shared economy.

The smart city sustains the idea that technology can make the city intelligent, more efficient and stable

through resilience dynamics, happening through regulation of all the interactions of the systems by ma-

chines. The reality of the smart city is the gathering of data through sensors disseminated in the city, the

treatment (analysis) of the data by machine which creates a wide range of real time knowledge on all the as-

pect of the city. This knowledge is then used by civil servants or transformed by machines to make better de-

cisions (more efficient). Arguments for the smart city are oriented towards its efficiency in all domains,gains,

and security. The smart city industry is a prospected (for 2020) 108 billion$ market (Walravens, Breuer &

Ballon, 2014) sustained essentially by tech and construction multinational corporations (Cisco, IBM).

29

The most renown example of smart city is Songdo, a new city built by South Korea for the purpose of experi-

menting and displaying know how. The success is mitigated by its struggle to attract new inhabitants.

The smart city vision is widely criticised for its lack of ‘humanity’, for being too technology centred (Moreno,

2014). The constant surveillance of inhabitants through a full video camera system and tech assisted decision

making process has an Orwellian taste. The immense cost of making and maintaining smart city along with

the obsolescence of the technologies it is sustained by, question this mainstream vision of the smart city.

The shared economy is build around the promise of rebuilding local interactions, rebuilding local dynamics

(social thread and business through the digital technologies and is auto organisation oriented. This takes the

shape of (local) platforms and networks. Shared economy initiatives are developed essentially by start ups

(Airbnb, Blablacar…), but also by the public sector (Velib by Paris city council) in collaboration with the pri-

vate sector and NPO, and non profit organisations (local social networks like autour.con, sharevoisin).

Some shared economy services are real success stories, like Blablacar, now the european leader of carpooling

which has managed in less than 10 years (put on the market in 2006) to create a real behaviour change, trans-

forming a marginal interaction into an dominant alternative to other transport modes for many travelers.

However this fulgurant successes, by the incredible dynamic they generate are extremely disruptive to the

current agency, with some important sides effects like the case of airbnb which reduce the traditional rental

offers in cities which already lack housing and consequently pushes inhabitants out of the city center. Shared

economy success story often tend to occupy a monopole position and cannibalise competition.

Advocates of open government see it as an ‘update, an iteration of the current democratic governance ’(from

interview), ‘a mean not an end’( The White House, 2011) to the needs and expectations of the digital era. It

aims at rebuilding legitimacy of democracy as a governance model through modifying, updating the interac-

tions between the different actors of the system and especially intra administration and administration-cit-

izens relationships (Kelley et al. 2012 ). Open gov is diffused by administrations both at local and national

level, across the world.

31

The united states is leading this dynamic. The Obama’s open gov memo during his first day in office (2009)

and the Open Gov Partnership, a global initiative involving 64 countries so far (with its obligation to submit

an action plan for the development of open gov in their respective country). Open gov promise to create a

better governance model (more efficient, more fair, more engaging), “will strengthen our democracy and

promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.” (Obama 2009) through three dynamics: transparency

based on open data, collaboration based on multi actors projects, and participation based on crowdsourcing

(Obama, 2009). Open gov is marketed as a neutral, consensual program. However, it is intrinsically a political

strategy which understand the need to transition smoothly from one governance model to another in order

to minimize the damage that would cause the emergence of a new governance model (short term) and the

perpetuation of governance emergence cycle acceleration (long term) ,and propose a form of iterative gov-

ernance based on the ‘open mindset’, in order to sustain what is most important to the administration: effi-

ciency through equilibrium. However, there is several limits to the practice of open gov such as the difficulty

to spread open gov practices in a hostile environment, the sustainability of open gov projects in the context of

constant political alternance and budget cuts, the interests gap between the public actors: politicians…

Those three practopia are carried out with different purposes, by different leading actors and different mind-

sets, and seem quite disconnected from one another. The use of new interactions seem to be imagined sector

by sector, the administration with open gov, the big industry with the smart city, start ups and non profit

organisation with shared economy projects, with little experimentation at the touchpoint . If the cross over

seem rare, the semantic used to describe those experiments have some similarity. All three are marketed as

efficient (highly productive) and adaptable in the sense that they can absorbe (resilience) : Smart City, or

morph through iteration of processes: open gov and shared economy, when under pressure. The next section

will explore the practice of designing open gov, through the analysis of the french Open Gov network,the

expectations of the different actors and my practice as a designer in a city council open lab.

33

III Open Government

3.1 Discourse of Open Government

Most work which talk about Open Gov, introduce it’s emergence and diffusion by three contextual aspects:

the economical context: financial instability and budget cuts (austerity), the low level of trust of citizens in

politicians and administrations which endangers the legitimacy of representative democracy as agency, and

the possibilities offered by digital technologies for a redefinition of actors’ role ( Obama, 2009; O’reilly, 2010;

Harrison, 2012; UK OGP Action Plan, 2013; Christiansen, 2013; Kelley, 2012 ; Nambisan, 2013). Looking

back at how Open Gov concept was formed might inform us further on the circumstances of its emergence

and diffusion.

The word Open Gov itself only emerged from the democrats at the end of president Bush term, essentially as a

political opposition to the secrecy of Bush governance who’s anti terrorism policy had consistently limited the

access of american citizen to information through extending the perimeter of the classified documents. But the

concept of Open Government itself finds its roots much earlier, in the athenian model of democracy. In mod-

ern times, 1953, an assembly member (democrat under a republican term) issued the Brown act in California,

which purpose was to face the growing hostility of citizens toward the secrecy of the administration, the acts

states: ‘The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for

the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that

they may retain control over the instruments they have created.’ This was achieved through including citizens in

local meetings, and decision making process, rendering civil servant accountable through transparency (open

information). The Brown act equivalent was enacted at a national level in 1967 under the name of the Bagley

Keen act. If this Brown act is strongly similar in appearance to the contemporary principles of open gov : trans-

parency, collaboration, participation, the main (and constant) reference is to be found in the FOIA, freedom of

information act of 1966, which is strictly oriented towards the accountability of civil servants and administra-

tion through transparency of information, leaving the participation of citizen aside.

34

Although America hasn’t’ invented accountability of civil servants, many countries like France for example

had this principle embedded in their initial constitutions, the modernisation of this concept has first started

in the United States, FOIA being the oldest of modern freedom of information law in the world.

The brown, FOIA and Bagley Keene acts have all been sponsored by democrats, its democratic label and it

being rather consensual even among republicans* coupled with the context of secrecy of the Bush era and the

economic crisis, made open gov a valuable political strategy for Obama to win the 2008 elections.

This is visible if we look at the number of open gov related acts during the presidential race.

The candidates of the 2008 US presidential election presented their candidacy at the beginning of 2007, and

during the almost 2 years of campaign, 28 acts where submitted to the house and senate, when the past ten

years had seen 0-2 open gov related act per year.** This deployment has popularised and diffused to some

extend the idea of open gov in America.

Behind this claims of openness and accountability,open gov role is to increase the efficiency of administration in a

budget cuts situation through the monitoring and assessment of administrations and citizen participation. The pref-

erence of the FOIA act over the Brown act is not trivial. Indeed the role of the citizen in open gov is limited to a user

or professional expert whose expertise is crowdsourced (challenge.org, code for america), but where the citizen has

no voice in the decision making process. The dynamic between the administration and the citizen has changed from

a top down to a feedback loop process, the redefinition of the relationship and the role of the actors is correlated to

structural changes of the system. Open Gov claims to create a mix of civil and social learning system according to

the Citizen and Administrator Roles in Public Administration Models (Roberts, 2004), where citizen and adminis-

trators are active co-producer, but today the relationship that open gov has generated in the US is closer to a political

market economy where the citizens are customer and administrators, brokers.

*the Foia amendments of 2007 was voted under a suspension of the rules procedure, used to pass non-controversial rules (gov track us)

**26 of the 28 acts sponsored were sponsored by democrats, 2 by republicans. Those acts were presented during two key periods: at the beginning of the race (Jan,Feb,MArch 2007, 13 acts) and before the election (June, july 2007, 8 acts). Obama sponsored one act in each block.Only 3 acts were passed the ‘honest leadership and open government act’ in 2007 (democrat), the FOIA amendments of 2007 (democrat) and the open gov act of 2007 (democrat). The biggest contributors are well established democrats: Henry Waxman, Patrick Leahy and Laey clay who each sponsored three acts.

35

Even though many cases, the citizen is a crowdsourcer and could be perceived as a volunteer, the dynamic

created by the feedback loop and crowdsourcing follows the current relationship between customer and com-

panies which tends towards prosumers: an individual that is active both in the act consumption and produc-

tion and support different core values like altruism, (Toffler, 1983).

figure 1: citizen and administrator roles in public administration models, Roberts

3.2 Open Governement in France

a- history

France joined the Open Gov Partnership in 2014 and is in the process of elaborating an action plan ( currently

being established by national administration, SGMAP with the help of the civil society). However, Open Gov is

not new in France and the ecosystem is worth examining as it is undergoing very important dynamic changes.

Obama Open Gov policy has influenced french digital tech think tank (FING) especially the transparency and ac-

countability part through open data, which was perceived as a strong opportunity to update democracy. The first open

data portal opened in June 2010 in Rennes Metropole followed up by Paris and most big cities in France in 2011,2012

and 2013 (still an ongoing process). Through those experimentations, cities went naturally beyond by working with

citizens on different projects ( like UFO, villes sans limites projects).

The full Obama Open Gov vision came only later. In parallel the national administration had synced their different

administrations working on reforming the state structure into the DGME (Direction General de la Modernisation

de l’Etat) in 2005 which transformed into the current SGMAP in 2012 (Secretariat General de la Modernisation de

l’Action Public, not solely working on modernisation of public policy from the open gov angle) ,and created a national

open data platform in 2012: Etatlab, which is now part of the SGMAP program.

37

b- expectations of the actors

To understand the expectation in France of the different actors towards the concept of open government a

series of interview were organised targeted to citizens (quantitative) and to the people who deploy open gov

in France (qualitative).

Concerning the first series, 29 persons were interviewed in February 2015 in Montpellier, the panel was cho-

sen randomly in the street among people in non active postures. they answered the following questions:

-Have you heard about open gov/open government before ?

-Have you heard about ‘democratie ouverte’ before? (If yes was answered to those question: Can you tell me about it?)

-How old are you?

-On a scale from 1 (not agile) to 5 (native) how agile are you with digital technologies?

100% of the interviewed had never previously heard about open gov, 34% of them had already heard about the

french official translation of ‘democratie ouverte’, and 80,8% of them were able to put words on the concept but

almost 90% of them mixed it up with similar named concepts and especially participatory democracy. This shows

an extremely weak awareness to the open gov concept, with only 3,4% of the respondents (1 person for which open

gov was studies related) able to show an understanding of the meaning. If this sample is to small to give us absolute

numbers, it still gives us some indication of the degree of open gov diffusion in the french society.

Concerning the second series, 6 persons who deploy Open Gov in France were interviewed (4 consistant

answerers), (3 from local administration/institution, 2 from national administration,1 from NPO) ,in semi

conducted interview format, they answered the following questions:

-What is your job title, how long have you been working in open gov related projects?

-How would you manage open gov in a new city ?

-What is you biggest deception in your work?

-For you, what is the role of a designer in the deployment of open gov?

-What will open gov look like in France in 10-15 years?

39

The analysis of the qualitative interviews focus on elements that surfaced as touchpoint or tension.

Concerning the way those actors would deploy open gov in a new city, the management strategies differ from

very directed processes, semi directed to progressive management in sync with the affect on the public. How-

ever the main ideas of what needs to be done is quite consistent: diffusing,’building’ open gov culture: ‘I re-

main persuaded that it’s a culture, a mindset so it’s not by processes, it’s not by a law that it will happen, it will

be through practice’(interviewee 2). However there is a tension on the role of the law for open gov: ‘I think

that the law and the financial aspect attached to it can be essential supports [for open gov]’ (interviewee 1).

Interviewees put forward, education, multi actors co creation and open tools as channels to diffuse open gov.

Through education with data education and re use workshops, but also to the communication on open gov

dynamics to all the different actors. Through co-creation refers to upstream participation of multi actors

groups in public projects and acknowledgement of key actors on the territory : ‘the first posit is to co con-

struct with citizen from the beginning’(interviewee 2), ‘I would identify the key actors on my territory, which

NPO, which researchers,etc’(interviewee 2). And through iterative open tools, which can be reuse, optimised

and deviated by the citizens: ‘it’s also giving the mean to citizens to reuse it in order to improve it , to do

something else, innovations, new services’ (interviewee 2), and create the possibility of assessing the impact

of the tools and suppress useless and nocive tools (flexibility of the tools/interactions) : ‘every year I would do

an evaluation, assessment, to see what [tool] worked or not’(interviewee 3).

There is a consensus concerning designer’s role in the deployment of open gov. The designer is seen as an

interaction builder,facilitator, with a different culture, perspective: ‘It’ s interesting to work with designers

because they come from a culture that is very different from the administration’s’ (interviewee 1), ‘they need

to be somewhat connected to reality and uses, we need someone that knows how to do it’ (interviewee 3).

* Find the full interviews in the appendix in section M

41

The main issue encountered by them is the confinement, the isolation from the rest of the departments, there

is a gap between the pro ‘open gov’ discourse and the defence mechanism of the administration which reject

heterogeneous ideas/ mindset leading to an isolation dynamic.’’My biggest regret is to be ostracised from the

rest of the administration, and not to have being able to build a dynamic”(interviewee 1), My deception at

the beginning of this project was the isolation, I was by my own for this project’ (interviewee 5), ‘ There is no

room for people like us, we are only passing by, the system is very bureaucratic, statutory and doesn’t inte-

grate us.’ (inerviewee 4)

The future of open gov is considered in two different ways, either as a radical reshuffling of actors role in the

system (modification of decision making mechanisms, shift from a public actor centred dynamics to a circu-

lar dynamics between the different actors),or as a cohabitation of current agency mixed with parts of open

dynamics, reflexes. This was complemented with material gathered at an open gov meeting with DG,DGA

and DGS (public service chief executives). Those actors early adopters are actively deploying open gov on

their territory. This meeting which aimed at sharing best practices and strengthen the interconnection of this

community of practice also has seen the following tensions emerge:

-the risk of Open Gov transforming into a new management model that would obsolesce

-Local experimentations versus systematisation of practices

-the tension between design as a new way to approaching problems versus the risk of designing thinking

transforming into a ‘magic powder’, rigid toolkits in the hand of a process applying administrative culture.

-defining the role of the designer in the administration ( intern, extern, shared)

-the challenge of building an Open Gov culture in an administrative environment.

* Find the Verbatim from the meeting in the Appendix in section O

43

When the open gov arrived in France, its translation came from the name of the non profit organisation ‘Démocratie

Ouverte’, which had popularised a graphic representation of open gov which translated open gov as ‘démocratie

ouverte’. There’s been a name issue with this concept that regroups three different dynamics which were often sepa-

rated in the practice as it gathered two streams of actors: those who previously did open data (and came from a TIC

background -Technology of Information and Communication-)and those who had a more participatory democ-

racy background and who rallied open gov by the participation branch. Although there is some mergence of those

streams today through cross dynamics projects, an ideologic and practice divide remains to some extend, especially

in their use of technology. The difficulty of the name giving exercice comes from the fact that only a very small

amount of the population has been in contact with open gov projects (which remain essentially local experiments,

limited in their impact), consequently open gov which is something intangible has presently no actuality for most

citizens. The meaning will probably emerge from the contact of citizens to open gov projects.

c- Network

The network of open gov actors in France is limited to less than 100 actors directly engaged in open gov pro-

jects. From observing their roles and interconnection, we can distinguish three identities: maker, influencer

and platform/network. In the majority of the cases, one actor has at least two identities (many platform-net-

work/influencer identities due mostly to the fact that local authorities represent a large number of open gov

actors and conjugate the two identities) by conjugating a dominant identity from its practice with one or two

more identities which is the natural follow up their practice.*

* Find the list of french Open Gov actors and their interconnections in the Appendix, section B

figure 2: the most popular visual of Open Gov, by Armel le Coz and Cyril Lage

45

d- Dynamics

During the dynamic period of open data platform creation 2011-2013, local authorities were very dynamic

and set up a sequence of experiments on their territory triggered by the influence of the civil society (think

tank and NPO) and key individuals (especially FING,27eme region…). Today there seems to be a shift to-

wards a centralised dynamic where state administration plays a defining role in defining open gov practice.

This can be explained by some important changes in the network: newly elected local politicians who ques-

tion the necessity of Open Gov projects, important budget cuts and restructuration of the administration

coupled with a disillusionment phase of the first engaged local open data actors.

On the other hand, state administration (SGMAP,Etatlab) benefit from a bigger supports (political and civil

society), from the recent international engagement of France to Open Gov Partnership (which leads them

to define an action plan), and from the involvement of Open Gov into the bigger dynamic of modernisation

of the state (to build a more efficient public service). The dynamic of centralisation of influences in national

actors (and in Paris) is a risk for the open gov project for the following reasons, among which: the homogeni-

sation of open gov definition and practices (risk of deterritorialisation) through breaking the local open data/

open gov labs/ experimentation dynamic (which is essential to the diffusion and emergence of open gov, as it

is sustained by a logic of decentralisation), and rigidity (regulation of open gov through minimal denomina-

tor, loosing the iterative process of Open Gov).

3.3 The practice of designing Open Governement

a- strategy

M360 is an experimental project carried out in Montpellier Territoire Numérique, a local lab which is part of the city council

of Montpellier (a 260 000 inhabitant city in south of France), the third to have launched an open data platform in France.The

aim of this experiment was to determine some guidelines on how to design tools for Open Gov, tools that would contribute

to modify the interactions between the citizen and the administration in decision making processes.

47

In the current political context of a newly elected council, no command was made to the lab for open gov, open data relat-

ed projects. Therefore M360 was a submission of ideas, of what open gov project could offer them. The first phase was an

extensive benchmarking of worldwide open gov projects (find in the appendix) which led us to define a typology of open

gov related projects which highlighted the diversity processes and their consequential definition of interactions between

citizens and administrations. Four different kind of relationships emerged: top down (information phase), reciprocal (survey

phase), dual dynamic (collaboration phase), circular dynamic (coproduction phase).Based on the observation of main open

gov hubs (Boston, Washington, London, Paris), each relationships seemed so essential to the existence of the next, that we

can see them as steps in the diffusion of the open gov culture through a progressive dynamic of citizen engagement in local

public projects.

Based on this insight and the requirement of making a ‘minimal threat’ (to elected representatives) project we

decided to build a tool that would start building a relationship by building trust (a presently almost inexistant

relationship) between the actors, therefore we sketched some possibility related to top-down information

interactions. This also follows the current trends of building up projects on open data dynamic, like visual-

isation of open data set for informative purposes (data journalism, open data platform like Opendatasoft) or

data as a decision making support for elected representatives.

The concept we carried further for its possibility of acceptance from the different actors, is related to the

context of the territory. Montpellier is an ever growing city with +10 000 inhabitants per year, with a quantity

of urbanism projects (26 big projects in the last 10 years) and any ultra local modifications (especially roads

and public spaces) but with limited or spread information for the citizens of Montpellier however big their

repercussion on their experience of the city. Some public meetings exist on the main projects, however they

are very limited and usually gather the same homogenous public of retired, white and well off inhabitants.

The concept of M360 was to take advantage of those existing platforms of citizen- public actors interactions

while creating a parallel virtual platform which diffuse real time information on the most impacting projects

of Montpellier.

48

figure 3: the different steps of the M360 prototype, left to right: Paper model 1, prototype 2, prototype 4, design version 2**

49

b- tool

M360 was designed as a first step in the progressive diffusion of a local open gov culture.

Before describing the design process of M360, it is needed to say that it has been strongly impacted by the po-

litical context, to understand further the management and design choices that were made,please refer to the

critical analysis. M360 has involved 2 different test groups of citizens to test and feedback on the app. The first

group was composed of 5 people: active citizens and interface designers, the second group was composed of

active citizens from one very active borough NPO. During the 3 months of the project, M360 was iterated

4 times, once after each test sessions (4 sessions), feedback were essentials in the evolution of the project, in

total 4 prototypes were produced and a final design.Rapid prototyping with paper models were created in a

first time followed up by progressively more designed models, until the final design.

The main interest of this interface lies in the progressive transition and co existence of top down informa-

tion to crowdsourced information interactions and its possibility to create customised/intertwined paths

between the virtual (M360) and real (public meeting) platforms.This experiment has also generated some

key insights on the way to design open gov tools among which the following: Most designers tend to approach

things in terms of full and not void like architects do, consequently when they design interactions, they tend

to design very descriptive interactions, very controlled. This way to design interactions limits the ‘openness’ of

the interactions: the possibility to hack, deviate the paths that are designed. Somehow the interactions are then

over designed when it is precisely the opposite that is required by open gov tools because ‘open’ mindset aims at

giving the possibility to individuals of building their own paths through deviation of interactions. It demands an

adaptation to be able to design open gov interactions.

The different actors affected by public projects don’t experience the same temporality and therefore their

interests are often irreconcilable and vision of commons is moulded by those temporalities. If a citizen might

leave in a neighbourhood or a city for a couple dozen years, an civil servants might be there for ten years and

an elected representative for four to five years, the affects are different on each category of actors.

50

The isolation of inside administration labs from the rest of the services limits the possibility of the former to

design interactions that can be actual. There is a mechanical rejection from the traditional administration of

the open gov labs because they are threatening, because they are based on opposed paradigms.

It is necessary to show to politicians that there is an interest of citizens, a response to the project before

implementing projects like M360, especially in a context where politicians lack ‘open gov’ culture. In M360

case this was not done and it might seriously decrease its chance of implementation. However, this testing of

the interest could still happen now when the concept is fully designed, but not yet accepted by politicians nor

implemented. Proposing the testing after the concept is developed might even be a good strategy to increase

its chance of implementation.

This could take a MVP form, where one urban project is selected and the city council communicates through

twitter in real time related documents and news.However, this was not tested in this experiment for time and

unresolved bias reasons.*

* do you create a new account or use an existant one? where do you set the bar of success of the MVP? What is the adhesion bias when your MVP is only offering a small part of possible interactions? How do you measure the social bias of social media tools?** Find the full version of prototypes and final design in the appendix section C,D,E,F,G

52

Conclusion

The aim of this thesis was to determine some guidelines on how to design citizen participation in public

matter through digital technologies, but the context in which the experiment was carried out, leads to offer a

more personal vision based on my reflective practice of designing open gov strategy and tool at a local level,

and by no means aims at generalising its insights.

Through my practice and analysis of the Open Gov network dynamics in parallel to Open Gov concepts, it

seems that local level experimental labs are the right level for diffusing Open Gov culture. However, I would

specify the need of those labs to be truly included in their local administration and stop their imposed

autarky, through micro project mixers or maybe part time inclusion of the labs team members in different

‘traditional’ departments (shifting department from every period) and part time full team collaboration with

concerned department on specific ongoing open gov projects.

This could help diffuse ‘open’ practices in all administration departments even with small lab teams and build

an acculturation dynamic which would diminish the previously described rejection reflex toward open gov

practitioners. Local experimentation labs also allow to avoid the trap of decontextualised interactions that

would have been scaled up from another territory with a different context, culture and network or similar-

ly, a top down interaction design from a state level (which will have the same bias).They also allow to build a

constant iteration of interaction and therefore an optimal metamorphosis of public interactions along systemic

interaction changes.

Designers need to stop being defined or defining themselves as public policy designer, interaction designer, or

worst as problem solver! Designing open gov is about interpreting the void and intuitively favouring the gen-

eration of new paths, deviated interactions, deviated paths by the actors (who are not users, but actors as they

actively shape their navigation in the system). This offers a vision of designers as a hacking facilitator who opens,

subtilely suggests opportunities rather than design set paths (descriptive interaction between actors).

53

Citizen can be actors in their local environment if given meaningful opportunities to engage with. Full

engagement of citizen for each public issue is not what open gov is looking after, but rather giving the oppor-

tunity to citizens to get engaged when they want in local projects that are meaningful to them as individuals

and where they can have an impact and enable them to build their own paths. Building this kind of citizen

engagement on territories that do not have a participation culture is a progressive mid term process that pre-

viously requires to build trust among actors.

Diffusion of open gov culture is a long term dynamic that offers a sustainable iterative dynamic to efficiency

driven governance. We shouldn’t be afraid of the heterogeneity of open gov models on the different territories,

as Open Gov as a governance model strictly implies it.

Bibliography [includes references of the evaluative report]

Aristotle (1993) Les politiques. Paris: GF Flammarion.

Junjingen, S. (2014) Towards policy making as desgining: policy amking beyond problem solving and decision making. Design for Policy, Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Benchoufi, M. (2010) De la démocratie en numérique. Available from <http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2010/06/16/de-la-democratie-en-numerique_1373424_3232.html> [accessed 18 January 2015].

Brodie, E. Cowling , E. Nissen, N. (2009) Understanding participation : a litterature review. [internet]. Availa-ble from: < http://pathwaysthroughparticipation.org.uk/resources/index.html> [ Accessed 8 Septembre 2014]

Brodie, E. Hughes, T. Jochum, V. Miller, S. Ockenden, N. Warburton, D. (2011) Pathway through participa-tion,what creates and sustains active citizenship? Available from: < http://pathwaysthroughparticipation.org.uk/resources/index.html> [ Accessed 8 Septembre 2014]

Brown, S.(2014) The doodle revolution:unlock the power to think differently. Pinguin Group US

Cabinet Office (2013) Open Government Partnership UK National Action Plan 2013 to 2015. Available from < https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ions/open-government-partnership-uk- national-ac-tion-plan-2013> [Accessed 15 January 2015]

Camus, A.(1985) Mythe de Sisyphe.Paris: Folio Essais.

Certeau, M. (1980) L’invention du quotidien,Arts défaire, Paris: Gallimard.

CEVIPOV (2014) Baromètre de la confiance vague 6. Paris: SciencesPO.

Christiansen, J. (2013) The irrealities of public innovation, Unpublished Phd thesis.

Crow, D. (2010) Visible signs: an introduction to semiotics in the visual arts. 2nd ed. Lausanne: Ava Academia.

Deleuze, G. (1990) Bergsonism, trans. H. Tomlinson and B. Habberjam. New York: Zone Books.

Dewey, J. (2005) The public and its problems. Paris: Folio Essais.

Flichy, P. ( 2001) imaginaire d’ internet.Paris: La Découverte. Foucault, M (2012) Du gouvernement des vivants. Paris: hautes études EHESS Gallimard Seuil.

Foucault, M (2008) Le gouvernement de soi et des autres. Paris: hautes études EHESS Gallimard Seuil.

Harrison, M. T. ; Pardo, T. A. & Cook, M. (2012) Creating an open government ecosystems: a research and developement agenda. Future Internet. Vol. 4. pp. 900-928

Heppenstall, A.J.,Crooks, A.T., SEE, L.M. & Batty,M.( 2012) Agent-based models of geographical systems.Nether-lands: Springer.

Hert, P. (1999)Internet comme dispositif hétérotypique. Hermes.Vol. 25, pp.93-103.

Hill, D.(2012) Dark matter and Trojan horses, a strategic design vocabublary [internet] Moscow: Strelka Press.Availble form: < https://lire.amazon.fr/> [Accessed 1 May 2015]

Hobbes, T. (1982) Le citoyen ou les fondements de la politiques. Paris: GF Flammarion

Howe, J. (2009) Interview wih Duff A.Innovators Digest.

Sköldberg, J. ; Woodilla, J. & Cetinkaya, M. (2013) Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures. Crea-tivity and Innovation Management. Vol.22, No.2, pp. 121-146.

Kelley TM ( 2012) discovering the appropriate role of serious game in the design of open governance plat-forms. PAQ. Vol. 36, No. 4, pp.504-555

Knoespel, K.J. (2001) Diagrams as piloting devices in the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze. Paris: Presse Universi-taire de Vincennes.

Le bonheur au travail (2014) directed by Martin Meissonier.France: Arte [VOD]

Lyotard, J. F. (1979) La condition postmoderne.Paris: Edition de Minuit.

Mc Luhan, M.(1977)Pour comprendre les médias.Paris: Point Essais.

Mergel, I. (2014) Opening Governement: designing open innovation processes to collaborate with external problem solvers,Social Science Computer Review. Vol 2,No. 5, pp.1-15

More, T. (1966) Utopie. Paris: Edition Sociale.

Moreno, C. (2014) Interview with Nicolas Curien. Digiworld Economic Journal, Vol. 96, pp. 139-145.

Morozov, E. (2013)To save everything, click here.New york: Public Affairs.

Nambisan, S. & Nambisan, P. (2013) Engaging Citizens in Co-Creation in Public Services: Lessons Learned and Best Practices. Collaborating Across Boundaries Series. IBM Business of Governement. Available from< www.businessofgovernment.org> [accessed 12 January 2015]

Noveck, B. S. (2009) Wiki governement: how technology can make governement better, democracy stronger, and citizen more powerful. London: Brookings Institution Press.

Obama, B. (2009) Transparency and Open Government, White house. Available from <https://www.white-house.gov/the_press_office/Transparency_and_Open_Government> [accessed 25 February 2015]

O’Reilly, T. (2010) Government as a Platform. Innovation Data Democracy. O’Reilly Media, Inc. Vol.6, No. 1

Oxford dictionnaries (2015) Available from: < http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/> [Accessed 3May 2015]

Pine, J. II; Kim, C.K. (2011)Infinite possibility.Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Roberts N (2004) Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. The American Review of Public Administration,Vol.34, No. 4, pp.315-353.

Rousseau (1992) Du contrat social. Paris: GF Flammarion.

Seligman,A. B.(1997).The problem of trust. Princeton: Princeton University Press

Sköldberg, J. (2013) Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures. Creativity and Innovation Manage-ment. Vol. 22, Issue 2, pp.121–146.

56

The White House (2011) The Obama’s admnistration’s commitment to open government, a status report. Washington. Availble from <https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/opengov_report.pdf> [accessed 25 February 2015]

Taleb, N.(2014) Anti fragile: things that gain from disorder.New york: Random House Trade Paperbacks.

Toffler,A.(1983) The third wave. New york: Morrow.

Vial, S.(2013) Lêtre et l’écran.Paris: Presse Universitaire Francaise.

Walravens, N. & Breuer, J. & Ballon P. (2014) Open data as a catalyst for the smart city as a local innovation platform. Digiworld Economic Journal, Vol. 96, pp. 15-33.

Table of figures

figure 1: citizen and administrator roles in public administration models, Kelleyfigure 2: the most popular visual of Open Gov, by Armel le Coz and Cyril Lagefigure 3: figure 3: the different steps of the M360 prototype, left to right: Paper model 1, prototype 2, proto-type 4, design version 2

Appendix

A)Benchmarking open gov projectsB)Open gov actors in FranceC)Prototype 1 M360D)Prototype 2 M360E)Prototype 3 M360F)Prototype 4 M360G)Design M360H)Interview results, citizens (france) I)innovation and design modelJ)public sector innoovation modelK) Open gov act in the US graphL) interview transcripts contributors to open gov in FranceO) Verbatims from the DGS meeting

Feasibility Report

Gaia Jandelle Chaine

Word Count: 2934

Submitted on 12/05/15

�1

The feasibility report is the established space for reflecting on one’s past experience. The action of

reflecting comes from a long tradition, a history that is wonderfully described and analysed in

Foucault’s lecture at the college de France on the government of the self and others (2008).

In substance, it traces back self reflection to the Pythagorean community in ancient Greece who used

it as a memory exercice and a daily purification routine before sleep, while later, christian cultures

used it to determine between good and bad action, right and wrong. Today it is also strongly

moulded by its contemporary cultural paradigms. Therefore, as you would probably expect, as a

reflecting practitioner, I will assess what works and what doesn’t and highlight opportunities.

In the first section, I will discuss the limits of the initial hypothesis, assessment of M360 in the light

of field based restrictions, and finally, I will analyse my practice as a designer/researcher.

limits of the hypothesis

In the light of the literature review carried on before the field research, the terms in which the initial

hypothesis was issued seemed problematic,this assumption was further confirmed by the field

research that followed. The initial hypothesis stated that ‘Democracy is facing a global legitimacy

crisis due in part to a culture shock between the traditional exclusion of citizens in the democratic

process and the freedom of the digital age. Digital technologies can trigger the continuous

engagement of a large and diverse crowd of citizens in co-designing their environment through

decision making and action for more efficient outcomes and better social cohesion.’

First, there is some tension in the posit ‘digital technology as trigger of citizen participation’, due to

the polysemy of the word ‘trigger’ : its general understanding as, ‘an event that is the cause of a

particular action, process, or situation’ (Oxford dictionary, 2015), its understanding in the

participation literature as, a well defined problem that has an emotional echo for an individual

(Brodie et al., 2009). In this paper, the word trigger is to be understood in its popular meaning,

perhaps not quite in the term of event but in the term of a dynamic.

�2

Then, maybe more importantly, the posit ‘continuous engagement of citizens’ is very problematic

because it seems to posit the need of the participation of all at all time on all subject. A posit that

is unanimously rejected by past studies* for obvious reasons of divergent interests and availability.

Instead, they posit that the basis of engagement lies in the possibility for all to get engaged with

different degree of engagement, and when and where it matters to them. It is with this latter mindset

that the field experiment has been undertaken.

Also, the initial hypothesis contains the widespread flaw among the open gov literature of

considering the role of actors rather than their relationship, focusing on the identity and actions of

one or several actors rather than its interactions with the rest of the network.

The engagement dynamic is much more correlated to the latter than the former, therefore it is not a

question of designing paths for engagement but a dynamic that builds progressively a new

relationship between the citizen and the public actors. Civic engagement in France is a clear example

of this argument: in most cases, active citizenship comes as an opposition to public actors and their

decisions. This different weaknesses, which all appeared quite early in the research, lead me to

reconsider it and formulate the hypothesis in a more useful way for the field research phase: Digital

technologies through the new interactions they offer, can help us develop new relationships between

citizens and public actors that would maintain or increase efficiency while strengthening social

cohesion.

Consequently I have also updated the research question from:

-How to design and manage the process of designing tools for e-democracy?

-How to transform passive citizens into active decision makers through virtual environment?

to: How to design and manage growing a creative relationship between citizens and public actors ?

* Among the many studies agreeing on this understanding of the participation of citizens in the

public, most notable are: Brodie et al., 2004 and Roberts, 2004

�3

M360 results

In order to answer the research question, the experiment took the form of a real project, named

M360 rather than a more traditional experiment where the process is designed beforehand. This

allows to generate more useful insights for people who design interactions for the public sector, as

the experiment took place on the field.

However, those conditions vary from one location, one public service department to another.

Therefore I will try to describe objectively here the exact setting in which M360 took place.

This experiment was carried out in the innovation lab of Montpellier city council, Territoire

Numérique, which is located in the DSI (Direction Services Informatiques) the technology

department of the city council but has a very low level of collaboration with the rest of the

department or any other department.

Territoire numérique was created in 2010 in the dynamic created by open data, some elected

representative who were highly interested by the work carried out by FING (Fondation Internet

Nouvelle Génération, a think tank) asked one of the FING members, Jean Marie Bourgogne, to join

them as a contractor, build a team (a team leader, an open data officer, a technician and an intern)

and implement those ideas on the field, Montpellier was therefore one of the first lab in France, the

third Open Data portal and has carried out countless experiments related to Open Gov in

Montpellier until now. However, political change after 2014 city council election, the restructuration

of the city and agglomeration with the Métropole project, budget cuts and the failure of experiments

or prototypes to transform into projects have drastically reduced its dynamic.

This set of difficult conditions added to my lack of deep knowledge in my host organisation culture,

the essential ‘dark matter’ as described by Dan Hill (2012) to the autarky position of the lab in the

city council and the current lack of support from both politicians and top administrators, led us to

carry on this project ‘off ground’: has there was no real demand from them this project was rather as

a proposal of what could be possible to implement.This meant that reaching out to citizens and

mobilising beyond our own personal networks was a real problem as the project was not official-

�4

This highlights a difficulty to include citizens or outside input upstream, during the research phase,

project design to test the validity of the project. There is a consensus among ‘open gov practitioners’

that inclusion of citizens upstream in projects is the first step towards changing the interaction

between citizens and the public sector. But this is in conflict with traditional practices (in which

research and project design is validated and then made official, leaving possibility of feedback from

external actors only once the project is already defined) as it makes collaboration with citizens in

defining and designing the project an unofficial and not always supported practice (depending on

individual leaders).

This semi official position built a strong tension which in the case of M360 only amplified the

isolation feeling of Territoire Numérique team members. It also severely restricted the collaboration

possibilities with the outside, not to mention other departments (no contact at all).

After four years of project with citizen, I expected that Territoire Numérique would have build a

community of citizens (beta tester ecosystem) I coud rely on to help me build M360, this wasn’t the

case (at least to the level I was expecting). The lab practice had recently changed from official, with

the possibility it offers to rally citizens easily to a different status where it had not such possibility

anymore. The unexpected political change didn’t allow them to anticipate this and start building this

much needed ecosystem earlier on.

Therefore the collaboration for M360 was restricted to a feedback loop iteration every two weeks

where the project was tested on one of the available group. Through our connections, we managed to

gather three test groups each containing four to six members, the first group was made of a mix of

engaged citizens, the second of interaction design experts and the last of the board of an active local

citizen NPO. There was a total of four meetings, that each took place at the host group. It was very

uncomfortable to be in this unofficial situation, where collaboration is asked from citizens even

though the reality of the project is questionable, where you can’t promise anything in return (reality

of the project, impact…), this lowers the degree of engagement you can reasonably demand them.

�5

It was problematic not to be able to mobilise those different groups in parallel rather than one after

the other, as it would have been useful to benefit from their different insights at each step of

designing the prototype.

Another main point of difficulty came from the feedback we got from the initial meeting with

elected representatives where we tested their reaction to some typology of ‘open gov’ projects we had

previously benchmarked. This made clear that anything requiring to modify any part of the structure

of current organisation within departments (with projects such as fixmystreet…)

was banned,as well as anything that would disrupt traditional decision making process (even though

they showed interest for the Paris participatory budget project). This left us with what we called level

1 interactions: top down information. Our strategy was to build a ‘minimal threat’ digital app that

could be the stepping stone of building a different relationship between citizens and public services.

But also something that can rely on some sort of (real life) existing dialog, as it would lean into an

existing interaction: local consultation/concertation. Although we are well aware of the limit of this

kind of interaction, (non representativity of citizens attending, monolog rather than dialog, decision

made upstream…) the idea was to value something existant and open new engagement

opportunities in parallel. The management strategy was to direct the project in whatever opportunity

was left, that was not threatening representatives to much and still had a meaning for some citizens.

However, through the design process, we uncovered many points of tension in this Open Data

upgraded project which aimed at informing citizens of Montpellier of public urban and architecture

project by gathering and curating all data produced by the public sector and citizens for each project,

as Montpellier has a booming demography, around +10.000 inhabitants per year and a strong

political desire to bring star architects to build a city known for its architecture, transforming the life

in a Montpellier at a fast pace but excluding the population from taking part in designing this

transformation. First point of tension and currently unresolved (and which couldn’t be as there was

no possibility of working with other departments) concerns the collection of this data, spread among

a big number of departments ( who don’t always agree with open data) and the curation of ‘outside’

documents that can be suggested by citizens and NPO. �6

The second point of tension comes from the fact that the interest of citizens for M360 lies in archive

and specific documents (that are not easily available to them today) such as: budget lines, how the

project is financed, relation of interest of key actors, contact for the project.

This can come as a sensitive point for politicians, even though they must give most of those

information because of the fear that it will be used against them (especially the archive, as it records

all past promises and decisions) by NPO or opponents who want to ‘kill’ the project .

Indeed this is the image of current relationship between engaged citizen and politicians, a

confrontation relationship which emerge from years of top down urban planning with little interest

on the project’s impact on current neighbours. This raises the question of the ability of even a limited

stakes project to start modifying this frontal relationship,as tempted in our strategy.

The positive aspects of the design of M360 that appeared through the different test and feedback

sessions are its ability to allow a multiplicity of paths. Its design qualities are:

- its very intuitive navigation (through an impact map and blocks design projects’ factsheet

- its push for curiosity of the user (through suggested content and possibility to join ‘real’ events)

- its possibility of users to engage with different level of information, from real time and

straightforward content to more complex and technical documents (block design)

- to begin a dynamic of participation (through social media comments, live polls)

- to create a path between real and virtual (through the possibility to contact the public officer

responsible for the project and the link between the app and real public meeting events)

Today, M360 is on hold, like many other projects of the lab, there is a clear difficulty to break the

glass ceiling of experimentation to implementation or even partial implementation at a local level.

The outcome of this experience show that some initial conditions needed to be gathered for the

design phase: support from public actors non threatened by political changes (legitimacy to run the

experiments), officialisation of experimentations, collaboration with all concerned (impacted)

departments from the beginning. But also at a later stage for the implementation phase: local partial

�7

implementation authorisation (to test the response to the project, and polish some aspects), moving

away from a ‘fear of failure’ management.

The base of any project that aims at modifying the relationship between some antagonised or non

communicating actors is to start building communication during the project itself.

The role of the lab is not to build projects but to build the platform, network and opportunities that

allow actors to build progressively a different relationship, therefore, this experiment has shown that

it isn’t a tool alone that could start this dynamic on its own but rather projects and directed co-

action.

Analysis of my practice as a designer-researcher

I have encountered several difficulties linked to the context in which this research took place and to

the challenge of conciliating design practice with academic research.

First of all, the context in which the lab was at the moment I worked there has had a strong impact

on my longterm motivation. Indeed the isolation of the lab from other departments and the lack of

support from both the top administration and politicians decreased the chance of the experiment to

be carried further toward implementation. Even though for me M360 was a research project, the fact

that I could see no ‘future’ for this project has had an impact on my dedication to the project.

This context also has an impact on the rest of the team who are facing almost two years of great

uncertainty regarding their future and the future of the lab.

Also, even though the project schedule was reasonable (even if some little design tasks were added to

it) concealing design practice and academic research at the same time has been a challenge, perhaps

because they have different temporality. Design practice is constantly in some kind of urgency,

there’s no limit to improvement and new tasks get added all the time, this is the time of action.

Academic research that includes reflexivity, note taking, literature review, all demand to break out

from the instant, the urgency, transitioning from action to reflexion. I have seldom manage to take

the time to read at the lab, not because it was forbidden in anyway ( on the contrary, I was many

�8

times encouraged to do so, but somehow it didn’t seem like ‘real work’ (the prevalence of action over

the fear of reflexion).Therefore most of the academic work was carried out sometimes after work but

mostly during weekends and before the field research (which lasted 4 months, full time).

This research has been a great learning opportunity, to engage for example in managing emotional

engagement, in the ability to work in a ‘hostile’ environment (where the vast majority share the

administrative culture rather than the open culture*) and question my practice as a designer and

researcher.

I already knew I tended to the utmost involvement in everything I engage with, with the risk of

being too emotionally engaged and therefore very vulnerable to variations. Emotional investment

with work is a serious issue that I need to manage carefully, however I’m still in the process of

finding how. The circumstances in which the field research was carried out, has made it very

challenging, among which particularly: the low or inexistant interaction possibilities with the

concerned actors and the variable involvement of the rest of the team in the project.

It also has allowed me to question my practice as a designer, first because I had to radically modify

the way I work to match the possibilities of the field but mostly because I had to question more

deeply my practice. As a product designer and my experience as an interface designer, I realised that

I tended to define, form all the possibility of interactions between the user and the product/

experience, to the utmost. Although those interactions weren’t defined out of ‘fantasy’ but out of

intuitive behaviours, I have realised that I had taken for granted this practice of building ‘closed’ or

guided processes (in the definition of Foucault) as the only possible way to practice interaction

design. M360, has been the opportunity to discover its limits and change from a practice of defining

interactions to a practice of enabling actors to define their own interactions, somehow I transitioned

from a product designer to a landscape’s architect's practice. M360 shouldn’t be considered as a full

realisation of the latter but as a very first attempt to do this.

* Open culture is based on sharing, collaboration, reflexivity.

�9

Interactions citoyens et administration

Informer Consulter Echanger Co-produire

Moi citoyen

Moi administration

Je communique sur l’efficacité des

services

J’informe sur l’état de

mon environnement

J’utilise les informations

des citoyens pour etre

plus efficient Nous échangeons sur l’interet général des projets programmés

Nous co-produisons le futur de notre ville

J’exprime des besoins urgents

Je m’auto-organise avec mes concitoyens

J’exprime mes opinions

Acces services

Agenda et projet

en cours

Efficacité

des services sond

age

(qua

ntita

tif)

sond

age

(qua

litat

if)

collaboration au quotidien

collaboration projet

co création

auto organisation

mappingOUTILS

follow upagenda

sondage

co écriture linéaire

co écriture dynamique

challenge

shoot&send

prototypage

co-productiongaming

réseaux sociaux

connectésur le terrain

follow up

réseaux sociaux

SFLondres

Rennes Paris

Montpellier

Nord-Pas de calais

10 Villes repensent l’engagement citoyenorienté citoyen

orienté services

city worker

Boston

NYC

Philadelphia

DC

Suivre l’efficacité des services publics- etat des projets- budget- dépenses- Ressources humaines

Retour sur la compétence des services publics que l’on a utilisé

Visualiser l’avis des citoyens sur les ser-vices publics

ergo

data

d.

ergo

data

d.

Efficacité des services

Suivre les tendances d’opinion

Sonder l’avis des citoyens en temps réel

Réagir aux propositions

donner son avis

ergo

data

d.

ergo

data

d.

Sondage quantitatif

Obtenir des informations en tant réel sur les réparation a effectuer dans la ville, suivi

Utiliser les informations pour créer un service plus eficient

Réagir face a son environement ergo

data

city worker

d.

Collaboration quotidien

Proposer et prioriser les projetsVoter un budget participatif

Contact avec l’expertise d’usage

Impacter le developpement et réorganisation des services

ergo

data

d.

ergo

data

d.

Collaborationprojet

ergo

data

d.

ergo

data

d.

Impacter sur le developemment de son environnement grace a l’immersion visuelle

Utilisation de l’expertise d’usage

Jouer pour trouver des solutions

Prototyper ensemble des solutions

Co creation des services

ergo

data

d.

S’impliquer dans le developpementde son environnement

Collaborer avec sa communauté

Action de solidarité ponctuelleergo

data

d.

+

auto organisation

Montpellier peut faire partie des villes leaders en matiere de

developement d’interactions entre citoyen et administra-tion et en tirer profit

Le design, l’ergonomie et le potentiel d’impact du citoyen sur son environnement déterminent le degré d’adoption des outils

Besoin d’apps qui organisent de façon complementaire et cohérente les interactions réelles et virtuelles

Name location status key activity (related to open gov)

secondary activity category of actor (main role)

website 1st degree connection

2nd degree connection

parlement paris national institution

think the future of institutions in digital era

influencer

Fondation Nicolas Hulot paris trust think/do tank for sustainability

influencer http://www.fondation-nicolas-hulot.org/actions/democratie/nos-propositions-savoir comme 1 NPO open gov watch lobby for open data

and influencer

transparency international france

NPO transparency and accountability platform

influencer, platform-network

http://www.transparency-france.org/

GIS démocratie et participation

paris groupe d’intérêt scientifique

network of scientific researchers on participative democracy

influencer,platform-network

http://www.participation-et-democratie.fr/

Haute Autorité pour la transparence de la vie public

paris independent administrative authority

platform for transparency and accountability of public actors


http://www.hatvp.fr/

FING paris think tank imagining and debating, producing ideas

network of practitioner, sustaining projects


http://fing.org/?lang=fr

club jade think tank imagining and debating, producing ideas

influencer.platform-network

http://www.club-jade.fr/

Ville de Issy-les-Moulineaux

local authority open data, data education

influencer.platform-network,maker

ecole de design nantes atlantique

nantes private further education school

educating designers project partnership with local public sector

maker http://en.lecolededesign.com/

science po paris paris private further education school

educating future actors of public and politics

? maker http://www.sciencespo.fr/

Ensci paris public further education school

educating engaged designers

maker http://www.ensci.com/

Open street map france NPO crowdsoucing platform

maker http://www.openstreetmap.org/

talking things design agency multi design disciplinary, prototyping

maker talkingthings.fr

UFO paris ubanism agency

collaboration, co creation urbanism process for public authorities

maker http://www.urbanfab.org/

opendata soft paris tech company building open data platform

maker http://www.opendatasoft.com

27eme region paris NPO design public policy network of practitioner

maker, influencer, platform network

http://www.la27eregion.fr/

Ville de Brocaslocal authority open data, data

educationmaker, platform-network, influencer

OKF( open knowledge france)

NPO data education data based information

maker, platform-network, influencer

http://fr.okfn.org/

La fonderie, agence numérique Ile de France

associated agency

design public policy maker,influencer http://www.lafonderie-idf.fr/lagence

Adn citoyen montpellier association education to digital and citizenship

maker,influencer http://adncitoyen.fr/

netscouade paris design agency designing digital era interactions

some design projects for institutions

maker,influencer http://www.lanetscouade.com/

five by five paris design agency, ODI node

rapid prototyping design for products and processes

open data education,network

maker,influencer http://www.fivebyfive.paris/

démocratie ouverte paris NPO designing citizen implication in public decision making processes

platform for open gov related projects

maker/influencer http://democratieouverte.org/

interconnectés lyon NPO actor network platform network, influencer

libertic nantes NPO open gov watch platform network, influencer

https://libertic.wordpress.com/

Atlantic 2.0 nantes NPO platform and network of actors

platform network, influencer

http://www.atlantic2.org/

Etatlab (part of SGMAP) paris State administration

platform for national and local open dat

platform network, influencer

SGMAP paris State administration

advisor and partner to administrations for the transformation of administrations and public policy making

platform network, influencer,makers

http://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/le-sgmap

Conseil national du numérique (CNnum)

paris independent commission

consultation platform for digital related uses

platform-network http://www.cnnumerique.fr/tag/cnnum/

altercarto lyon NPO platform for data reuse and sharing

platform for methodology and tools

platform-network http://www.altercarto.fr/

Région Île-de-Francelocal authority open data, data

educationplatform-network, influencer

Région Pays de la Loire


platform-network, influencer

Région Auvergnelocal authority open data, data


Région Aquitainelocal authority open data, data


Région Nord-pas-de-Calais


platform for citizen participation


Région Alsacelocal authority open data, data


Région Provence-Alpes-Cote-d'Azur



Département Saône-et-Loire



Département Manche



Département Isèrelocal authority open data, data


Département Gironde



Département Loir-et-Cher



Département Hauts-de-Seine



Département Maine-Et-Loire



Angers Loire Métropole



Le Mans Métropolelocal authority open data, data


Communauté du Pays d'Aix-en-Provence



Métropole de Toulouse



Ville de Versailleslocal authority open data, data


Ville de Strasbourglocal authority open data, data


Ville de Nancylocal authority open data, data


Ville de Lyonlocal authority open data, data


Ville de La Rochellelocal authority open data, data


Communaité Urbaine de Bordeaux



Ville de Longjumeaulocal authority open data, data


Ville de Coulommierslocal authority open data, data


Ville de Saint-Quentin



Ville de Sarlatlocal authority open data, data


Ville d’ Arleslocal authority open data, data


Le Pays d'aubagnelocal authority open data, data


Agglomération de Montpellier



Ville de Bordeauxlocal authority open data, data


Ville de Digne-Les-Bains



Agglomération de Pau



Agence Départementale de Tourisme des Bouches-du-Rhône



Département Seine-Maritime et Eure



Région Corselocal authority open data, data


Ville de Louvierslocal authority open data, data


Métropole de Nicelocal authority open data, data


Dat'Armorlocal authority open data, data


Ville de Mulhouse et Mulhouse Alsace Agglomération



Métropole de Metzlocal authority open data, data


Saint-Malolocal authority open data, data


Département de la Moselle



Département du Cantal



Département de l'Oise



parlement et citoyen (from démocratie ouverte)

platform for law co construction


https://www.parlement-et-citoyens.fr/

Rennes Métropolelocal authority open data, data

educationplatform-network, influencer,maker

Ville de Parislocal authority open data, data

educationplatform for citizen participation

platform-network, influencer,maker

Ville de Montpellierlocal authority open data, data

educationplatform-network, influencer,maker

Département Loire Atlantique



Ville de Nanteslocal authority open data, data

educationplatform for citizen participation


regards citoyens paris NPO public accountability through data based information


http://www.regardscitoyens.org/

Open Data France NPO platform for sharing,open data watch and network of open data actors

platform,influencer http://opendatafrance.net/

Open gov partnership independent body

diffuse open gov platform platform,influencer http://www.opengovpartnership.org/

cndp paris Independent administration

agence numérique paris State administration

digital economy and infrastructure

public e- services

Main actors of open gov in France

http://www.club-jade.fr/

http://www.openstreetmap.org/

http://talkingthings.fr

http://www.opendatasoft.com

http://www.la27eregion.fr/

http://www.lafonderie-idf.fr/lagence

http://adncitoyen.fr/

http://democratieouverte.org/

http://www.altercarto.fr/

s’informerparticiper

> Visualisation des consultations en courss’informer> Acces a la partie


> Navigation carte


> Acces fiche consultation


> Fiche consultation description du projet golbal


> Timeline golbale


> Calendrier de la consultation


Consultation demain, jeudi 19 Mars a 19h30, maison de la democratie

> Créer une alerte pour cette consultation


> Acces a la bilbiotheque de projets


> Bilbiotheque de projets


> Browser les projets> Acces a la fiche consultation a partir d’un projet


> Fiche consultation


> Sélection des consultations par mot clef


> Affichage des projets relatifs au mot clef (barre de gauche)> Affichage des consultations concernées (carte)

063094857

tram 5

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch

+-Projet réaliséen cours en cours sansannulé

Concertation

MontpelliConnaitre, Comprendre, Suivre les grands projets de Montpellier

oooocccchhhhhhhh

+- +-Projo et réaréré liséen cours annulé en cours sans

Concertrr ationProjet réaliséen cours en cours sansannulé

Concertation

Tram 5Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch

Tram 5

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch


Concertation


Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch


Concertation


ert

Montn pepp lliimpm r ds projo

saint

Co

Moe, CMC

C

Me, C

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch


Concertation

MontpelliConnaitre, Comprendre, Suivre les grands projets de Montpellieronna

Mononna e, Suiv

ppre rr lesl

Mo tpep llii

N

CCC

Nouveau Saint Roch

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch

+


Nouveau Saint RochLorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adip-iscing elit. Vestibulum velit enim, faucibus sed ex id, sagittis dictum felis. Nam et ipsum congue, volutpat quam eget, scelerisque enim. Aenean dignissim, velit quis dictum sollicitudin, lacus ex sollicitudin quam, non rhoncus lorem metus sed nisi.

Document a télécharger- compte rendu de réunion public -article midi libre- impact de la Zac- esquisse du contre projet- plan de circulation

Live stream

Flux

Sondage liveLiens utiles- association rue durand- psi montpellier- Serm nouveau saint Roch

Nam et ipsum congue, volutpat quam eget, scelerisque enim. Aenean dignissim, velit quis dictum sollicitudin, lacus ex sollicitudin quam, non rhoncus lorem metus sed nisi.


010 2012 20182014 20202016

livraison gare

livraison ilot 1

livraison ilot 2

sélectionprojet

début

rendez vous

nouveaux documentsAlerte

livraiissssssssoon n livraison il t 1

livraisoon n il t 2

sésélleeccttionnnnnnj tt

dédédébuuut t t

++

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch

+




Live stream

Flux




010 2012 20182014 20202016

livraison gare

livraison ilot 1

livraison ilot 2

sélectionprojet

début

rendez vous

nouveaux documentsAlerte

+Réunion17/02/1518h30

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch

+




Live stream

Flux




010 2012 20182014 20202016

livraison gare

livraison ilot 1

livraison ilot 2

sélectionprojet

début

Alerte

livraiissssssssoon livraison il t 1

livraisoon n il t 2

sésélleeccttionnnnnj tt

dédédébuuut t t

++

0600000000/mail

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch


EAI

Musée de l ‘Algérie

Ecocité

Marrianne

Nouvelle mairie

Musée du corps humain

Pagesy

Richter

Zac Ode

Tram 4

Gare saint roch

Rive gauche

Odysseum

OdysseumConsul de mer

Jacques coeur

Ovalie

Ovalie

Folie 21

Jeu de Paume

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch


EAI


Ecocité

Marrianne

Nouvelle mairie


Pagesy

Tram 4

Tram 5


EAI

Ecocité

Tram 4

Zac Ode

Nouveaux saint roch

Rive gauche

Ovalie

Folie 21

Jeu de Paume

2010 2012 20182014 20202016

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch


Concertation


Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch

Tram 5Halle LaissacNouveau Saint RochTram 4Gare Saint Roch

00 0 0 0 1

Pro

jet

réaliséen cours en cours sansannulé

Con

certa

tion

fini

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch

MONTPELLIER 360̊, c’est suivre les grands projets de Montpellier Métropole au quotidien 00 0 0 0 1

00 0 0 0 1

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch


00 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

26 PROJETS

1050 DOCUMENTS

00001Visiteurs depuis 15/04/2015 Visiteurs uniques 15/04/2015

ALERTE

Dérouler labibliothèque des projets

Carte / zone d’impact

Légendede la carte

Accès aucalendrier général

Pro

jet


Con

certa

tion

fini Rechercher un projet spécifique

Naviguer dans la carte

00 0 0 0 1

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch


00 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

26 PROJETS

1050 DOCUMENTS

00001Visiteurs depuis 15/04/2015 Visiteurs uniques 15/04/2015

ALERTE

Accès aucalendrier général

Pro

jet


Con

certa

tion

fini

00 0 0 0 1

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch


lire un plan

Masse

lire un plan

coupe

Lire une cartelire un Budget

Pro

jet


Con

certa

tion

fini


Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Tram 4


Pro

jet


Con

certa

tion

fini

00 0 0 0 1

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Tram 4

Nouveau Saint Roch


Pro

jet


Con

certa

tion

fini

00 0 0 0 1

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Tram 4

Nouveau Saint Roch

MONTPELLIER 360̊, c’est suivre les grands projets de Montpellier Métropole au quotidien

Nouveau Saint Roch

00 0 0 0 1

Pro

jet


Con

certa

tion

fini


Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare saint Roch

Nouveau Saint Roch* info en amont du projet* info sur l’origine du projet* info sur les objectifs* info sur les usages futurs

Documents à télécharger Flux

Sondage live

Interlocuteurs

2010 2012 20182014 20202016

livraison gare

livraison ilot 1

livraison ilot 2

sélectionprojet

début

Tram 4

* info actualisée sur l’étape en cours

* Association rue Durand, 04344350757 [email protected]

* Cleron de Gambe, contact* ................................................................................

la dernière info sur le projet

diffusion directe des

réunions

Que pensez vous de.............................

nouveau document

Plans

Archive

CR réunions

Créer une alertepour ce projet

documentsofficiels

+Suggérer des documents

Réactions des réseaux sociaux #NvStRoch

17h02

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare saint Roch



Sondage live

Interlocuteurs

2010 2012 20182014 20202016

livraison gare

livraison ilot 1

livraison ilot 2

sélectionprojet

début

Tram 4






réunions


nouveau document

Plans

Archive

CR réunions


documentsofficiels


réactions des réseaux sociaux #NvStRoch

17h02


changement d’architecte


Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare saint Roch

2010 2012 2014 2016

livraison gare

reprise des discussions

livraison ilot 1

sélectionprojet

début

Tram 4

Réunion publique

heure datelieu

Réunion publique

heure datelieu

Réunion publique

heure datelieu



Sondage live

Interlocuteurs






réunions


nouveau document

Plans

Archive

CR réunions


documentsofficiels



17h02


Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare saint Roch

Documents à télécharger2010 2012 20182014 20202016

livraison gare

livraison ilot 1

livraison ilot 2

sélectionprojet

début

Tram 4

Flux

Sondage live



réunions


nouveau document


17h02documents

officiels

dont obligatoire* financement et cout du projet* contrat de délégation (conflit d’intérêt)* fiche responsables et interlocuteurs




+

Tram 5

Gare Oz

Dédoubelement A9

Nouveau saint Roch

EAI


Ecocité

Marrianne

Nouvelle mairie


Pagesy

Richter

Zac Ode

Tram 4

Gare saint roch

Rive gauche

Odysseum

Les grisettesConsul de mer

Jacques coeur

Ovalie

Folie 21

Jeu de Paume

Halles laissac


+

Tram 5

Gare Oz

Dédoubelement A9

Nouveau saint Roch

EAI


Ecocité

Marrianne


+

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Tram 5

EAI

Ecocité

Tram 4

2010 20162013 2019

Zac Ode

Nouveaux saint roch

Rive gauche

Ovalie

Folie 21

Jeu de Paume


Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch

Tram 5

Gare Oz

Les grisettes

Jeu de Paume

Tram 5Nouveau Saint RochTram 4Gare Saint Roch

Pro

jet

TRAM 5 réaliséen cours en cours sansannulé

Con

certa

tion

fini


Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch

Tram 5

Gare Oz

Les grisettes

Jeu de PaumePr

oje

t


Con

certa

tion

fini

Tram 5Nouveau Saint RochTram 4Gare Saint Roch

TRAM 5


Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare saint Roch

Odysséum* info en amont du projet* info sur l’origine du projet* info sur les objectifs* info sur les usages futurs


Sondage live

Interlocuteurs

2010 2012 2014 2016

livraison final

fin 2nd tranche

livraisontram

Tram 4


*Contact à la Métropole



réunions


nouveau document

Plans

Archive

CR réunions


documentsofficiels



17h02


Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nouveau saint Roch

Tram 5

Halles laissac

Gare saint Roch

Cité du corps humain* info en amont du projet* info sur l’origine du projet* info sur les objectifs* info sur les usages futurs


Sondage live

Interlocuteurs

2010 2012 20182014 20202016

Annulésélectionprojet

début

Tram 4


*Contact à la Métropole


diffusion en directe des

réunions


nouveau document

Plans

Archive

CR réunions


documentsofficiels



17h02

réaliséen coursPro

jet

Con

cert

atio

n

annulé

Montpellier 360

Feed

back

consultationfinie

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nv Saint Roch

Tram 5

en cours finie sans


jet

Con

cert

atio

n

annulé

Montpellier 360

Feed

back

consultationfinie

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nv Saint Roch

Tram 5

en cours finie sans

légendecarte

chercher unprojet

projetssuggérés

guide delecture

participer

votre avis sur M360

information sur M360

carte d’impact des projets


jet

Con

cert

atio

n

annulé

Montpellier 360

Feed

back

consultationfinie

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nv Saint Roch

Tram 5

en cours finie sans

lire un plan

Masse

lire un plan

coupe

Lire une cartelire un Budget


jet

Con

cert

atio

n

annulé

Montpellier 360

Feed

back

consultationfinie

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nv Saint Roch

Tram 5

en cours finie sans

Montpellier 360

Informer Consulter Collaborer Co produire

Montpellier grandit, M360 vous permet de suivre sondéveloppement à travers les différents projets d’urbanisme.Restez informé des dernières avancées, d’un projet qui vous tient à coeur, donnez votre avis et construisez avec nous une ville qui vous ressemble.

10000visiteurs

570Documents

1000Alertes

26Projets


jet

Con

cert

atio

n

annulé

Montpellier 360

Feed

back

consultationfinie

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nv Saint Roch

Tram 5

en cours finie sans


jet

Con

cert

atio

n

annulé

Montpellier 360

Feed

back

consultationfinie

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nv Saint Roch

Tram 5

en cours finie sans

Gare St Roch

Halles Laissac

Tram 5

Grand coeur

Tram 4


jet

Con

cert

atio

n

annulé

Montpellier 360

consultationfinie

Halles laissac

Gare Oz

Nv Saint Roch

Tram 5

en cours finie sans

Feed

back

Gare St Roch

Nv Saint Roch

Tram 4

Tram 5

* info en amont du projet* info sur l’origine du projet* info sur les objectifs* info sur les usages futurs

Flux

Sondage

Interlocuteurs

2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Sélectionprojet

LivraisonGare

Livraisonilot 1

Livraisonfin

Début



nouveau document

Plans

Archive

CR réunions

Créer une

documentsofficiels



17h02

Tram 5

Tram 4

Musée de la France en Algérie

Nv Saint Roch

Nouveau Saint Roch Documents à télécharger

notification

* Association partnenaire*Contact officiel


jet

Con

cert

atio

n

annulé

Montpellier 360

consultationfinieen cours finie sans

Que pensez vous de la nouvelle facade

Flux2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Sélectionprojet

LivraisonGare

Livraisonilot 1

Livraisonfin

Début

Tram 5

Tram 4


Nv Saint Roch


Flux

Sondage

Interlocuteurs



nouveau document


17h02


+

mail/numéro de portable

Soyez alerté des nouveaux documents et des réunionspubliques du projet

Notification



jet

Con

cert

atio

n

annulé

Montpellier 360



Flux2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Sélectionprojet

LivraisonGare

Livraisonilot 1

Livraisonfin

Début

Tram 5

Tram 4


Nv Saint Roch


Flux

Sondage

Interlocuteurs



nouveau document


Merci d’avoir souscrit aux notifications du projet Nouveau saint roch

17h02


+Notification



jet

Con

cert

atio

n

annulé

Montpellier 360



2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Sélectionprojet

LivraisonGare

Livraisonilot 1

Livraisonfin

Début

Tram 5

Tram 4


Nv Saint Roch

changement d’architecte

Début Sélectionprojet


Flux

Sondage

Interlocuteurs




nouveau document


17h02


Plans

Archive

CR réunionsdocuments

officiels



jet

Con

cert

atio

n

annulé

Montpellier 360



2010 2012 2014 2016

Tram 5

Tram 4


Nv Saint Roch


Réunion publique

heure datelieu

Réunion publique

heure datelieu


LivraisonGare

Livraisonilot 1

Réunion publique

heure datelieu


Flux

Sondage

Interlocuteurs



nouveau document


17h02


Plans CR réunionsdocuments

officiels

+Suggérer des documentsArchive



jet

Con

cert

atio

n

annulé

Montpellier 360



2010 2012 2014 2016

Tram 5

Tram 4


Nv Saint Roch


Réunion publique

heure datelieu


LivraisonGare

Livraisonilot 1

Réunion publique

heure datelieu


Flux

Sondage

Interlocuteurs



nouveau document


17h02


Plans CR réunionsdocuments

officiels

+Suggérer des documentsArchive



jet

Con

cert

atio

n

annulé

Montpellier 360




Flux

Sondage

Interlocuteurs

2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Sélectionprojet

LivraisonGare

Livraisonilot 1

Livraisonfin

Début


12/01/2015 Nature du document,émeteur



Dans cette liste doit figurer: *le coût prevu et financement du chantier*les contrats de délégations*relation d’intérêt


nouveau document


17h02

Tram 5

Tram 4


Nv Saint Roch


+Documents officiels


jet

Con

cert

atio

n

annulé

Montpellier 360




Flux

Sondage

Interlocuteurs

2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Sélectionprojet

LivraisonGare

Livraisonilot 1

Livraisonfin

Début




nouveau document

Plans

Archive

CR réunionsdocuments

officiels



17h02

Tram 5

Tram 4


Nv Saint Roch




jet

Con

cert

atio

n

annulé

Montpellier 360


Nv Saint Roch

Tram 5

Jeu de Paume

Halles laissac

Feed

back


jet

Con

cert

atio

n

annulé

Montpellier 360

Tram 5


2000 2004 2008 2012

Zac Ode

Dédoublement A9

Documents à télécharger

Plans

Archive

CR réunions


documentsofficiels

Suggérer des documents

+



Odysséumla dernière info sur le projet


nouveau document


17h02

Début projet

LivraisonPatinoire

Livraison ilot 1

Fin

Ecocité

Gare Oz

Flux

Sondage

Interlocuteurs


jet

Con

cert

atio

n

annulé

Montpellier 360


2010 2012 2014

Zac Ode

Zac Marianne

Début projet

Sélectionarchitecte

Projet annulé

Ecocité

Folie XXI


Documents à télécharger




nouveau document

Plans

Archive

CR réunions


documentsofficiels



17h02

Cité du corps humain Flux

Sondage

Interlocuteurs


jet

Con

cert

atio

n

annulé

Montpellier 360


citizen quantitative interview (sample set: 29) awareness to open gov corelated to age group

age 15-19 age 20-29 age 30-39 age 40-49 age 50-59 age 60-69 age 70-80 all respondent

Number of respondents 5 15 2 3 0 2 2 29

Have heard of ‘open gov’ before 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 0

Have described open gov NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Have heard of ‘démocratie ouverte’ before 1 6 0 2 NA 0 1 10

Ability to put words on ‘démocratie ouverte’ 1 4 NA 2 NA NA 1 8

Confusing with a different concept 1 3 NA 2 NA NA 1 7

Correct understanding of the concept 0 1 NA 0 NA NA 0 1

citizen quantitative interview (sample set: 29) awareness to open gov corelated to digital practice

digital agility non user (0-2)

digital agility user (3)

digital agility native (4-5)

all respondent

Number of respondents 2 12 15 29

Have heard of ‘open gov’ before 0 0

Have described open gov NA NA NA

Have heard of ‘démocratie ouverte’ before 1 4 5 10

Ability to put words on ‘démocratie ouverte’ 1 3 4 8

Confusing with a different concept 1 3 3 7

Correct understanding of the concept 0 0 1 1

citizen quantitative interview (sample set: 29) awareness to open gov corelated to age group-1

age 15-19 age 20-29 age 30-39 age 40-49 age 50-59 age 60-69 age 70-80 all respondent

Number of respondents 17.2% 51.7% 6.9% 10.3% 0 6.9% 6.9% 100%

Have heard of ‘open gov’ before 0% 0% 0% 0% NA 0% 0% 0%

Have described open gov NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Have heard of ‘démocratie ouverte’ before 3.4% 20.7% 0% 6.9% NA 0 3.4% 34%

Ability to put words on ‘démocratie ouverte’ 3.4% 13.8% NA 6.9% NA NA 3.4% 27.5%

Confusing with a different concept 3.4% 10.3% NA 6.9% NA NA 3.4% 24%

Correct understanding of the concept 0% 3.4% NA 0% NA NA 0% 3.4%

Total of never heard about D-O, not able to explain and confusing D-O

96.5%

citizen quantitative interview (sample set: 29) awareness to open gov corelated to digital practice-1

digital agility non user (0-2)

digital agility user (3)

digital agility native (4-5)

all respondent

Number of respondents 6.9% 41.4% 51.7% 100%

Have heard of ‘open gov’ before 0 0 0 0

Have described open gov NA NA NA NA

Have heard of ‘démocratie ouverte’ before 3.4% 13.8% 17.2% 34%

Ability to put words on ‘démocratie ouverte’ 3.4% 10.3% 13.8% 27.5%

Confusing with a different concept 3.4% 10.3% 10.3% 24%

Correct understanding of the concept 0 0 3.4% 3.4%

100% of the interviewed had never previously heard about Open Gov34% of them had already heard about the french official translation of ‘Démocratie Ouverte’, and 80,8% of them were able to put words on the concept but almost 90% of them mixed it up with similar named concepts and especially participatory democracy. This shows an extremely weak awareness to the open gov concept, with only 3,4% of the respondents (1 person for which open gov was studies related) able to explain ‘Démocratie Ouverte’. If this sample is to small (29 respondents) and not representative (age groups) to give usable numbers, it still gives us some indication of the degree of awareness in the french society.

MethodologyConcerning the first series, 29 persons were interviewed in February 2015 in Montpellier, the panel was chosen randomly in the street among people in non active postures. they answered the following questions: -Have you heard about open gov/open government before ? -Have you heard about ‘democratie ouverte’ before? (If yes was answered to those question: Can you tell me about it?) -How old are you? -On a scale from 1 (not agile) to 5 (native) how agile are you with digital technologies? (based on how much time you spend on digital devices, how many you possess)

fearinertia

all decisions are blocked because no one (admin nor pol) feel legitimate to build strategies for the future

age of local kingdoms, the city is the scale of the 21 century

le tyran, sauveur outsider qui va remettre la ville en marche, centralisation des decisions et perte d’autonomie des agents

‘bonne mauvaise volonté’

environment A

innovation

innovate or die

survival strategies lead to death

commons

participation of citizens legitimity for action

interaction citizen-administration

e democracy: a discourse of people participation which sustains transition? or freezes (black box) the construction of new political interactions?

open gov, use of technocratic language to elaborate new sys of org

you can’t solve today’s problem by using the same mindset than the one that generated it (einstein)

TRUST

design,innovation the saviours, the tyrans?

legitimacy of design thinking in a technocratic env.

permitters

administration point of view

post ideology- efficiency driven administration [Lyotard]

dominant administration over politics [DGS meeting Superpublic]

facing more and more complex problems

out of time delays

same methodology

$ issues (dual) citizens as free resources

replacing vision pol by real time action research

new citizen behaviours, customer of public services

FEAR of disappearing : competition from the private sector to invent uses for citizens (of the weak state)

IBM

smart cities

fear of progressive auto organisation of citizens (community)

real time/highly connected environment

impose dynamic/ evolving gov models (flexibility of processes and practices)

new form of regulation

law is static

self gov age - auto regulation

social pressure comparing your practices with neighbours

innovation lobby

citizen as customer of public services

Digital Techs

A platform

a dynamic ecosystem builder

new sets of interactions

multi verse Pine theory

cross worlds interaction pathway between the different layers of reality

cross over

superposition

legitimate of those interactionlaw: institutionalisation of practices

strengthening community of practitioners

weakness of current ecosystem

Open gov strategies

my strategy

modification of the relationship

acculturation

creating trust growth of numbers and forms of opportunities to collaborate

Real time feedback loop (communication)

real impact (communication of this impact)

creating respect taking into account mutual perspectives,experience and skills

creating a progressive dynamic

inform-consult-collaborate-co create

initial platform which will start gathering actors around a central node

progressively redefine the roles of actors

councillor/ elected representative

citizens

administration

use contributors and active citizens to communicate (spread the word)

comparing with other strategiesopen data-> participation

IBM

inhibitors

representatives

low culture of commons and public services

low culture of administration (in some cases)

fear of being ‘useless’I have the power of decision making (constitutional right), I am the only legitimate decision maker)

Makersfragility of the ecosystem of open gov builders

0 evaluation or interest from hierarchy

isolated within the admin machine

administration culture based on stability is intrinsically opposed to ‘design’ culture

low level of creativity (stable processes)

no error mindset (failure is not an option)

’10 years plan’ obsessed by forecast and planning

low diversity of profiles in teams

scale up anything. Initiative are always pushed to be adopted nationwide despite context and culture

falls back to its own culture

hyper segmentation of innovation poles in the administration

citizen distrust in politicians and admin

low culture of commons

low level of interest

actors live different time frames, thus interests are short,mid and long terms don’t often coincide

Cliches one group of actors on other groups

collective intelligence

public/ commons/community

legitimate of the crowd back to the roots of democracy

collab and disclustering

diversity of profiles

growth number and quality of inputuser experience

professional related experience

favour chance

design

recycling resources (designers, best practices) dangerous

homogenisation of practice is bad

new admin processes

design thinking trap

new routine, decreased creativity

decontextualising practices in a different-similar ecosystem (culture[uses, references], challenge ) FAILS

territorialize, reterritorialized

get inspired but don’t copy

level of action is not state anymore otherwise you fall back to centralised ideology

don’t scale up

adapt

multiplicity of design cultures design thinking article

design for public is about modifying paths in the mist

collab - open

user centered

designing use architectures

iterative

try, test and modify culture

a part of serendipity favor chance

cultural influencer

empowers

not a capitalist design approach

designer as makers and facilitator

lab practice

living lab: not always relying on the same contributors and same profiles

making cross admin collab possible

reflective practitioner, constantly taking benefit of experience to modify their practice

action research

towards a research and flexible processes

Table 1

name sponsor party

date enactment category

H.R. 541 (110th): Faster FOIA Act of 2007 D Jan 07 no open info /accountability

H.R. 369 (110th): Transparency and Accountability in Security Contracting Act of 2007

D Jan 07 no open info /accountability

S. 1 (110th): Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007

D Jan 07 yes open info /accountability

H.R. 984 (110th): Executive Branch Reform Act of 2007

D Feb 07 no accountability, assesment

S. 674 (110th): Transparency and Accountability in Military and Security Contracting Act of 2007

D (obama) Feb 07 no open info /accountability

H.R. 958 (110th): Data Accountability and Trust Act D Feb 07 no open info /accountability

H.R. 985 (110th): Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007

D Feb 07 no open info /accountability

H.R. 1889 (110th): Private Prison Information Act of 2007

D Feb 07 no open info /accountability

H.R. 1309 (110th): Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 2007

D March 2007 yes open info /accountability

H.R. 1775 (110th): Freedom of Information Improvement Act

D March 2007 no open info /accountability

H.R. 1326 (110th): OPEN Government Act of 2007 R March 2007 no open info /accountability

S. 2746 (110th): OPEN FOIA Act of 2008 D March 2007 no open info /accountability

H.R. 1362 (110th): Accountability in Contracting Act D Mar 07 no open info /accountability

H.R. 3033 (110th): Contractors and Federal Spending Accountability Act of 2008

D July 2007 no open info /accountability

S. 2427 (110th): OPEN Government Act of 2007 D Dec 07 no open info /accountability

S. 2488 (110th): OPEN Government Act of 2007 D Dec 07 yes open info /accountability

H.R. 5636 (110th): Consumer Product and Food Safety Information Act of 2008

D March 2008 no open info

H.R. 5794 (110th): Federal Sunset Act of 2008 R April 2008 no assesment

S. 2904 (110th): Contractors and Federal Spending Accountability Act of 2008

D April 2008 no open info /accountability

H.R. 3815 (110th): Homeland Security Open Source Information Enhancement Act of 2008

D Jun 08 no open info /accountability

H.R. 5687 (110th): Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendments of 2008


H.R. 6193 (110th): Improving Public Access to Documents Act of 2008


H.R. 4791 (110th): Federal Agency Data Protection Act

D Jun 08 no citizen data protection

H.R. 6411 (110th): Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008


S. 3077 (110th): Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008

D(obama) Jun 08 no open info /accountability

S. 3276 (110th): Open and Transparent Smithsonian Act of 2008

R Jul 08 no open info /accountability

H.R. 6576 (110th): Reducing Information Control Designations Act

D Jul 08 no open info /accountability

H.R. 3519 (110th): United States Commission on an Open Society with Security Act

D Sep 08 no open info /accountability

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr541


https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s1


























Interviews transcript (2015): Five Contributors to the french open gov

Interview 1

-How did you come to work on open gov?

Interviewee 1- Before working for C city council, I was working at D. It’s a french think tank on digital technologies. It didn’t tackle open data with the open gov perspective. It tackled it in a more radical way, saying, we need to completely open the data for local actors and build services. It wasn't really in the perspective of open gov, even though we were still very influenced by what the US did on open data, but the world [ open gov] wasn’t used at all at D. And D had also worked on a 2.0 city project which was about, it was primarily the participative city and how to connecting the actors on the territory on he future of the city beyond traditional actors.Somehow, it was really about open gov, the transparency side, the collaboration part, the participation part but it wasn’t expressly expressed. D work on the digital city and open data had really interested the city council, with its quite visionary content, well with an elected representative who really wanted to bring innovation inside the council organisation. It was renown on a national level, I had the opportunity to join this team in C because I came from D which had worked on this subject. And the city of C wanted to benefit from this vision, from this perspective.So I slightly changed of trade as I became an actor from the public sector in a local authority. And I’ve been keen on understanding the way the public sector actor proceeds. It was very hands on compared to what I did for D. This idea of of modernisation of the public sector was quite new.[…]I understood later that they [Etatlab] had also embraced open data in something bigger, the open gov, this was new, new in France, 2 years old and I think it’s really démocratie ouverte NPO which formalised it. So without acknowledging it, we were talking about that, we had the transparency, collaboration and participation but we hadn’t given it name. But then we realised it wasn’t new and came form the US.

-How did you start open data in the end?

1- So we started open data because it was trendy in France. But well, the participation of citizens in designing the territory goes way back, we didn’t wait for the english word to do participation of citizen with digital tools. We can observe something, is that we alternatively say e-gov or open gov, which is not quite the same. E-gov reminds us of digital tech because of the ‘e’, like e-administration. And open gov, means open governance, so can we say it’s the same thing. I don’t know. But we could as well do open gov with digital technologies,It’s the same when we talk about the 2.0 city, it doesn’t mean it’s digital, it means its participative, horizontal and we see that digital is a good tool for that. ‘E’ enriched open gov, we could do without. Just as we can do e-gov without it being open gov. And somehow, IBM offers an electronic governance, but it’s not necessarily open. We still understand[for open gov] there is the digital tech side, the free aspect, the open aspect, there is an amalgam of those terms.

-How would you implement open gov in a new city of around 500 000 inhabitants? How would you proceed and what team would you gather?

1- Well I think it would take time because it’s not a technical thing we can implement in a couple days, it’s not just a organisation aspect where you need a team and a budget and start.It’s really about mindsets, in order for people to integrate open gov, a lot of education is needed, a lot of pedagogy, a lot of experience, many progressive small steps to gain confidence and [trust] in one another.This means that the public actors and elected representatives trust the public, they will take risk when they open a little bit the process. We see today how they are always afraid to be set up by citizens and vice versa the citizens don’t really trust their political representatives.So before the trust is established and people really start to do projects together, the process will take three years minimum. If I come to E and say ‘ we are doing open gov’, maybe in three years we will

have something working and we see that here we have managed to do project A after three years. We did the open data and project A after three years and the project wasn’t completely there, it was only sustained by a handful of people at the city council. And actually it’s a good question because there won’t be a entirely open gov process. I can’t say’ In ten years everything will be open gov,’ not at all. The question is can we achieve to make 30% of the public action as open gov, it’s actually really ambitious because it won’t be possible to do a lot more. To get to 50% it’s in the range of a couple generation, it’s really about mindsets . A hundred years were necessary to implement democracy in France and we expect it to take three month in Africa but we have needed hundred years between the revolution in 1789 and the first republic. So if we say the target is 20% of public action which follow the substance of open gov, you need at least three to five years depending on the territory’s culture. In Brittany if we arrive in a new city that never did open gov, never did open data, they don’t have it but they have a culture of dialog between politicians and [citizens] so it would be possible to do it in three years.If I go to E, I could need eight years because it’s so far from their culture on those issues.I think that influencing public sector actors is a big part of the job, but we only see themonce , twice, three times and at the beginning they say yes, but don’t really believe in it, the second time they say ‘yes but why not’ and the third time they will say ‘yes’, you can start. But they will progressively evolve, only if at the same time that we meet them we meet other actors, citizens. I mean: NPO, academia, research, thinkers, philosophers, people who think. I think that those people [when] they say ‘yes we can improve their, evolve on that, do better’, in the end it’s their influence that will impact what politicians think.Because if politicians only see the theory, they won’t do anything but when they will see that people ask for it, even only if they show interest, so judge them against what they do, they will do it or one day they will loose the elections. So I think we should act with those people because they would be the one to have this demand to become actors of the territory. We should put pressure on the politicians independently from their political orientation in order for them to think that they can’t avoid to do it [open gov].

We should meet the politicians every six months, when I say politicians I mean representatives but also general directors who translate the politics into organisation decisions, into action, so department directors, DGA. Increasingly we notice that it’s less politicians who do politics than the administration departments, it’s the administration that makes the politics because the politicians concentrate on political strategies, short term, elections and power. What you can see here is what you see everywhere, small battles they are involved in. Sometimes it is the directors, the administrators at the top who know how to manage the project on the long term, who know how to give it a coherence. Not so long ago we were meeting NPOs that were telling us that the local residents are living 20, 30 even 50 years in a borough. In department of the administration, people stay 10 years in a city council, elected representatives stay our years, and after three months they can loose their attribution.

[…]

- So no city has successfully implemented open gov?

1- Yes, there’s a sensitive point, the transition from design to production. It’s dangerous because we talk to people, we advertise it, when going into production/implementation requires to really stay in the process, to pay a company to do it. There’s only a few city who manage to do that, we didn’t.

- And how to transition from design to production then?

1- We didn't’ manage, it took us three years et right at this point, there’s an election. The time you need to start the process is three years, ans then there’s an election and you have to start all over again. Maybe after two years they will say it’s not a bad idea and in our years they will start doing it again and then there’s an election again and we loose it.So it’s an issue because the calendar is not conciliable with the political calendar. Every three years the politicians change and the General directors too, it’s a real issue.

- Some city managed this transition successfully?

1- I think that in Rennes and Brest, because we talked about it earlier, they managed it because there’s a somewhat political stability and a culture that makes what it quite authentic when they do it. The politicians even when the team is changed, they don’t question all the aspects of this project. They would question some parts, the surface but you don’t start all over again.Here they don’t have this culture, we can decline in only a few months so it’s a very fragile process for this reasons, because there’s no obligation, they do it if they want , if they don’t, they don’t do it.

- And they don’t have any evaluation a the end of their term?

1- There is no evaluation indeed, they tell stories to everyone. If we wanted open gov to be a long term process and therefore non reversible, we would need a law that makes it compulsory, defining its obligations. […]as requiring tangible proof [of open gov] to finance projects. It’s not about making a big bang tomorrow, we don’t ask from them to create a autonomous zone like that but if the law made it compulsory it is because in the end only my counts. It’s not a wish, it’s an observation. […]

- No legislation, no hope?

1- No legislation, no hope, well without a law. It’s difficult to reduce it to that, I think that without a law you can do things with the citizens but those things with the citizens are too fragile and they depend on political wish. If politicians say we stop, we stop.And to act on the politics, there can be a permanent pressure of the election, but it fragilises them, there’s too much blackmail. I think that the law and the financial aspect attached to it can be essential supports.

but if there’s only the law and no demand from citizens, no thinking, it won’t work either. It will be purely bureaucracy, we need to combine both. But we can’t mange to do that with goodwill. And we can observe it with open data today, it progressively becomes legislated, the parliament votes laws on health data, public data that are produced from parapublic agencies. Only law will make it a non reversible process. Otherwise if we continue in cities like we do today, well today we do open data but tomorrow we could stop open data and it will stop straight away even if people complain. There’s not enough expression from the public to make it a political influence. Who is interested in open data in C? A hundred active pesons and a thousand or two who think it’s a good thing.But if we stopped the project , maybe we could gather a hundred people on a protest strike in front of the city council with some boards saying give us back our open data. But it does’t have any political influence, saying bad things about Arabs or Harki brings you a lot more votes.[…]

- And what team would you ideal bring together to develop open gov?

1- In C, there’s one negative point, we stayed a small team, very small with 2-3 persons, We stayed at this size in a city council that counts 4000 agents. So three persons on 4000 agents that’s very little. We should have found the way to disseminate in other parts of the council and in other local authorities because the capabilities are spread among many local authorities.As the capabilities are spread between the local actors, there needs to be a wish to do open gov at all the different levels.It’s useless that the city council does it on its capacities and not the agglomeration on its capacities that are equally important:economy, culture, big investments and the Région also has capabilities: further education, research, if it doesn’t do open gov, well..The observation is that in the city council only three do it, with some good willing interlocutors, it’s completely isolated. There is a few interlocutors , ten at most in the city council, one or two in the Agglomeration, none in the Région and département. So it’s completely unbalances, it’s not three persons that can motivate a whole population.

[…]

-What has been your biggest disappointment working for open gov so far?

1- It ’s the political change […] This [political party] doesn’t have this culture, there’ s a lack of confidence that is visible for political reasons, in thinking that ‘giving power to the people is against my interests’. The project stops, but stops at once. […]The personal disappointment is that we haven’t worked enough, probably because we lacked self confidence, lack of drive. We haven’t worked enough with the organisation,with the city council. Because overtime we’ve tried it didn’t go well. The people laughed at us and did it unwillingly. It wasn’t nice to experience, so by facility we went to the actors who wanted to do it. It’s really a pleasure [with them]. Maybe I’ve limited myself, the glass ceiling. I thought they wouldn’t understand and that we shouldn’t bother them with that. But I think I was mistaken. If I had to do it over again I would set it as a target, every month because otherwise I wouldn’t meet the target, and have no impact.Maybe if I did this, it would’t change anything but at least I could say that I did it, now I didn’t and I think it’s a mistake.It’s a mistake because I should have had a management, a director should have said ‘ this is a point you identified as important, you’ve said you would do it, why didn’t you?’I should have been assessed by someone because you can’t always do your own auto-assessment. Otherwise you end up choosing things according to what you like, frustrations. I have often asked to my boss to do that but he never supported me, I was always alone and no one never said anything about it, or asked questions, there wasn’t any monitoring, I was really alone.The people who sustain digital tech projects are their due to their motivation,like me,and they re seldom monitored with real targets and when it happens it’s not very nice, like ‘ concretely what came out of the project’. It’s assessed but the top management isn’t really involved in the project so they can criticise but they are not co producer of the projet and consequently not co responsible. So project can stop, the projects stay in the drawer because there is no wish from the top management saying ‘ you need to scale up’. So it’s also the responsibility of the administration to manage the people who do it [ open gov]. Because if people are on their own, best case scenario they do something,worst case scenario, they don’t.

- How do you see the designer in the open gov project?

1- […] I think the designer is mostly useful in the participation part [of open gov], more than in the collaboration part or transparency. Because when we ask people to participate reflect and imagine, the designer’s or artist’s job could be to interpret feelings and translate feelings, emotions, desires,visions. It’s about precepts and concepts, the concept is purely intellectual and the precept is about the perception, that’s the work of the artist. All this work around drawing, materials, coloured things that bring us back to childhood, when you’re a kid, you are very creative because you don’t have a lot of concepts, so you work with your imagination, this ind of things. I think, this is very important, design brings us a lot.We should go beyond the idea of doing design for design’s sake and include it in the way we work. Sometimes there can be a confusion between the facilitation and design because very often we use the designer to do creative workshops, which is understandable but I think the designer can go further than just have nice facilitator’s tools. They know how to translate things in the forms of drawings, processes, that’s the big difference between facilitation and design. Very often people stop at the creative workshops phase but the designers goes further particularly in the production of products, projects, interfaces. It’ s interesting to work with designers because they come from a culture that is very different from the administration’s. Administration is in project mode, I say what I’m going to do, I have deadlines and a budget, I build a team, all very administrative, designers are more creative, so he’s not formatted the same way. Maybe he’s not formatted at all but he still has he’s own structura and I think it’s very important to bring in people, minds, with different mindsets. […]

- Do you think that’s a culture that could spread in the administration? Or will it stay as a one off, exterior?

1- Well I think that in the initial phase, you could imagine that when departments do conception workshops they can use, more than they do today, tools for creative facilitation. During brainstorming meetings now, the people sit around a table and trough some ideas randomly, it’s not facilitated in a creative way, it’s an administrative meeting. However there’s some departments that bring in a facilitator, it’s easy to do something to create something richer, there’s catalogs with 350 different methods. If we had this culture of creative meetings in the city council, if there was in the DOE, the direction for the organisation, a design resource, well a facilitator available for the different departments any time they want to implement something new, that would be good.When I was working for D, we had worked on that, we did facilitation, we asked an agency to help us with that, it was a designer and then one day I wanted to do it myself, I asked them to teach me, so we all took a class of service design,well of creative facilitation. So we all knew how to do it, we had a toolbox and then we also asked outside facilitators.And concretely, did they keep the tools, did they integrated them is their practice?Yes I think that all the people at D now know how to run a meeting without needing help from external people , they do it it like I do, but they might also delegate it.It’s a culture, we do richer and more creative meetings. Integrating design in all the departments I think it’s a utopian goal. It’s possible that some departments integrate it, because their trade justify it or because the director head of department is a [design] enthusiast. It’s also possible that a designer in the organisation department could be in charge of the creative workshops and why not go further. There are local authorities, city councils, Grand Lyon which has four or five designers in the organisation, and very few departments request them.They do it for the beauty of it but in the end very few people ask for their help.

- What would open gov look like visually?

1- The model from Démocratie Ouverte is quite good because it shows three axis: transparency, collaboration and participation, we could maybe add a fourth one which would be the innovation platform. This way to show it as a flower, we could have made it four points, four bullets in a powerpoint, it’s kind of the same, it;s not really a diagram.It doesn’t describe what happens at the junctions, About the junction between transparency and participation, well it’s everything that is related to the design of services using open data, somehow, I participate because I have this data. About the junction between participation and collaboration, well it’s the ecosystems, the richness of the ecosystems, when we reflect on this with designers, artists, professionals. So there is a lot of things to say on the subject that are not explained by the diagram, when it’s precisely what we would expect from it. I think some work would be necessary to show what happens at the junctions, actually it’s like in anything,it’s the junctions that are interesting. I consider traditional public action as a top down thing, and I see open governance as something much more circular, where things go down, up again in a cyclic way somehow.It’s the circle that represents it best, I enrich, nourish, it goes down and there ’s a everlasting quality to this loop.

Interview 2

[…]

- How did you came to work on open gov?

Interviewee 2- They came to the conclusion with the Etatlab project that opening public data, their mission, probably wasn’t sufficient and that it was necessary to create a bond with citizens too, to

open up management models of [public] agencies , have more open technology strategy, to transition form open data to open government.

- And on a more personal level?

2- I have this special awareness about everything related to agency development, public policy development, I have worked extensively in humanitarian [sector] for NGOs on public policy in developing countries. So it was [already] a consideration on agencies, citizen participation, civil society participation which are subjects on which I already have worked a lot and I had the awareness, so there I am. A and B have asked me to work with them on the action plan.

- If you had to implement open gov in half a million inhabitant city from ground up, how would you do it?could you show me on a timeline what it would be like and mark the different steps of the process?

2- The first thing that would define the rest of it would be to start by putting sharing tools and communication tools, meeting points, space communication of sharing and exchange with the citizen to learn what he is expecting, what he would expect from this open government, what he would expect from this city,this city council , how he sees the agencies. with think groups at different levels, with experts, researchers, people who have really worked on the [issue] and at a citizen level.

- So you completely subscribe to the CnNum model [of concertation]?

2- No I don’t subscribe entirely, I think there is several defects to their concertation, starting with the tool they are using, we can’t do, well it’s very good for the timeframe they had, the difficulties and the pressure they were under, etc, limited resources, well it’s a massive amount of work. Only if ever… it would need improvement, one should start with… the tool is , the tool is politics. It is the base of everything that follows , with dining the tool in collaboration with citizens and especially y [make it] open, entirely open in its use, with let’s say open codes, and that isn’t as structured or rigid, that could have been a entirely different way to do concentration.

- And what would you do next?

2- From what comes out of this, well that’s the way I like to work, but it’ personal -because the organisation part is important as well to organise the process but I strongly believe in agility, agile in the way that we move forward depending on the feedbacks that we get, so it’s complicated to plainly but I think that’s when that’s in place, from the recommendations we gat we can try to structure it. Rather than doing a timeline, I would make two initial posits, the first is co construct with citizen from the beginning and the second is that all agencies, tools implemented should be open, open in the sense that all the bricks used to build a house should be transparent and available to the citizen, so that anyone could say ‘ No, I’ve got a better way to do it , you should put more clay and zinc because it will strengthen the brick ‘ and the citizen can take the brick and say ‘ ok I will redo it the way you did it and instead of building an office I will build an Eiffel tower because I think it’s more useful and prettier’. This will develop innovation so that everything used to develop the public services , to develop the agencies should be entirely open , but open is not only being transparent, it’s also giving the mean to citizens to reuse it in order to improve it , to do something else, innovations, new services. that’s the the two initial posits, the two initial principles that I would use.

- What is your biggest deception working on open gov?

2- The lack of, I don’t know if it’s a deception because one expects it a little bit, but the lack of awareness on the subject, of understanding of the subject inside the administration. Even my colleague who work on modernisation of public policy, who come mainly form the private sector,

who have worked for other organisation so who didn’t..who had this opening, it’s not a value judgement, but at the beginning they were saying:’ what is this thing [open gov] ,it’s useless, why are you going to work on that ?’. There’s a deliberative committee that decide what project are prioritised for the modernisation project. Because despite all, we have limited resources like anyone else, and this was the first reactions, to say that ‘why should work on that, it’s way off’, and now we talk about it, that projects are moving forward, that the thing[open gov action plan] is moving forward, I think they start to see the point. But I understand that when we go to Bercy and talk transparency and citizen participation they say ‘ what, this is rubbish, it’s yet another political agenda, a gadget, an empty shell’, well you have many words that are repeated again and again. For me, this is a lack of vision and it’s quite a shame. But it’s true that when we are talking about open gov, it’s very obscure and it’s necessary that we find clearer semantic terms, that’s our role, it’s our fault if we are not clear when we explain it.It’s clearly necessary in order to observe different reactions, but we haven’t sufficiently worked on that. I think it’s clearer when I talk, more pedagogic maybe, but it’s not sufficient.

- But you have [political ]supports?

2- Oh yes of course, there is a support, well it depends on the person, some say - in all levels of the administration -it’s fantastic, very interesting, very important but other look up and wonder about this latest fad, the ‘bisounours’ from Etatlab who think that once you open, everything improves. So there’s really different [reaction] levels. We are supported by our hierarchy the general secretary and his assistant, Henry Verdier, well he is the one to sustain this vision, sustained by the minister Thierry Mandon, by Marylise Lebranchu, by Elysée. The president, Francois Hollande has included it in his discourse, so we are supported, this is a first step. The biggest problem, it’s the implementation within the administrations where there is a lot of…

- If I got it right, one of your mission is to go in administrations and propose new ways of thinking of tackling issues?

2- Well in fact it’s not about proposing, it’s at the different level,it means that we engage the conversation on the subject to see what they think about it, how we can implement things and then see existing projects because there are many projects that are currently being implemented and they are not identified as ‘open gov’ because ‘open gov’ many people don’t know what it means, but they are [open gov projects]. I mean the project by justice and police [agency ], creating a database on jurisdiction to permit to the citizen to , well if his cat is run over by a car, he can take to court the driver of that car, well on this database, he can see if other similar cases exist, his success rate, and if it is worth it to start a procedure, how he can startle procedure, well that is open gov[ project], well I mean it is more transparency on what has been done before and it gives tools to the citizen to be better informed to start the right procedure. And that, if you talk to the justice department about it , they are going to say that it doesn’t mean anything and that they are not doing anything regarding to it. So [our job] it’s also about identifying [projects]. And in fact we’ve had this idea of launching an open gov label which would already spread the semantics and culture and what an ‘open gov’ is and that could identify all opening initiatives that are ongoing and therefore a huge work to co ordinate the government politic in what is being done today in this direction.It brings it under the spotlight and reinforces good practices and say to the administration that it’s not rubbish, it’s a dynamic, there is some things happening today in this direction. As it is Etatlab which coordinated the action plan, [we should ] push Etatlab vision , which is about open data, opening processes, opening models and now we have proposals that are more disruptive with what can be done or understood in the administrations to propose new approaches. We cannot impose anything anyway, even though we are secretary to the prime minister, we can’t impose if there is no desire from the ministry to implement it, we can push, propose, talk to the right interlocutors, see the people that can make the decision, to present it to them. IN the end it’s them who say yes or no, yes we go for it, nom we don’t have the resources, the desire, the vision , we don’t have the culture. It’s our role to pull the trigger to unlock it. What is very important is to

rely on innovators, entrepreneurs, with all the persons motivated in the administrations and who will carry this vision. - That’s a little bit what 27 region us doing with the DGS meeting?

2- Exactly, talk and see how we can work together, for us it’s [about designing] an action plan , so it remains , us at one point[ what we do] is coordinate all that happens.

-And for you, isn’t their a risk to reach the paradox between open gov thinking which is about being constantly iterative, researching, to have this becoming community which is good for reinforcing [open gov] , but isn’t there a risk of homogenisation of practices and finally to create another governance model as rigid as the last, with design thinking as master?

2- Yes, yes, yes, indeed there is a risk, well what are the triggers to counter this risk? the administration , it’s still 5 million civil servants, it’s very heavy, there’s safeguards everywhere, because it’s public money , because we should watch what we spend, there’s rules everywhere, barriers and all but our role is to try try step by step , well I remain persuaded that it’s a culture, a mindset so it’s not by processes, it’s not by a law that it will happen, it will be through practice, by example, by use and the evolution of the culture so the education but, hm. In our open gov plan, we are identifying some themes, there’s a theme on opening the parliament, on climate, so how to be more transparent on climate changes, there’s a theme on the diffusion of culture. There’s several aspects : education, education of cadres supérieurs, continuous education, initial education, to explain what it means , how it is, so raising awareness. Then there’s the opening aspect, new HR strategy, we need to bring in innovation fellows just like what the US did with… We need to open recruitment to people who think differently and who can help think differently , who can help this culture to evolve and there needs to be more mobility for the agents cross administrations.

It’s really a new strategy, a new HR strategy, and we need to develop more projects, I don’t know if you’ve heard about the BAN, a project that relied on citizens, it’s La Postem IGN, you’ve spoken to Christian Quest, he is the president of Open Street Map who now works with Etatlab and who pushed for this projects. So it means that IGN which had their BAN, which are key data, which are useful for many things, La Poste which had their BAN, entirely closed, one would pay to get this data, to develop services from this data, and they weren’t even talking to each other, so they had different data but not interoperable ,Added to the fact that I think it’s 200000 data that change every year and they couldn’t update it, they were very late on the update of the database, both at La Poste and IGN, and when the SAMU, the firemen have to react really fast to get to a place they have data that are not always up to date , that were chargeable makes it so hard to develop useful apps. There’s google map but google map is not always up to date and then, there’s OSM citizens where each citizen put information in the BAN through crowdsourcing.But it’s not complete either and not always very trustworthy . It’s only the citizen that puts information so… OSM said ‘it’s stupid to have three BAN, we should work together to get something complete, solid, regularly updated, flexible and open’. And La Poste and IGN said ‘ nom we don’t trust you, [civil society], we sell our data, it’s our business model , we don’t have the platform for that. And Etatlab said ‘That’s enoguh’. So they hired Christian Quest who supported this idea and they gathered around a table, the director of IGN, the director of La Poste and Christian Quest saying ‘ and now we will see how we can work together without breaking your business model without disrupting your entire organisation structure, because that’s not he point , [the point is] the commons of citizen, and the user. We need to rely on the citizen, on what he can bring in, so it’s really a collaboration. Public agencies open up, rely on what can be done by civil society improve their services, to improve their origination and in the end get a more efficient and innovative service.

-what is the role of the designer from your point of view?

2- I dont’ really know this question, so.. It depends on two things, for me the tool is politics and the tool implicates many things, the tool can be the platform, the interface. So the way it’s done, so

there’s the coding part, so I’m not thinking designer but it’s very important because it’s all that’s going to enable, that’s going to come out of it and design it’s like what we were saying on questions, how the way we ask a question impacts it’s answer, so how the thing is presented, the platform, the ergonomics of the platform , the aspect of easiness, easy, that’s what I understand when you say design. Design it’s the ergonomics, the way it’s presented, I might be mistaken, I don’t know that subject so well. Well it’s the inside that surface, I didn’t make it, it’s from Victor Hugo. Well what I mean is that if the content is really good and it doesn’t have the right aspect then it doesn’t work. It’s like in a speech, it’s said that words account for 7% of it et what we reflect our image, our attitude, our voice intonation makes the rest, for me design is 50 % of the job.[…] it should be the individual that bring their creativity and offer the all spectrum of his skills to improve public decision making, the public service.

2- what will remain of open gov in 20 years?

- I hope we will not speak about it anymore, because if we don’t speak about it in 20 years time it means that it will be completely integrated, entirely natural.

2-do you think some part of open gov might be more dominant or some part may disappear?

- Well it depends if you ask for my realistic of idealistic vision, my idealistic vision, is that public design will be made at the right level, relying on the right persons in an open and transparent way. We won’t have achieved that, but that’s what we want to do, in 10, 15 years in 20 years, we will continue to speak about it because er won;t have achieved it, it will never be perfect, always improved, relying on the three aspects[participation, collaboration,transparency] , yes there’s no reason [one should disappear].

Interview 3

-How would you organise open gov in a city with no prior experience?

Interviewee 3- I would make it compulsory to share specific data sets, those I consider key. I would multiply the education to data in partnership with according the levels, with school, middle school, high school. I would do education to data and open gov and I would deploy tools, let’s say for dialog, to talk directly with certain representatives, but in priority for local actions, borough size.

-And in terms of steps?

3- I would start by communicating on open gov. During this communication phase, I would identify the key actors on my territory, which NPO, which researchers,etc. Then I would do a kind of hackathon or consultation on what open gov is for that city, I would invite the people that I have identified, an open gov hack where people bring their ideas and the public too. I would then elaborate a calendar from that and I will start to spread the tools progressively.I would do a big one [hackathon] after the communication, spotting the actors, I would do a big one which will bring some stuff. I will take the ideas from the rest of the world, I would take ideas which I know are working somewhere else. Being a part of the budget like they did in Paris, the 5% [Paris budget participatif]. I would do things at local scale when their is need for developments , I would deploy tools like that, step by step. Many tools that are backed up by data and every year I would do an evaluation, assessment, to see what [tool] worked or not.

-Who should do it?

3- Me or the FNOR, or some certified body.And then, I cancel some tools, some not, I deploy new ones. I see what works, what doesn’t and I continue like that.

-How many people would you need, and which skills?

3- Two people to do open data, two people who are data scientist or data editor, people from the communication department, at least one, a project leader and someone who knows about consultation and a part time that tells me what happens outside and what I can apply here or not. So at the size of a metropole, three persons, five if I’m ambitious. with three I do the minimum, with five I can work well.I’m more interested to work on the data side, data scientist, things like that because I believe less in the participation of citizens. The [current] system of governance where you lean on other people to get things organised is far from disappearing, but I believe in it [ citizen participation] at a micro local scale, except for things that like changing the name of the city, but there’s things I wouldn’t let people look into it.School canteen, if it’s my work, I do the work, I don’t need the input from the outside, you see what I mean. Feedback is fine but I wouldn’t oversell it and say that everyone can do everything. -What is your biggest deception in your work?

3- Until now, I couldn’t work with public services delegates, which means I couldn’t work with [ other local public administration].I would have liked to have a better relationship with the communication [department], they didn’t want to work with us. What we do is not a priority, so they talk less about us. We have worked with them, I would have liked to do more, do more data communication, street campaigns.

-But that’s due to the political support, no?

3-Yes if the political support is strong, they expect the com department to do it, but they could have said that what we do is cool and somewhat important and work on it.

-How do you see the role of the designer and design in open gov?

3-I think that, it’s in the deployment of the tools, they need to be somewhat connected to reality and uses, we need someone that knows how to do it. […]It can’t be done with the current culture of the administration because it doesn’t have this specific culture. It won’t do something modern but something practical because it is used to do things for ‘trade use’ and this is not for trades but for the people outside. That is a culture that we don’t have in house, so it’s important to have someone who knows how to do it.

-What is open gov going to be like in 20 years?

3-Some thing will seem old fashion and will be thrown away. Everything regarding a deep implication of the citizens, as I have said before, I don’t believe in it. But I thing that some small things, some reflex will be natural. Some tools would have been developed and it would seem unbelievable not to know how the public money is spent, unbelievable that when we know there’s going to be some engineering that local people are not asked if it would be nice to change the benches, small things like that which will become reflex between the administration and citizens.I see it, as testing small things the nest five years, see what works, scale up things that work, while keeping an innovation team that brings new things constantly. There will be new things, in twenty years, there will be fix my street apps everywhere with real follow up.

Interview 4

[…]

-How did you come to work on that?

Interviewee 4 -We have been through an evolution that showed us that this was what we needed to do. On a personal level, well I had a very classic business school profile, four years of consulting where I worked on a project for the public sector, for the ministry of defence under the previous government. […]

-and on a personal level?

4 -I always had it in me, I think it’s story of bad counselling, I went to early towards business schools when I should have been more invested on public policy , it’s funny because I was speaking about it and starting to express this. It’s a job but it’s also an engagement, this choice to join the administration and work those challenges.And obviously, it’s very complex, because it takes time, there’s a lot of barriers, a lot of political control and micro management from the existing hierarchy, so it is an engagement.

-How would you implement open gov in a half a million inhabitant city, with no ongoing open gov projects?

4 -There are two intertwined worlds, there’s the tangible world, which vocation is to open and develop collaborations with all its actors , this means its inhabitants, users, its economic environment, other local authorities, state’s administrations, it’s redefining its role on the territory in an ‘open ‘ way against the rest of the actors. So maybe that is the drawing that needs to be done, so it’s about breaking the physical barriers and virtual ones too. There’s part of the open gov, a strong part which is about opening public policy through the digital technologies, so it’s open data but not only , it goes beyond. It ’s open data and big data, even if I’m not an expert on the subject, resources and virtual skills at a city level, it’s a gathering of talents and capacities which are available but under used. The capacities of the different people can be activated via more crowdfunding and crowdsourcing approaches. What I’m thinking about, it’s projects based on collective, social collective projects, this kind of things where in the end it gathers [actors], it’s new forms of participatory democracy where it’s really collaborative projects, we shouldn't; imagine this as an alternative to public policy but as a complement to what public service offers.The role citizens is strengthened in this approach. There is a real and virtual side.

-yes but concretely?

4-I was speaking more conceptually, more what it [open gov] implies, the logics, but I could have said that it is a series of strategies, citizen participation program, open data program, but I think that before all, one needs to understand the environment in which the city, local authorities, any structure are and the different resources on which it can build on to sustain the program [open gov].

-are you speaking about culture modification or not especially?

4-yes, and also about modification, evolution and mix of cultures, that’s exactly what we were talking about earlier. It’s all about how we make those different cultures, techniques, practices and mindset dialog, but also people who do not have the same technical level. No one has resolved that yet, how to make an actor out of the citizen, how we empower the citizen. Today all the mechanisms are not there yet, but the digital technology will really help to build this.

-and concretely, in your job what do you organise to create that?

4-So, my job is more on a macro level, but I could give an example about what I’ve been doing for the ministry of F recently. I have helped them to organise a concertation on the use of digital technologies. The aim is to rethink the G experience with the capabilities of the digital techs, but not only with the actor A or actor B solely but with the entire community because all of them are actors of G success. So on this specific subject, this is an example of an open gov project. It’s a first step [brainstorming] and then it’s about how we can make this more collaborative.

-what is your biggest deception?

4 -My biggest deception, in fact there are two of them, the first is that it’s not always possible to see the impact of the things we do on users, on territories. We have a very experimental approach and it takes time to implement them. The second deception is more personal. There is no room for people like us, we are only passing by, the system is very bureaucratic, statutory and doesn’t integrate us. I come from the private sector and at the end of my contract, that’s it. But pushing out people like me - there’s dozens of them- we just pass by and that raises big risks.

-could this change?

4-with statutory rules like today, no

-and why [are contractors] rejected?

4-That’s the history of french administration, the way it is built, it’s the administration culture,the reproduction of models and status and some part of the methodology. Innovation comes in and disrupts that, and when it does so too much, this equilibrium and reproduction dynamics eliminate what threatens them.

-So for you, [open gov] is almost an illusion?

4-I think it is a very important limit, it is a risk to the sustainability of this transformation, a risk that private actors google and other big actors of the techs but not only, even from NPO will provide alternatives to the detriment of making [those transformation] from the inside, I think this is a big limit to our transformation of public policy.It’s my personal vision, we will see in ten/fifteen years, we will see the effects later, but I think we are missing out on this.

-there’s a [political] willingness, but not quite?

4-exactly

-If you had to summarise open gov?

4-Open gov is like the co construction of commons in the end, that would be the aim. it’s not a scientific definition though

-and visually?

4-I will bring in different profiles and I would purposefully not put the public actor in the middle, public actors are one of the biggest butI could have made a drawing with the administration in the middle and all the different actors, that’s what came first to my mind, but I don’t think it’s like that. We need at first, to question social needs and economic needs et how each will contribute to that. So I will put together public actors NPOs, companies citizens, our european and international partners, lobbies,unions, there’s a logic of dynamics, of a permanent co construction, and maybe co making , that’s how I see it.

-Are we going to achieve this?

4-I think that the answer prepared today [by SGMAP] is a little bit to concrete as it doesn’t question the modele of society, doesn’t question the model of production of public services, maybe that’s what is missing.

What we are going to do is the program for opening public data, the program of how to involve citizens, the program of etc. and it’s not at all, or not especially correlated to a new vision for our society, a new way to co build it. That’s what is missing.

Interview 5

- How are you involved in open gov?

Interviewee 5- A is a village in the forest, it’s a touristic village. I was elected as representative for the first time in 2008. In 2011, I found out about open data in a newsletter and I found it very interesting, therefore I’ve suggested to the mayor to do it [open data].In 2012, I had created the first open data platform, it took me two months and it was totally off the mark. The documents: the city council reports were shared in a pdf format, which are proprietary formats. Then I replaced it by a second open data platform which was based on the village local specificities: its forest estates (largest economy of the village with 2000 acres and some important investments), its tourism opportunities and its heritage.In 2013, we have hosted Operation Libre, an event organised by Libertic which aims at learning how to organise and reuse data, we have also surveyed the village and gathered all the information on Open Street Map, among which 80 botanic reports.Today our open data is hosted on datagov (the national open data platform). The open data project now transitions to new missions, we now have a ‘mix’ commission made of 3 elected representatives and 5 voluntary citizens (on a rolling basis) who gather once a month to give an advice, a recommendation on an important project for the village. Regarding open data itself, citizens can now ask for specific data sets, data visualisation or the evolution of the platform.The mayor, a farmer, wasn’t so interested in this kind of things but he’s been convinced, step by step because he saw it as an opportunity to value the territory and share knowledge across the ‘communauté de communes’. The publicity from the media has drown several small towns and village to A, to see what we are doing.

- What is your biggest deception?

5- Here, there is no open data team obviously because there is only three people employed by the council. I made the open data platform by myself, it has necessitated a very important personal engagement, as I’m working as computer engineer as well. It would be necessary at some point that the project be handed to citizens.My deception at the beginning of this project was the isolation, I was by my own for this project. A is a very small village and doesn’t have a budget to allocate to this.

- For you what is the place for designers in Open gov?

5- Obviously, we don’t have a designer, the open data project is made in a rush, the designer comes after, but why not. There is also the budget challenge, in four years, the open data platform, the event and travelling expenses have only costed 3000 euros.

- What is the future of open gov?

5- It is my wish to expand the power of the commission, but for that, it would be necessary to modify the law and transfer some power from the elected representative to the citizens. The impact of the commission will be analysed, we would need to look at the divergence and convergence aspects in the debate and the final vote of the representatives compared to the recommendation of the commission. We also try to evangelise villages in the neighbourhoods to our practice, to create a ‘country’ open data.