osimopolitika20v2

Politika 2.0, San Sebastian, 23rd June 2009

David Osimo - Tech4i2 ltd.

Growing up into adulthood: Gov2.0 from anecdotes to policy

What I will try to answer today

• what is web 2.0?

1. some bottom-up examples

2. from anecdotes to analisis: why they matter

3. from spontaneous to structured: what could government do

4. from structured to systemic: a new vision for government?

2

So far ICT has not fundamentally changed government

• 1990s: ICT expected to make government more transparent, efficient and user oriented

• 2005+: disillusion as burocracy not much different from Max Weber’s description

3

Supply Demand

Many projects of web2.0 in public services, but not by government

Source: own elaboration of IPTS PS20 project

Relevant for key government activities

Back office Front office

RegulationCross-agency collaboration

Knowledge managementInteroperability

Human resources mgmtPublic procurement

Service deliveryeParticipation

Law enforcementPublic sector information

Public communicationTransparency and accountability

source: “Web 2.0 in Government: Why and How? www.jrc.es5

http://www.jrc.es

http://www.jrc.es

Regulation : Peer-to-patent

6

Peer-to-patent: an inside lookUsage and impact

• Self-regulated: need critical mass to control “bad apples”

• 2000 users

• 9/23 applications used by USPTO

• 73% of USPTO examiners endorse the project

• pilot being extended and adopted in Japan

7

Peer-to-Patent Report June 2008 6

Project Summary

Highlights of Pilot Results

From June 2007-April 2008, Peer-to-Patent has attracted well over 2,000 registered users and 173 items of prior art submitted on 40 applications by participants from 140 countries.

• Public submissions of prior art have been used to reject claims in first office actions coming back from the USPTO. The first 23 office actions issued during the pilot phase showed use of Peer-to-Patent submitted pri-or art in nine rejections, with all but one rejection using non-patent prior art literature. At least 3 additional office actions suggest that, while examiners did not use Peer-to-Patent prior art references in rejecting the application, they were influenced by Peer-to-Patent submissions in their search strategy and understanding of the prior art.

• Of the 419 total prior art references submitted by inventors during the pilot, only 14 percent were non-patent literature. In contrast, 55 percent of prior art references cited by Peer-to-Patent reviewers were non-patent literature.

• Eighty-nine (89) percent of participating patent examiners thought the presentation of prior art that they received from the Peer-to-Patent community was clear and well formatted. Ninety-two (92) percent re-ported that they would welcome examining another application with public participation.

• Seventy-three (73) percent of participating examiners want to see Peer-to-Patent implemented as regular office practice.

• Twenty-one (21) percent of participating examiners stated that prior art submitted by the Peer-to-Patent community was “inaccessible” by the USPTO.

• The USPTO received one third-party prior art submission for every 500 applications published in 2007. Peer-to-Patent reviewers have provided an average of almost 5 prior art references for each application in the pilot.

“We’re very pleased with this initial outcome. Patents of questionable merit are of little value to anyone. We much prefer that the best prior art be identified so that the resulting patent is truly bulletproof. This is precisely why we eagerly agreed to sponsor this project and other patent quality initiatives. We are proud of this result, which validates the concept of Peer-to-Patent, and can only improve the quality of patents produced by the patent system.”

— Manny Schecter, Associate General Counsel for Intellectual Property, IBM

Service delivery: Patient Opinion

8

Citizens monitoring government: farmsubsidy.org

UK, US: citizens providing detailed insight into gov strategies

From anecdotes to analysisWhy does this matter?

Why?

• Citizens and CIVIL SERVANTS already use web 2.0: no action ≠ no risks

• Likely to stay as it is linked to underlying societal trends

- Today’s teenagers = future users and employees

- Empowered customers

- Creative knowledge workers

- From hierarchy to network-based organizations

- Non linear-innovation models

- Consumerization of ICT12

Why?/2

Because it does not impose change (e-gov 1.0) but acts on leverages, drivers and incentives:

• building on unique and specific knowledge of users: the “cognitive surplus”

• the power of visualization

• reducing information and power asymmetries

• peer recognition rather than hierarchy

• reducing the cost of collective action

• changing the expectations of citizens

13

“A problem shared is a problem halved

...and a pressure group created”

Dr. Paul Hodgkindirector PatientOpinion.org

“it’s about pressure points, chinks in the armour where

improvements might be possible, whether with the consent of

government or not”

Tom Steinbergdirector mySociety

Before

16

Government

citizen

After

17

Government

citizen

friends

friends of friends

public

information, trust, attention

Web-oriented government architecture

UK Cabinet, “Power of information task force report” Robinson et al.: “Government Data and the Invisible Hand “Gartner: “The Real Future of E-Government: From Joined-Up to Mashed-Up”

18

!"# $%&

'()*+,--.*/0)-*1-231*)+456*3-7489-(*):0-;<*=>-?@30-ABBCD

From spontaneous to structured: what should

government do?

1 - DO NO HARM

• don’t hyper-protect public data from re-use

• don’t launch large scale “facade” web2.0 project

• don’t forbid web 2.0 in the workplace

• let bottom-up initiatives flourish as barriers to entry are very low

20

2. ENABLE

• blogging and social networking guidelines for civil servants

• publish reusable and machine readable data (XML, RSS, RDFa) > see W3C work

• adopt web-oriented architecture

• create a public data catalogue > see Washington DC

21

3. ACTIVELY PROMOTE

• ensure pervasive broadband

✴create e-skills in and outside government: digital literacy, media literacy, web2.0 literacy, programming skills

✴fund bottom-up initiatives through public procurement, awards

• reach out trough key intermediaries trusted by the community

• listen, experiment and learn-by-doing22

Promoting e-skills

• Old IT competences: ECDL

• New competences:1. digital literacy: making sense of text and

audiovisual2. media literacy: produce web content using free

tools (ning, facebook, youtube, wordpress...)3. running a server: capacity to install free tools on

own server - you own the data4. coding skills: you can create cool website for “stuff

that matters to you”★ Do we need “computational thinking”?

23

Not only spontaneous: INCA awards

• Context in Flanders: very few government 2.0 project

• INCA prize: 1 month, 20K euros for new applications “socially useful”

• results: 35 brand new applications on: family, mobility, culture, environment

• double dividend: ICT innovation and social impact

24

From structured to systemic : a new

approach to e-government policy?

Obama administration

• memo on transparency as first act: transparency by default

• recovery.gov as flagship for reusable data

• agreement with social networks

• appointment of best web2.0 people in WhiteHouse staff

• data.gov catalogue

★what about Europe?

27

http://eups20.wordpress.com



Let’s improve e-government policy in Europe together!

[email protected]

Further information:Osimo, 2008. Web2.0 in government: why and how? www.jrc.es

Osimo, 2008. Benchmarking e-government in the web 2.0 era: what to measure, and how. European Journal of ePractice, August 2008.

http://egov20.wordpress.com

29

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.jrc.es

http://www.jrc.es



Back-up slides

30

A new vision starting to take shape

31

To sum up, transparency, which enhances accountability and choice, can be a powerful driver, a catalyst and a flagship for “transformational government”, rather than for “eGovernment” only.

6 What is new? Government transparency is by no means a new issue. It has been the subject of policy action for three centuries, and substantial literature has been written on the topic. The first laws on access to public documents were implemented in 18th century Sweden. Over the last 20 years, most OECD countries have adopted ¨freedom of information laws¨ that allow access to public documents as a fundamental right. “Open government” has been a buzzword for many years, and on a more light-hearted note, it was already a subject of irony in the 80s. For example, the first episode of the BBC comedy “Yes, Minister” was entitled “Open Government”.

However, it seems that policy attention is growing. “OECD countries are moving from a situation where government chose what it revealed, to a principle of all government information being available unless there is a defined public interest in it being withheld” (OECD 2005). In 2007-2008, the Council of Europe is debating a ¨European convention on access to official documents¨.

Why should we take transparency as key driver of government innovation today? There are some specific novelties that make transparency particularly important now.

a) the wide AVAILABILITY OF WEB TOOLS to elaborate on public data makes the impact of transparency much bigger. Just think of free publishing platforms such as blogs, mash-ups like GoogleEarth, visualization tools like ManyEyes, plus all the free and open source software used in web 2.0 projects to, for example, distribute the work of monitoring government activities between many people (crowdsourcing). These tools make public data much more relevant and understandable – and enhance the impact of transparency.

b) the concept of MANY-TO-MANY (Pascu, Osimo et al. 2007) changes the power relationship. Before, transparency was an issue of the individual citizens versus the government, and this limited the impact of the information obtained. Now, the first thing a citizen does when he obtains interesting information out of a Freedom of Information request, is to post it on the web – see, for example, what happened in Italy with the information on the cost of the Tourism portal. The refusal by the Italian government to disclose the information became a boomerang once published on IT blogs,4 and the bureaucratic answer became a monument to inward-looking government. Indeed, even Freedom of Information requests are now monitored by non-governmental services such as whatdotheyknow.com.

4 http://punto-informatico.it/p.aspx?i=2124310

European Journal of ePractice · www.epracticejournal.eu 6 Nº 4 · August 2008 · ISSN: 1988-625X

A new innovation model for public services

• A new WAY to innovate public services• Continuous and incremental, • open and non hyerarchical• not only by government: civil society, citizens, civil

servants

• A new effective DRIVER to address the challenges of innovating public services

• citizens’ ratings and reviews: democratization of voice where there is no exit possibility

• more openness and transparency expected• wider availability of IT tools for innovation by

citizens, civil servants, civil society 33

Common mistakes

• “Build it and they will come”: beta testing, trial and error necessary

• Launching “your own” large scale web 2.0 flagship project

• Opening up without soft governance of key challenges:

- privacy

- individual vs institutional role

- destructive participation

• Adopting only the technology with traditional top-down attitude

34

35

Web 2.0 is about values, not technology: and it’s the hacker’s values

ValuesUser as producer, Collective intelligence,

Long tail, Perpetual beta, Extreme ease of use

ApplicationsBlog, Wiki, Podcast, RSS, Tagging, Social networks, Search engine, MPOGames

TechnologiesAjax, XML, Open API, Microformats, REST,

Flash/Flex, Peer-to-Peer

Source: Author’s elaboration based on Forrester

Are these services used?

• in the back-office, yes

• in the front-office, not too much: few thousand users as an average

• still: this is much more than before!

• some (petty) specific causes have viral take-up (mobile phones fees, road tax charge schemes)

• very low costs of experimentation

36

Why? /2

• Citizens (and employees) already use web 2.0: no action ≠ no risks








Is there a visible impact?

Yes, more than the usage:

• in the back office: evidence used by US Patent Office, used to detect Iraqi insurgents

• in the front office, making government really accountable and helping other citizens

• but there is risk of negative impact as well

38

Web 2.0 is a set of values more than a set of technologies

ValuesUser as producer, collective intelligence,

openness “by default”, perpetual beta, ease of use

TechnologyBlogs, Podcast, Wiki, Social Networking, Peer-

to-peer, MPOGames, Mash-up Ajax, Microformats, RSS/XML

39

Reminder: citizens and employees do it anyway

40

Las preguntas de hoy

1. que es la web 2.0?

2. es importante el web2.0 por las administraciones?

3. porque?

4. que hay que hacer?

5. y una cosa mas ...

41

análisis

ejemplos

recomandaciones

...

Admitimos: las TIC no han cambiado la administración publica

• 1990s: nos esperábamos que las TIC iban a hacer la administración mas eficiente y orientada al usuario

• 2005+: decepcion porque la burocracia sigue siendo la que describio Weber

42

Supply Demand

Llegan las iniciativas web2.0 en temas publicos, pero desde fuera el gobierno

Source: own elaboration of IPTS PS20 project

El impacto afecta muchas areas de la administracion

Back office Front office

RegulationCross-agency collaboration

Knowledge managementInteroperability

Human resources mgmtPublic procurement

Service deliveryeParticipation

Law enforcementPublic sector information

Public communicationTransparency and accountability

source: “Web 2.0 in Government: Why and How? www.jrc.es44

http://www.jrc.es

http://www.jrc.es

Regulacion : Peer-to-patent

45

Peer-to-patent: uso y impacto• Auto regulado:

necesita masa critica para evitar “manzanas malas”

• 2000 contributores• 9/23 resultados

utilizados por el USPTO

• 73% de los examinadores USPTO quieren que siga

• piloto es extendido

46

Peer-to-Patent Report June 2008 6

Project Summary

Highlights of Pilot Results

From June 2007-April 2008, Peer-to-Patent has attracted well over 2,000 registered users and 173 items of prior art submitted on 40 applications by participants from 140 countries.

• Public submissions of prior art have been used to reject claims in first office actions coming back from the USPTO. The first 23 office actions issued during the pilot phase showed use of Peer-to-Patent submitted pri-or art in nine rejections, with all but one rejection using non-patent prior art literature. At least 3 additional office actions suggest that, while examiners did not use Peer-to-Patent prior art references in rejecting the application, they were influenced by Peer-to-Patent submissions in their search strategy and understanding of the prior art.

• Of the 419 total prior art references submitted by inventors during the pilot, only 14 percent were non-patent literature. In contrast, 55 percent of prior art references cited by Peer-to-Patent reviewers were non-patent literature.

• Eighty-nine (89) percent of participating patent examiners thought the presentation of prior art that they received from the Peer-to-Patent community was clear and well formatted. Ninety-two (92) percent re-ported that they would welcome examining another application with public participation.

• Seventy-three (73) percent of participating examiners want to see Peer-to-Patent implemented as regular office practice.

• Twenty-one (21) percent of participating examiners stated that prior art submitted by the Peer-to-Patent community was “inaccessible” by the USPTO.

• The USPTO received one third-party prior art submission for every 500 applications published in 2007. Peer-to-Patent reviewers have provided an average of almost 5 prior art references for each application in the pilot.

“We’re very pleased with this initial outcome. Patents of questionable merit are of little value to anyone. We much prefer that the best prior art be identified so that the resulting patent is truly bulletproof. This is precisely why we eagerly agreed to sponsor this project and other patent quality initiatives. We are proud of this result, which validates the concept of Peer-to-Patent, and can only improve the quality of patents produced by the patent system.”

— Manny Schecter, Associate General Counsel for Intellectual Property, IBM

Servicios publicos: Patient Opinion

47

Lo ciutadanos monitoran el gasto publico: farmsubsidy.org

UK, US: los ciudadanos revisan las estrategias del gobierno

Desde las anécdotas “cool”, hacia la analisis: Porque es importante?

Porque?/1

• Ciutadanos y funcionarios ya lo usan y no se puede controlar (ni en Iran): no action ≠ no risks

• No es una tecnologia, es una “tormenta perfecta”:

- nuevas generaciones = usuarios y funcionarios futuros

- consumidores empoderados

- “the rise of the creative class” (Florida) y los “knowledge workers” (Drucker)

- mercados, hierarquias y redes (Williamson)

- Modelos de innovacion no lineares (Rosenberg, Von Hippel)

- “Consumerization” te las TIC

51

Porque?/2

La admin20 no presupone el cambio cultural (e-gov 1.0), lo crea a través de nuevos incentivos y palancas :

• reduce las asimetrías de información y poder

• la legitimación viene de la “peer recognition”, no de la jerarquía

• reduces el coste de acción colectiva (Shirky)

• utiliza recursos nuevos de los usuarios: el “cognitive surplus”

• desde “filter then publish” hacia “publish then filter”

• cambia las expectaciones de los ciudadanos

52

“A problem shared is a problem halved

...and a pressure group created”

Dr. Paul Hodgkindirector PatientOpinion.org

“it’s about pressure points, chinks in the armour where

improvements might be possible, whether with the consent of

government or not”

Tom Steinbergdirector mySociety

Antes

55

Government

citizen

Despues

56

Government

citizen

friends

friends of friends

public

information, trust, attention

Web-oriented architecture

UK Cabinet, “Power of information task force report” Robinson et al.: “Government Data and the Invisible Hand “Gartner: “The Real Future of E-Government: From Joined-Up to Mashed-Up”

57

!"# $%&

'()*+,--.*/0)-*1-231*)+456*3-7489-(*):0-;<*=>-?@30-ABBCD

Desde el análisis hasta las recomendaciones:

que hacer?

1 - NO HACER DANOS

• liberar los datos publicos

• no lanzar grandes proyectos proprietarios web2.0

• no prohibir el aceso a los funcionarios

• dejar que florezcan las iniciativas web 2.0

59

2. “ENABLE”

• publicar los datos publicos en formato standard y reutisable (XML, RSS, RDFa) > W3C iG group

• adoptar web-oriented architecture

• crear catalogos de datos publicos > data.gov en EEUU

60

3. PROMOVER

• asegurar banda ancha pervasiva

• fomentar las e-skills de funcionarios y ciutadanos: digital literacy, media literacy, web2.0 literacy, programming skills

• financiar iniciativas bottom-up con premios y procurement

• escuchar y experimentar (publish then filter)

61

Desde las recomandaciones hacia una vision estrategica




Thank you

[email protected]

Further information:Osimo, 2008. Web2.0 in government: why and how? www.jrc.es

Osimo, 2008. Benchmarking e-government in the web 2.0 era: what to measure, and how. European Journal of ePractice, August 2008.


64



http://www.jrc.es

http://www.jrc.es



Back-up slides

65

A new innovation model for public services

• A new WAY to innovate public services• Continuous and incremental, • open and non hyerarchical• not only by government: civil society, citizens, civil

servants

• A new effective DRIVER to address the challenges of innovating public services

• citizens’ ratings and reviews: democratization of voice where there is no exit possibility

• more openness and transparency expected• wider availability of IT tools for innovation by

citizens, civil servants, civil society 66

Common mistakes

• “Build it and they will come”: beta testing, trial and error necessary

• Launching “your own” large scale web 2.0 flagship project

• Opening up without soft governance of key challenges:

- privacy

- individual vs institutional role

- destructive participation

• Adopting only the technology with traditional top-down attitude

67

68

Web 2.0 is about values, not technology: and it’s the hacker’s values

ValuesUser as producer, Collective intelligence,

Long tail, Perpetual beta, Extreme ease of use

ApplicationsBlog, Wiki, Podcast, RSS, Tagging, Social networks, Search engine, MPOGames

TechnologiesAjax, XML, Open API, Microformats, REST,

Flash/Flex, Peer-to-Peer

Source: Author’s elaboration based on Forrester

Are these services used?

• in the back-office, yes

• in the front-office, not too much: few thousand users as an average

• still: this is much more than before!

• some (petty) specific causes have viral take-up (mobile phones fees, road tax charge schemes)

• very low costs of experimentation

69

Why? /2

• Citizens (and employees) already use web 2.0: no action ≠ no risks








Is there a visible impact?

Yes, more than the usage:

• in the back office: evidence used by US Patent Office, used to detect Iraqi insurgents

• in the front office, making government really accountable and helping other citizens

• but there is risk of negative impact as well

71

Web 2.0 is a set of values more than a set of technologies

ValuesUser as producer, collective intelligence,

openness “by default”, perpetual beta, ease of use

TechnologyBlogs, Podcast, Wiki, Social Networking, Peer-

to-peer, MPOGames, Mash-up Ajax, Microformats, RSS/XML

72

Reminder: citizens and employees do it anyway

73