My presentation at http://www.epractice.eu/en/workshops/egovmonet2010

1. Measuring government 2.0:
why and how
eGovMonet final conference
David Osimo
Tech4i2 ltd.
1

2. Structure of the talk
• The purpose of measuring
• The case for government 2.0
• The limits of government 2.0
• How to measure government 2.0
• What next
2

3. Structure of the talk
• The purpose of measuring
• The case for government 2.0
• The limits of government 2.0
• How to measure government 2.0
• What next
3

4. Benchmarking is a policy tool
• Benchmarking is part of the Open Method of
Coordination. It is not a scientific but a policy
tool to stimulate progress
• It should be designed and evaluated
according to its policy impact
• Measurement reflects and reinforces a vision
• Benchmarking serves to make eGov non-
technical
4

5. The sweet spot of benchmarking
Policy
actionable
Understan
Robust
dable
5

6. Welfare and
growth
Effectiveness
Importance
impact
Efficiency
impact
Take-up
Services
supply
Expenditure
Reliability

7. Benchmarking Government 1.0
7

8. • The purpose of measuring
• The case for government 2.0
• The limits of government 2.0
• How to measure government 2.0
• What next
8

9. So far ICT has not fundamentally
changed government
• 1990s: ICT expected
to make government
more transparent,
efficient and user Supply
Demand
oriented
• 2005+: disillusion as
burocracy not much
different from Max
Weber’s description
9

10. Relevant for key government
activities
Back office
Front office
Regulation
Service delivery
Cross-agency collaboration
eParticipation
Knowledge management
Law enforcement
Interoperability
Public sector information
Human resources mgmt
Public communication
Public procurement
Transparency and accountability
source: “Web 2.0 in Government: Why and How? www.jrc.es
10

11. Maplight.org
11

13. Jose Alonso, W3c

14. Why does gov20 matter?
Because it does not impose change (e-gov 1.0) but acts
on leverages, drivers and incentives:
• building on unique and specific knowledge of users: the
“cognitive surplus”
• the power of visualization
• reducing information and power asymmetries
• peer recognition rather than hierarchy
• reducing the cost of collective action
• changing the expectations of citizens
14

15. Different kinds of citizens’ involvement in web
2.0
 1.Producing content
 2.Providing ratings, reviews
 3.Using user-generated content
 4.Providing attention, taste data
3% 10% 40% 100% of Internet users (50% of EU population)
Source: IPTS estimation based on Eurostat, IPSOS-MORI, Forrester

16. “A problem shared
is a problem halved
...and a pressure group created”
Dr. Paul Hodgkin
director PatientOpinion.org

17. A new vision starting to take
shape
Automating
Augmenting
public services
public services
17

18. Jose Alonso, W3C guidelines

19. The limits of transparency
• Most countries don’t have MySociety.org or
Sunlightfoundation.org
• Government 2.0 services and websites are
used by a minority of citizens
• Without attention and civic culture,
transparency is unlikely to generate change
19

20. “with the ideal of naked transparency alone--our
democracy, like the music industry and print
journalism generally, is doomed. The Web will
show us every possible influence. The most
cynical will be the most salient. Limited attention
span will assure that the most salient is the most
stable. Unwarranted conclusions will be drawn,
careers will be destroyed, alienation will grow.”
Lawrence Lessig, 2009. Against Transparency

21. It’s a gradual process: from a
static to a dynamic vision
• Attention and civic culture are not fixed
• Visualisation increases participation
• Game and social dimension increases
participation
• Transparency builds civic culture
21

22. How to get the full benefits of
transparency: better
government and more
democratic societies
• Open data
• Competition for innovation: INCA awards
• Teaching civic hacking
• Raising the level of the debate
• And…
22

24. Open data raise the level of the
debate: the White House blog

25. And … benchmarking Gov20
Phase 1
Select 20 basic public data such as:
- beneficiaries of public funding (agriculture, research, industry
etc);
- draft legislation;
- MPs votes
- party donations
- planning applications;
- air pollution data
- citizens feedback / satisfaction surveys results
- procurement contract assigned
Phase 2
For each type of data, assess to what extent these information
are available on the web:
- 0 (no information available)
- 1 (description of the procedure to obtain the information
through FOI)
- 2 (data available in non reusable, non-machine readable
format)
- 3 (data available in machine processable format such as xml ,
csv)
- 4 (data available in machine readable format and open
license)
Phase 3
Generate rankings of average data availability for each country
25

26. Conclusion
• Benchmarking is a policy tool
• Current benchmarking reflects an old vision
of eGovernment
• Transparency as new flagship goal: helps
providing better government and more
democratic societies –
• But only if accompanied by civic culture

27. What YOU can do
What EU can do
• Open public data and create a public data
catalogue
• Benchmarking to encourage open data
• Participate to INCA-EU 2010:
competitions to stimulate social
applications
• Civic education for citizens through civic
hacking
27

28. Thank you
david.osimo@tech4i2.com
@osimod
http://egov20.wordpress.com
Further information:
Osimo, 2008. Web2.0 in government: why and how? www.jrc.es
Osimo, 2008. Benchmarking e-government in the web 2.0 era: what to
measure, and how. European Journal of ePractice, August 2008.
28