Collabgov2

Summary of Interim Results

27 October 2011David.Osimo@Tech4i2.com

#collabservices#collabservices

Structure of the presentation• WHAT is collaborative e-government?• WHY is it important?• HOW is it done?• SO WHAT should government do?

2

About the methodology• Large scale mapping of projects• Complete survey of countries• Survey of civic developers• Interviews with stakeholders• In depth case studies of 6 projects and 2

policies

3

Project team• Tech4i2• Deloitte• Ton Zijlstra• External experts (Prof Ines Mergel – US , Craig

Thomler - AUS)

4

5

Underlying questions

6

• What is it? • Is it just a hype?• Is it just for a few geeks in UK and US?• Can I save money by crowdsourcing?• Can I trust co-produced services?• Does it create jobs or destroys them?• Is it a must-have or a nice-to-have?• Should government act or just wait and see?

Look back at 2007

Initiative Current status

PatientOpinion Copied by NHS, stable growth, expanded in new areas such as mental health, linked with additional services

Intellipedia 3rd anniversary, average 5000 edits per day

Mybikelane Expanded worldwide

Peertopatent Expanded to Japan, Korea and Australia, more recently in UK

7

Definition

8

WHATWHAT

The cases

9

WHATWHAT

Crowdsourcing of ideas

Open data mining/visualisation

Showusabetterway.com

Showusabetterway.com

Google TransitGoogle Transit

Openlylocal,ISTAT widget Openlylocal,

ISTAT widget

Service provisionService

provision

Type of collaboration

Type of collaboration

ExamplesExamples

DigitalkootDigitalkoot

ActivmobsActivmobs

Crowdsourced public tasks

Collaborative complaint systems

SeeClickFix SeeClickFixSelf-help groups

Public data applications

Co-design

Apps contests

Apps contests

Ideascale.com

Ideascale.com

Beta services

WHATWHAT

Definition

Politics Policies Administration and service delivery

Theyworkforyou.com No 10 E-petitions Fixmystreet.com

11

Open GovernmentOpen Government

WHATWHAT

What is new? The deep roots of collaborative e-government

12

Self-help and mutuality

PhilantropyPrivatisation

Social contract

What is new? ICT as key enabler:- Reduction of costs to collaborate- Easier to upscale and reach thousands

WHATWHAT

Where?

13

Collaborative services are not mentioned in e-gov policy documentsIn UK it fits within the “Big Society” agendaBut OPEN DATA a growing priority for transparency and innovationAll countries have collaborative e-gov projects

WHATWHAT

On what services?

14

WHATWHAT

A barcamp for all seasons• Healthcamp• Transportcamp• Crisiscamp• Transparencycamp• Social Innovation camp• Privacycamp• Educamp• Regio camp

15

WHATWHAT

WHO? Cultivated young men• Civic developers: 90% are Men, with Univ

degree, 25-44 yrs old• Driven by: 90% identifying a need not yet

covered, 80% the desire to make a difference. Money plays a minor role.

• Opposed by: 60% non-availability of public data. 35% mentions lack of interest by the public as a problem. Costs and business models instead are mentioned by a minority (18% and 29%).

16

WHATWHAT

WHO are the users?• Very unequal distribution

of work in the cases: 1% do 30% of work (DigiKoot)

• Segments of people who already use services, but individual people new to the service (MySociety)

• Civil servant employees! (LineaAmica)

• More equal distribution between men and women in the final users

• Niche specialisation of different services

17

WHATWHAT

WHY: a power law of usage

18

There is no “average impact” of collaborative e-governmentThere are individual success stories and many failures

WHYWHY

WHY: the impact

19

WHYWHY

WHY: better services?• There is plenty of evidence on the importance

of peer-to-peer collaboration – Mutual support: demonstrated better capacity to

deal with diseases; demonstrated impact of peer tutoring on kids learning

– New services: basic services such as school and education were started as charities

– Behavioural change:

20

WHYWHY

WHY: does it save govt’ money?• NO: collaboration does not substitute for paid work.

It’s additive not substitutive• Collaboration is not outsourcing: it requires in-house

advanced communication and content-related skills, continous tinkering and re-design (DigiKoot)

• Collaborative e-gov enables radical innovation that can lead to new, better services and lower costs (OpenlyLocal, DigitKoot). Unaddressed needs is the key driver for 90% of respondents

• It reduces the cost of failure (quite important in e-gov; e.g. Italian Tourism portal 43M Euros)

21

85% of innovation fail for lack of understanding of users’ needs (Von Hippel)

WHYWHY

WHY: can business make money out of collaborative e-

government?• Little money in the software, more in the service (e.g. PatientOpinion)

• Great for visibility and reputation (DigiKoot)• Service companies are emerging dedicated to

collaborative gov: OmniCompete, simpl.co, Ideascale, Palandir

• New value added services being launched on top of open data (MetroParis, ISTAT)

• When existing, revenue based on monthly service fees not one-off installation fees

22

WHYWHY

WHY (not): the risk of exclusion• Most civic developers are young cultivated

men: the risk of elite-driven services• Need for proactive outreach to empower

different segments of the population with “co-creation skills”

23

WHYWHY

WHY (not): the risk of conflict• One potential risk is the increased conflict in

the public space, and unacceptable behaviour by the co-producers who manipulate and spam

• However, there is no evidence of a significant problem in any of the cases analyzed

• Risks are overestimated

24

WHYWHY

HOW? Government as a platform• Key requirements:

– Open data (e.g. OpenlyLocal)– Listening to external suggestion/input (e.g. DigiKoot,

Google Transit, SeeClickFix)– High capacity to design process (DigitKoot)– Direct internal engagement (Kent Council, DigitKoot:

crowdsourcing is not outsourcing)• Based on the survey: 50% say govt. has been “indifferent”,

none “hostile”• No longer need for ex-ante authorization: collaboration

without permission!

25

HOWHOW

HOW: drivers and barriers

• Voluntary work has always been fundamental : think of AA and NGOs

• Its limit is that it often remains micro and marginal, with limited capacity to upscale

• The democratisation of ICT– Reduces the costs of collaboration, thereby allowing

for easier self-organisation– Allows for large scale outreach (think Ushahidi,

DigiKoot)– This large outreach provides a positive feedback loop

on the motivation to collaborate26

HOWHOW

HOW: the role of civil servants• Civil servants 2.0, wikicrats,

intrapreneurs?• Most cases show positive evolution• Links to long-term trend towards

increased autonomy and outcome-related management

• Unpaid volunteers substituting civil servants? (DigiKoot)

• Unique opportunity for internal innovators (e.g. ISTAT) > Self-organisation of intrapreneurs? (Big Society in UK)

• New skills needed: communication, passion, networking capacity

“Some of the problems that they experienced were mainly about the ability to let people do things for themselves rather than manage people, control everything and make sure health and safety is working.”

27

HOWHOW

HOW: unique assets of citizens• In depth knowledge of specific topic (e.g.

OpenlyLocal, DigitKoot)• Unique experience from using services and

dealing with issues (mumsnet, LineaAmica)• High trust from their networks (ActiveMobs)• They are many more than internal staff!

(DigiKoot, SeeClickFix, LineaAmica)

28

"given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"

HOWHOW

HOW: the costs• 82% of civic developersdo it voluntarily,

without financial rewards or funding. Only one receives government funding.

• However this is possible because their costs are in 80% of the cases below 1K Euros per year and in 99% below 100K.

• Technology set up costs are minor. What costs is maintenance and human curation over time

29

HOWHOW

HOW: a cultural clash

30

HOWHOW

Back to the original questions• What is it? • Is it just a hype?• Is it just for a few geeks in UK and US?• Can I save money by crowdsourcing?• Can I trust co-produced services?• Does it create jobs or destroys them?• Is it a must have or a nice to have?• Should government act or just wait and see?

31

That’s for later!

SO WHATSO WHAT

Collaborative e-government: another case of MacroMyopia

“in the short term we overestimate, in the long term we underestimate.”

Paul Saffo

32

SO WHATSO WHAT

Initial recommendations

33

SO WHATSO WHAT

SO WHAT: how to stimulate collaborative e-gov

• Remove the barriers• Create enabling conditions• Change funding mechanisms (smaller funding,

multistage approach…)• Ensure knowledgeable people are in charge

34

SO WHATSO WHAT

SO WHAT: different funding mechanisms

Features• Simple application• multi - stage• Always open• Transparent• Time- predictable• Flexible• Reputation- based• Small funding• Short project time• Peer evaluation• Open, • Non- prescriptive• Outcome-oriented• User- driven• Accepts Failure

Examples• European Research Council• Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI)• FET-Open• IBTT - iStart / iVenture• UK Grants For the Arts• Principi Attivi• MIT GlobalChallenge• Maryland TEDCO Joint Technology Transfer

Initiative• Ontario Emerging Technologies Fund• Spring Singapore Innovation Voucher Scheme• 4IP• Inducement Prizes (Challenge.gov)

35

SO WHATSO WHAT

Policy recommendations• From civic hackers:

– "there should be Freedom of Information right at EU level”– "UK stance should become minimum standard for all EU

countries”– "Take just a bit of money from bureaucrats and give it to

developers”– "simple things like encouraging all organisations who

publish news to have an RSS feed would make such a difference”

– “Standards should be pushed to the member state governments in terms of how public data should be delivered and structured.”

– “Get INSPIRE guys involved in open data!”

36

SO WHATSO WHAT

How do we benchmark this?• Measurement frameworks, and especially

“averages”, do not fit well with the unpredictable and power law nature of collaborative e-gov

37

SO WHATSO WHAT

Measuring co-production• 4 stages (again)• Choose most successful service

Avoid technical hiccups: number of complaints; degree of innovation (from mature to world first implementation)

Ensure takeup: number of users, number of contributions, number of contributors

No spam: number of spam comments

Ensure high quality content: % of contributions judged as useful; % of new contributors (previously not engaged)

Source: egov20.wordpress.com

SO WHATSO WHAT