1

Gov2.0 in Switzerland: from conversation to

action

Federal Veterinary Office Event - #fibosimo

23rd September 2010

David OsimoTech4i2 ltd.

2

Structure of the talk

• What is government 2.0

• Some examples

• The benefits and limits of government 2.0

• What to do

3

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 19th century Max Weber’s description

Supply Demand

4

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.es

Technologies…Blogs Wordpress, Movable Type,

Blogger, Typepad Wikis Wikipedia, Twiki, Confluence,

SocialTextSyndication RSS, AtomNews feed aggregation Google Reader, Bloglines,

NewsGatorPersonal dashboards / mashups Netvibes, MyYahoo, iGoogle,

Yahoo PipesBookmarking / Tagging Delicious, Cogenz, ConnectBeam Micro-blogging/messaging Twitter, Yammer, Socialtext

SignalsInstant messaging Sametime, MSN, Skype  Social Networking Platforms (Enterprise)

Facebook, Bebo, Myspace, Tuenti, Netlog

IBM (Lotus Connections), Socialtext

Confluence, Jive (Social Business Software)

Thoughtfarmer, Microsoft (Office Sharepoint Server 2007), Oracle (Beehive), Incentivelive, Salesforce Chatter

Prediction Markets Consensus Point, InklingIdeas banks Uservoice, Ideascale

5

Values, not only tools

6

Examples of gov20 adoption by government

7

Policy blog

• Maintaining conversations with key stakeholders, and reaching out beyond the usual suspect

• http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/innovationunlimited/

8

The wikipedia of FBI and CIA

• Created to prevent a new 9-11• Used by 16 US security agencies – on a super-secure intranet

(not public)• Based on wikipedia software• Used by two-thirds of the analysts, esp. ever younger

workforce. Flat, informal cooperation• Each day, 50 to 100 new articles posted and 3,000 to 6,000

articles edited by users.• Makes collaboration by individual and agency traceable and

measurable• Also: mash-up tools enable analysts to bring together different

applications and data• Successes:

• Main tool used in constructing a National Intelligence Estimate on Nigeria

• Quickly detected how Iraqi insurgents were using chlorine in explosives

• Risks: • too much information sharing, and cultural resistance• BUT it’s “worth it”: "the key is risk management, not risk

avoidance."

9

Bottom-up self-organisation

10

Citizens reporters

11

Open data

12

Open Innovation in public services

13

14

Innovating government from the outside in

Jose Alonso, W3c

Analysis

17

Source: IPTS estimation based on Eurostat, IPSOS-MORI, Forrester

4.Providing attention, taste data

3.Using user-generated content

2.Providing ratings, reviews

1.Producing content

100%3% 40% of Internet users (50% of EU population)10%

It’s not about total participation

19

Why does gov20 matter?

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

•reducing the cost of collective action: innovation without permission

•building on unique and specific knowledge of citizens and civil servants: the “cognitive surplus”

•the power of visualization

•reducing information and power asymmetries

•peer recognition rather than hierarchy

•changing the expectations of citizens

20

Views from the field• “There are more smart people outside government than

within it” (Bill Joy)

• “the coolest thing to do with your data will be thought of by someone else” (Rufus Pollock)

• “A problem shared is a problem halved ...and a pressure group created” (Paul Hodgkin – PatientOpinion.com)

• “it’s about pressure points, chinks in the armour where improvements might be possible, whether with the consent of government or not” (Tom Steinberg, Mysociety.org)

• “many participants in the process dilute the effect of bad apples or unconstructive participants” (Beth Noveck, Peertopatent.org)

The risks and governance of gov20

• Between no participation and information overload

• Conflictual content? The role of moderation

• Representativeness vs relevance

• The bosses: do we need permission?

21

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

22

23

We should design gov 2.0 for Bart, not only for Lisa

Hat tip: Carter and Dance, Nytimes.com

“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

It’s a gradual process: from a static to a dynamic vision

• Attention and civic culture are not fixed

• Visualisation increases participation

• Conversations increase trust

• Game and social dimension increases participation

• Transparency builds civic culture

25

What to do?

• Do no harm

• Open data

• Competitions for innovation

• Education, education, education

• Start playing with it

26

27

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

Maplight.org

29

Jose Alonso, W3c