Who leads Gov 2.0

May 30, 2010

David Osimo,  who has been mentioned here before as a colleague of Professor Paul Foley, has made an interesting observation or two on his blog – Benchmrking e-government – web 2.0. The first is that e-government or Gov 1.0 was techie-led and hence failed for that reason. He is concerned that what he describes as policy wonks lead Gov 2.0 and it will fail due to them not being the general population. His big hope seems to be that the techies, wonks and hippies will take over the world.

I think I have to disappoint David, the world is full of Bart Simpsons and we have to create tools that they will want to use. Failing that we still have to employ the channels that Barts want to use.

In fact, I see the outcome as a combination of both and there will still be a big chunk of people out there who won’t, can’t or don’t.


Voice of the Customer

May 27, 2010

My thanks to Nic Streatfeild, founder of rol Ltd the developers of GovMetric, for an email about his latest posting on his newish blog. Perhaps if I’d kept up with his Tweets I might have realised without the prompt!

GovMetric had the sense to realise that the Internet is not the only channel and so record feedback across the available ones, e.g. web, face-to-face and telephone.

When I started my research Nic was kind enough to meet up in Leicester for a chat about it and even offered access to anonymised data, which in the end I didn’t take up, but they’ve now taken a different approach and created the UK Councils Monthly Buzz Index out of their CouncilMonitor tool! So as well as reporting back citizen feedback via GovMetric they’re also trawling social media for feedback on councils. This seems a little like Professor Ann Macintosh’s IMPACT development work for the EU reported earlier, but focused on specific councils.

This experiment may or may not succeed but if nothing else will reveal some interesting trends across the GovMetric users. Unfortunately, for Nic and GovMetric my council and most of the others in North Yorkshire have signed up with a competitor, CMetrix. It’s nothing personal, just Yorkshire folk being canny with their money. What also may be interesting is when we can compare data across five districts and a county council.

My list of all the similar systems to GovMetric and CMetrix is still available  at Company table V8.


To the e-barricades!

May 25, 2010

Dan Jellinek of E-government Bulletin fame has reported on the recent EDEM10 conference. Two presentations are picked up on in particular. The first is that by Dr Andy Williamson of the Hansard Society who described how the e-democracy sector had failed. The reason behind this, he believes, is that only 4% of the UK population are actively involved in politics or community work and that more needs to be done to get the claimed interest (far more claim to be interested) into action. He does recognize that moving towards a more deliberative system (surely the intended outcome of e-democracy) will be as a result of evolution and will require changes to the system of government.

The other presentation reported by Dan is from Ismael Pena-Lopez, of Catalonia, who examined the digital divide and saw the rise of a “goverati”, who had the skills to access the electronic information around governance. Ismael is not the first to raise the issue of a potential elite forming, elsewhere in the literature there have been fears that those employing the e-channels for political ends and those with existing interest and access to politics, whilst not perhaps doing it deliberately, are developing a niche of their own.

In my own research I’ve borrowed the terminology of philosophy, Immanuel Kant in particular, describing these situations as the antinomies of modern government. E-government has been brought in, full of promises of improving access to government, as well as services it delivers. However, being in a representative democracy the shift to any level of participation, as required by the tenets of e-democracy may take some time, as those in power may not wish to relinquish power quite so easily…or have the ability to release it.


Europe calling!

May 23, 2010

Following the election and the resultant coalition I’m not sure where the UK stands on Europe! However the 19 May saw the publication of a Digital Agenda for Europe. The site includes a number of electronic documents including a paper entitled “What would it do for me” and a country-by-country profile, which includes the UK.

There’s nothing obviously new in the plans but it does give a sense that we haven’t got as far as the Lisbon Treaty or the Bangermann report had planned and the resultant frustration in Brussels is driving requirements now.

However I find the actual statistics somewhat dubious. According to them the UK has 100% access to DSL broadband and are top in Europe. Although measures are being taken to improve this, I’m not aware that we actually have 100%! In fact it then goes on to state that coverage is 99.6% in rural areas, which I still suspect is an exaggeration…

It also states that 100% of “basic government services” are available online. These must be more of the Cap-Gemini or Accenture statistics that I, and others, find so frustrating! In fact the rest of the figures leave me in serious doubt as to what they actually mean.

I know we have to start somewhere with benchmarks, but a reality check would be helpful.

However, and in addition, I have reservations over any further development of the EU Services Directive given the recent farce with ELMS by BIS or whatever the Whitehall department may be called in future. This is another of those initiatives that would have been wonderful in the year 2003 but is now imposed upon existing technical solutions at great cost and effort. I suspect Whitehall have no idea of the grief they caused!


Good government

May 20, 2010

Lagan Technologies, suppliers of CRM to various local government bodies, have sponsored an interesting little study carried out for them by Vision Critical. I can’t find the source data but the revealing press release provides most of the information.

When asked to rate ease of access to a range of service providers from banks to insurance companies, those asked rated local councils at number five, whilst central government came in at eleven. Perhaps not a surprise, but I believe this identifies an issue when central government frequently tars local government with its own brush. Local government is frequently nearer the citizen and has to be responsive and is being, central government is the slower partner, in many cases.

Another statement from the press release is “A clear majority (77%) of the UK population approve of government investment in IT to improve access to services, with approval marginally higher amongst the 55+ age group.” An encouraging response given the many millions spent in the last ten years, let us hope we can make it worth it.

This call for improved access coincides with the launch of a report by the Centre for Technology Policy Research (CTPR), which the Computer Weekly places at the door of the London School of Economics, but which describes itself as an “independent non-partisan organisation that aims to ensure IT is better understood across public, private and voluntary sector boundaries…”. the report is entitled “Open government, some next steps” and is the output of various conversations with, amongst others, the Idealgits, a by-product of William Heath‘s explorations into an alternative government I.T. strategy (“gits”, get it?) through his Ideal Government site. In fact the report promotes a number of Mr Heath’s initiatives.

Unfortunately I personally found the report quite heavy going, which is sad when the organisation publishing it has the intent of make I.T. better understood! I do, however, appreciate their aims, which as with many of the central government initiatives it both praises and decries, originate in the USA. Unfortunately, I’d always prefer it if people looked to Canada first, which has a similar political structure and is a much better model if we are to try and “lift and stick” onto the UK.

My own personal view is the structures and cultures that they would modify are incredibly entrenched and complex, which I think they accept, and we will need that written constitution as a starting point. Too much of the stuff to be changed is seen as “information technology (I.T.)”, which it isn’t, but whilst I think the authors recognise that, the report coming as it does from the CTPR, the subject matter is already labeled as having a plug on the end (i.e. I.T.’s responsibility!)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.