The technicist manifesto

July 15, 2010

The 12 July 2010, with a bit of a fanfare at 10 Downing Street, saw the launch of  ‘Manifesto for a Networked Nation’, the current output of Martha Lane-Fox’s Race Online 2012.

Initial thoughts are that although the pdf is only 2Mb, the maps on its central pages may make many a printer unhappy, as may the variety of colours and sizes of fonts affect anybody lacking a taste for concrete poetry. I’m also concerned that a document claiming support for accessibility and inclusivity (sections 9.1 and 9.2) dares use such a mix colour and seriffed fonts as to be almost psychedelic. On top of the visual abuse, I could also challenge some of the English language abuse within the text, but I’m off to a bad start already…

OK, my sympathies are with the intent of the report and getting more people online. However, whilst getting them to use government services online may save government some money and buying  goods may save the user some money, along with demonstrating the skills they’ve developed, what are the benefits?

The Internet has massive benefits as a medium of communications, I rarely get a pen out and write a letter these day, when a quick email suffices. Information (of all sorts, including the bad, sad and dangerous to know) is at my fingertips. However, I would anticipate that it’s still may not be everybody’s garden of earthly delight and some will always need a mediated guide through some of its hazards. The dangers of phishing, viruses and incorrect information are probably far too advanced for many potential users, as can be seen by the numbers caught out in the assorted scams that plague netizens.

I would also question at a time of cuts, redundancies and uncertainty how MLF expects local authorities, charities and others to now launch out and support a government initiative when they are struggling with maintaining services? OK, we believe from Socitm research that 80% of councils restrict their employees’ access to the Internet but someone needs to convince them this is not risking the other pieces of government guidance such as child protection and access to the government secure intranet (the document has frequent mentions of the DWP – home of Government Connect!)

Now for another moan. In large print the report on page 14 states, talking about the Internet, that “it was an Oxford graduate who created this significant invention”. I presume this refers to Tim Berners-Lee inventor of the World Wide Web, whilst I was always under the impression that we could blame the Internet on Vint Cerf, a graduate of Stanford. I wonder if the information was sourced upon some of the dodgy data on the Internet?

To broaden the thinking and possibly add some robustness to the debate, I’d like to present a couple of quotations -

In an interview Oscar A. Ornati, Professor of Manpower Management at New York University (quoted in Deming 1986, p.198) states that:

“We have forgotten that the function of government is more equity oriented than efficiency oriented. The notion that we must be “efficient” in the same way in both sectors is fallacious. For government, efficiency must be subsumed to equity. If we do not keep equity in the forefront of the public sector, we will destroy our society. It is unfortunate that we tend to lavish so much praise on management specialists who laud the techniques of private sector management in the public sector.”

Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the Crisis, M.I.T. Press.

 In a joint Parliamentary and industry report, EURIM (2008, p.2) confirms this:

“It is too crude an approach to seek savings simply by replacing face-to-face services with Internet access to services that might engage more time-poor citizens. Many of those in most need (at least 20% of the overall population and a majority of the elderly) are physically unable to use a conventional screen and keyboard, even if they wished to.”

EURIM (2008) “How to Achieve Citizen-Centric Service Delivery: Let the People Speak.” EURIM Transformational Government Dialogues 8, http://www.eurim.org.uk/activities/dialogues/TGD_IntegratedReport.pdf.


Governing electronically

July 13, 2010

I met Dr Paul Henman at ECEG 2009 where we were both delivering presentations. At the time Paul mentioned he had a book due for publication, so having heard his presentation and finding the subject matter dear to my researching heart, I ordered a copy through my university library as soon as it was published. It finally arrived at the start of June!

The book is entitled Governing Electronically: E-government and the reconfiguration of public administration, policy and power and is published by Palgrave Macmillan. It’s priced at £57.50 for 288 pages, so I recommend ordering through a library, as I did!

If you look at Paul’s link you’ll realise that he is Australian and so the case studies employed in the book are around Australian government. Paul is also a sociologist and a teacher of social policy but has degrees in mathematics and computer science, so not the average sociologist and can cover the broader topic with more than sufficient understanding.

The paper Paul presented at ECEG 2009 was entitled “The Contribution of e-Government to the “New Conditionality” in Social Policy” and this book is a broader exploration of the topic. Conditionality is a concept from international aid where aid is supplied to a government subject to that government changing its policies or instituting reforms. In the “new conditionality” it can be seen as requiring a change in conduct and this can be applied to individual citizens and their families, as well as whole countries.

One of the many interesting issues raised is how technology has facilitated frequent and rapid changes in government policy, along with increasing the volume of primary legislation, all only deliverable thanks to the power of computers.

Henman also observes that rather than moving users from the old channels to the new ones, the total numbers of contacts have actually increased, facilitated by the ease of contact provided by the contact centers, web sites and other media.

In considering the role of conditionality and politics one wonders what role technology might play in the new UK government. Are they truly going to back away from the social control provided by technology and ‘big government’, when the new conditionality permits such centralised power? Can we see a slimmer legal framework supported by less technology, and obviously costing much less? I’m not sure, but time will tell…

Coincidentally I’ve been asked to join the committee for ECEG 2011, which is at the University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia. There is a call for papers on the website.


Social viability

July 11, 2010

In the course of my research I’ve had to consider both social capital and public value as potential measures of e-government usage and success.  However, I found neither capable of an adequate definition that allowed them to be used in the parsimonious way I was seeking. Having said that I consider them as important outcomes.

Interestingly, in a very recent Intel blog, “What buying a PC means“, I found that the great chip and tin manufacturer had been supporting ethnographic research in the developing world as to what investing in IT means for the people living and working there. This interest in developing countries is not new, researchers at Manchester with Richard Heeks have produced some very influential material over recent years. What attracts me to Intel’s research is the result of it. Intel identify a measure available from it, whilst their focus is obviously to sell more tin into developing countries.

The report from Intel, which is available on their website is ‘Reassessing ICTs and Development: The Social Forces of Consumption‘ and you have the choice of a 2Mb or 22Mb download (I presume the 2Mb is for developing countries with limited broadband like the UK), along with YouTube video.

Consumerization, marketization and consumption play a part in this story and have also appeared in my research, but largely with regards to how neo-liberal politics have tried to re-employ them in government and the resultant effects they have when trying to deliver e-government.

The study proposes that there is another, previously unrecognised force, involved in technology acceptance, and that is one where one’s social class and aspirations affect how one views technology and these, using the Social Viability Measurement, should be considered. In fact the study is that inclusive about exclusion that rural Colorado and the Orkney Islands are amongst those parts of the world presented in case studies.

In terms of technology, consumption and the digitally excluded this is a very useful piece of work.


Gartner Open Government model

July 8, 2010

Andrea Di Maio announced on June 28 2010 the publication by Gartner of their Open Government Maturity Model. I don’t have access to the research note and he states that they will ‘socialize’ the model at forthcoming events, and it’s a little unclear without the supporting materials. However, at first (and even second and third) glance it doesn’t appear dissimilar to the ‘Ladder of Participation’ by the late and much referenced Sherry Arnstein that I discussed in March 2009.

What would be interesting to see from the research notes is their approach to social media, who should be in charge and what element of public value is most important? Mind you, whether any local authorities will take sufficient notice to restructure their IT and communications around the model remains to be seen.

I also ponder what efforts can be made by small local authorities, in these financially difficult times,  to be seen to be more open and one solution appears to be through openlylocal, and advice can also be derived through the appropriate IDeA Community of Practice. I still believe some work on local government standards in these areas might pay off in the long term and save us getting crucified by suppliers as usual, or has someone done it?


Where’s Watmore?

July 6, 2010

When the announcement came that Ian Watmore was returning to the Cabinet Office as Chief Operating Officer of the Efficiency & Reform Group it was interesting to look back at his last words. He’s only been gone a year so things won’t have changed much, apart from the Ministers, that is!

Intriguingly, Philip Virgo, considering the same matter in his Computer Weekly blog, announcing it as  ”The return of the Jedi“, whilst he gets heavy and  considers it in the context of  Gibbons’ Decline of the Roman Empire. Philip then wonders whether Ian’s return brings us back to the ‘transformational government’ era or will we actually get the ‘new localism’ being promised.

I hope that  having John Suffolk and Ian Watmore back together may bring about an era of ICT-enabled change rather than the heavy-handed slash and burn expected, although some big savings will still need to happen. John Suffolk’s blog has remained remarkably silent since before the election (16 April 2010), I wonder what he’s thinking?

In any case, Ian’s move shows things must have been bad at the FA. But in my view, definitely a case of “out of the frying pan into the fire.”


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.