E-government Tightrope

February 21, 2012

Whilst the US, UK and European governments struggle with their finances we  may forget that others are in the same boat. Darren Greenwood in New Zealand reports in ZDNet 16 February 2012 on the trials and tribulations occurring in the Antipodes – E-Government is a Dangerous Tightrope. Whilst ‘Digital by Default’ is the buzzword in the UK, New Zealand, it would appear, is looking to a similar approach without the safety net for those who can’t or won’t use digital access.

There is also a great fear of offshoring of call centres and IT development, and even of ‘Google government’. With its similar climate to our UK one I would have thought ‘cloud’ might have caught on in NZ but there was no mention. Perhaps its time to look to a compromise situation where a local but national ‘cloud’ can constrain the push to offshore systems or developments. Offshoring has been tried in the UK without great success but Google is successfully able to offer a government ‘cloud’ service for a number of local authorities along with a bit of the Cabinet Office.

No island can afford to be insular in technology terms and it’s probably better to look to the future and what can be achieved by starting to embrace ‘cloud’ and how much public money it can save, and at the same time employ some of those savings in building the safety nets for those citizens for whom digital isn’t default currently.


New democracy

February 4, 2012

Having discussed the topic of participation a lot recently, it was amusing to read the editorial of the current edition of Philosophy (Volume 87, number 339, January 2012) on the subject of ‘Greek Democracy, Old and New’. The New Democracy in question is the Nea Demokratia party in Greece that agreed the EU bail-out and denied a referendum. Professor O’Hear then goes on to compare old-style Athenian democracy where the assembly was open to all entitled to vote and its council made up of 500 citizens drawn by lot annually and not permitted to serve more than twice. O’Hear suggests that with modern means of communications something analogous should be possible and suggesting a new political party – Archia Demokratia – Old Democracy – to pave the way for it.

What is clear is that democracy may be the best we have but it could certainly do with increasing representation and the tools we are developing may assist, if only they were used by the politicians.


Open data manual

February 2, 2012

Whilst I’ve blogged more than 40 times on the subject of open data, I don’t believe I’ve covered the Open Data Manual. A hat-tip to jacques.raybaut at europa-eu-audience.typepad.com! The manual outlines what one should expect of open data, either presenting or using it.

Coincidentally, the UK Government published the summary of the feedback on its open data consultation on the 30 January 2011. The consultees include Socitm which was rather critical of the proposals. A key point that was made in the response was that “Socitm believes that open data issues need to be treated within a broader approach to information management and evidence-based decision-making”, unfortunately this general (and very important) point does not appear to be captured in the report.

So, we’ll see what comes next…


Ninging up York

January 31, 2012

With all the recent debate about e-participation, tools to do it, along with the why’s and wherefore’s of whether it can actually work, it’s a coincidence that the local authority where I live has implemented Ning to do some consultation. In the sites own words “GeniUSYork is our chance to generate and develop lots of ideas around about how to make York a better place. Many brains generate more ideas.” The project is part of a nationwide project funded by NESTA, and the City of York was one of 17 councils to get to this stage. If they make it to stage 2 in April they receive support and funding to roll the best ideas out nationally.

I hope something comes of it. It’s not the only Ning community I’m a member of but like many such places they have a tendency to become talking shops with little practical resulting. It’s OK if you wish to spend your time looking into a computer rather than delivering practical change or if the suggestions made actually are implemented in some fashion, but how many times does that happen?

The operators, implementors or whatever need to consider the suggestions that were made following the discussions earlier about participating in a democracy i.e. for a start, how will the outcomes be measured, implemented or reported?

According to Heather Niven who is one of those behind it, the “main criteria are sustainable, scale able to other places, good for everyone involved, viable with resources we’ve got. Pilot length can be as long as it needs to be but a range of short-long term solutions would be good. We are flexible and open to all ideas and our forum section has a section on all things innovative. For other suggestions if people want to raise other ideas. Outcomes we want are 1. A culture change in the way the city solves its problems and develops/evolves through introducing a channel to communicate and develop relationships with the motivated creative problem solvers in our world who want to make a difference. 2. To use a series of challenges to focus our efforts and show ourselves how much better we can change things through working together and to try the process out. 3. To record and share the whole project including what didn’t work for others to learn from. All of that will be shared here too.”

My personal challenge to them is to rationalise the dark magic that is government bean-counting – if we could do away with all this cross-charging, recharging, offcharging and focus on customers, particularly where they aren’t able to deal with such bureaucracy the better! Avaunt thee CIPFA and all thy complications…



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.