Digital urban spaces

May 30, 2012

A recent report by Barbara Anderson on the RSA’s site entitled Digital Media & Urban Spaces had me thinking. Whilst she calls for “civic authorities, businesses and designers” to take ownership of manipulating the environments most of us have to live and work in, I wondered where in this came the vast majority, the citizens? As she wields her imagination regarding the recent exercises in integrating technology in a few cities, I recalled a recent re-reading of Yevgeny Zamyatin’s amazing novel ‘We‘ and wondered if we are not better weaving nature into the design rather than just technology, which will happen anyway – “revolutions are infinite”.

Living in an ancient city, with some very obvious remnants of its past clearly visible, I  recall what the engineers of the past of done in the name of progress  such as John Hudson knocking a massive hole in the city walls to permit his train line through or most recently developers attempting to extend a shopping mall within feet of historic Clifford’s Tower, the site of the massacre of York’s Jewish population in 1190. The first was done when a majority of the population didn’t even have a vote, the latter stirred up an international uproar and was rejected after a planning inquiry,

The priority for our urban spaces should be improving them for the majority who use them, so rather than developing technology displays that tell them how depleted the atmosphere is becoming, it should have trees and greenery planted to resolve the issue. Yes, the cities can be provided with networks and technology to facilitate that minority that works in such industries but it wants to be done as part of a plan not the usual ad-hoc installation that so frequently happens i.e. separate runs of dark fibre or wireless transmitters digging up roads or decorating buildings.

My own city has electronic notices on the main roads into it, that used to occasionally pop up and say when a road was busy or closed. That stopped and they then they reminded you to fasten your seat belt or not drink and drive, now they just stand idle and ugly in the middle of poorly-managed verges. They were probably the latest technology when the council obtained money for them from central government…

Too often slick (but let us not forget fragile) technology is employed for purposes that waste energy and money instead of saving it. Instead of leaving it to gurus and technophiles, can the citizens be consulted and not by wizzy methods that will not draw on their aggregate responses such as this recent example – GeniUS, award winning as it is!


Six stage digital engagement

May 27, 2012

Thanks to GovTech for pointing me to CivicPlus’s attempt to sell web services to government by telling them there are six stages to engagement. It’s actually a US company so the questionnaire involved is focused on the needs of US citizens but even so is quite amusing by its assumptions. I thought I’d complete it as a citizen (one of the choices), and after a few minutes had done it! If only life were that easy…

CivicPlus label the six stages – static, emerging, active, receptive, participatory and fully-engaged and I state again, if only matters we that simple…


The election result will not be Tweeted (in advance)

May 12, 2012

Thanks to the MIT Technology Review for making me aware of a paper by Daniel Cayo-Avello entitled “I Wanted to Predict Elections with Twitter and all I got was this Lousy Paper”. It provides the latest antidote to those who see social media as some sort of godsend for political participation and haven’t read the wonderful book ‘The Victorian Internet’ by Tom Standage which puts technology in its place, as just as what it is, technology.

As is stated in the conclusions:

  • Social media users are not an unbiased and representative sample of the voting population
  • Not everyone using social media is interested in or following politics
  • Just because it’s on social media doesn’t mean it’s true
  • Analysis of the humour and sarcasm within social media isn’t easy

This doesn’t mean social media aren’t a useful and expressive tool, it just means don’t read more into them than they are ever likely to deliver. The paper does provide a useful bibliography (and analysis) of the papers on the topic.


A digital nation

May 3, 2012

A new report from Canada examines Provincial and Territorial eGovernment Initiatives. Entitled ‘Becoming a Digital Nation: An Evaluation of Provincial and Territorial eGovernment Initiatives‘ PDF, 89 pages, 8Mb. The report notes in the Introduction that in the report, in order to” provide context for this assessment, we applied the same methodology to three other jurisdictions: California, Massachusetts, and Wales. Our study indicates that Canada’s provinces and territories are doing well in this comparison with four provinces ahead of the international jurisdictions and all the  others competitive.” Which may upset all three, although they all did pretty well compared with the Canadian average.

Interestingly the latest usage statistics are provided on page 7: “Most recent data show over half of Canadians (56.5%) use the Internet to search for government-related information, while 26.9% utilize the Internet to communicate with their governments”, which may assist those concerned about the limited UK usage! I’m please to say that Socitm’s ’Planting the Flag’, that I played a small part in producing has been used as a part of the background material and the methodology employed in measuring the web sites is not unlike that used in Socitm’s Better Connected exercise.

Of the 13 jurisdictions studied, it’s hardly surprising that there is some difference between the most populated territories and the lesser ones. There are also issues around the number of languages with not just English and French being required in many places, but in some there are native languages to deal with.  As a summary the report states on page 48 that: “Areas of improvement focus on providing more advanced ways for citizens to give or get more information through online Contact Us forms or feedback surveys”, which I’d always argue for in the form of feedback loops.


What is ‘open government’?

April 25, 2012

A post from Andrea di Maio entitled ‘Open Government Partnership: The Good, the Bad and The Ugly’ (his capitals) as usual hits the nail right on the head. I’ve discussed ‘open data’ and ‘open government’ in a number of posts including most relevantly this one on ‘open by design’ and we still appear to be lacking clarity over what the outcomes are intended to be.

Andrea, whilst accepting that ‘open government’ is essentially a good thing, picks up a number of matters:

  • In the past, benchmarking has made some countries waste resources by e-enabling the wrong things
  • There is a risk that the debate focuses on the ‘how’ rather than the ‘why’
  • Top ten commitments focus upon increasing transparency – what about service delivery and sustainable efficiency

He then argues that the end goal should be a “grand challenge” supported by “transparency, accountability and engagement”, rather than the other way around. He concludes by suggesting that the session on building a business case examines “how to measure the real impact and success (or lack thereof) of open government”.

Then, Simon Sharwood in The Register  continues the topic in “Open Government Partnership talks tech-led transparency” pointing out that one government absent from the meeting is Australia and that Hilary Clinton had warned that ‘the existence of technology does not translate into openness. “Technology isn’t some kind of magic wand, ” she said. “Ultimately, it is political will that determines whether or not we hold ourselves accountable”‘ Which makes it all sound like e-government over again…, in the immortal words of Cicero “O tempora O mores”.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.