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…


GovSM

May 22, 2012

It’s nothing self-inflicted pain of working in government ICT its another source of social media documents, reports and papers - the wiki is attached to GovSM’s blog - thanks Josh! The blog may be more appropriate to those into the USA but remains a useful source to investigate for all. Amongst the documents is Ines Mergel’s ‘A Manager’s Guide for Using Twitter in Government’, which is coincidental with the UK Cabinet Office’s launch of its Social Media Guidance for Civil Servants.

However, am I alone in finding much of what comes out of Twitter as ‘brown-nosing’? Is it necessary to keep saying how wonderful one’s political leaders are in public? Are most of them capable of fulfilling to dual function of typing into social media and listening to the debate going on in front of them? Social media have their place but are they really such a big deal?


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.


The design method

May 10, 2012

On a slightly tangential track, and those who know me know I love tangents, I found a great post on Richard Layman’s blog on urban design. His recent post ‘All the talk of e-government, digital government, and open source government is really about employing the design method’ actually says it all in the title, and if that isn’t clear to you he writes that all these things are essentially about process redesign – how true!

As well as promoting the work of John Friedmann, of which I wasn’t aware but now am going to read, he links this to design method and design thinking, which wouldn’t appear to be a million miles away from systems thinking. Richard then goes on to criticize the thinking that believes social media, apps, web and cloud will change government. He recognizes that it’s all really about processes – it doesn’t matter how good an app is, if the process behind it is rubbish, it’ll be rubbish. Similarly he states that ‘”open government” is really about process redesign’.

If all town/transport planners were as broad thinking I suspect the world would be a different place…


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.