Stefaan Verhulst
European Commission Press Release: “At CEBIT, 25 cities from 6 EU countries (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Portugal and Spain) and 6 cities from Brazil will present Open & Agile Smart Cities Task Force (OASC), an initiative making it easier for city councils and startups to improve smart city services (such as transport, energy efficiency, environmental or e-health services). This will be achieved thanks to FIWARE, an EU-funded, open source platform and cloud-based building blocks developed in the EU that can be used to develop a huge range of applications, from Smart Cities to eHealth, and from transport to disaster management. Many applications have already been built using FIWARE – from warnings of earthquakes to preventing food waste to Smartaxi apps. Find a full list of cities in the Background.
The OASC deal will allow cities to share their open data (collected from sensors measuring, for example, traffic flows) so that startups can develop apps and tools that benefit all citizens (for example, an app with traffic information for people on the move). Moreover, these systems will be shared between cities (so, an app with transport information developed in city A can be also adopted by city B, without the latter having to develop it from scratch); FIWARE will also give startups and app developers in these cities access to a global market for smart city services.
Cities from across the globe are trying to make the most of open innovation. This will allow them to include a variety of stakeholders in their activities (services are increasingly connected to other systems and innovative startups are a big part of this trend) and encourage a competitive yet attractive market for developers, thus reducing costs, increasing quality and avoiding vendor lock-in….(More)”
Article by Stephen J. Del Rosso in Governance: “…Because of the dizzying complexity of the contemporary world, the quest for a direct relationship between academic scholarship and its policy utility is both quixotic and unnecessary. The 2013 U.S. Senate’s vote to prohibit funding for political science projects through the National Science Foundation, except for those certified “as promoting national security or the economic interests of the United States,” revealed a fundamental misreading of the nonlinear path between idea and policy. Rather than providing a clear blueprint for addressing emergent or long-standing challenges, a more feasible role for academic scholarship is what political scientist Roland Paris describes as helping to “order the world in which officials operate.” Scholarly works can “influence practitioners’ understandings of what is possible or desirable in a particular policy field or set of circumstances,” he believes, by “creating operational frameworks for … identifying options and implementing policies.”
It is sometimes claimed that think tanks should play the main role in conveying scholarly insights to policymakers. But, however they may have mastered the sound bite, the putative role of think tanks as effective transmission belts for policy-relevant ideas is limited by their lack of academic rigor and systematic peer review. There is also a tendency, particularly among some “Inside the Beltway” experts, to trim their sails to the prevailing political winds and engage in self-censorship to keep employment options open in current or future presidential administrations. Scholarship’s comparative advantage in the marketplace of ideas is also evident in terms of its anticipatory function—the ability to loosen the intellectual bolts for promising policies not quite ready for implementation. A classic example is Swedish Nobel laureate Gunner Myrdal’s 1944 study of race relations, The American Dilemma, which was largely ignored and even disavowed by its sponsors for over a decade until it proved essential to the landmark Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Moreover, it should also be noted, rather than providing a detailed game plan for addressing the problem of race in the country, Myrdal’s work was a quintessential example of the power of scholarship to frame critically important issues.
To bridge the scholarship–policy gap, academics must balance rigor and relevance with a third “R”—readability. There is no shortage of important scholarly work that goes unnoticed or unread because of its presentation. Scholars interested in having influence beyond the ivory tower need to combine their pursuit of disciplinary requirements with efforts to make their work more intelligible and accessible to a broader audience. For example, new forms of dissemination, such as blogs and other social media innovations, provide policy-relevant scholars with ample opportunities to supplement more traditional academic outlets. The recent pushback from the editors of the International Studies Association’s journals to the announced prohibition on their blogging is one indication that the cracks in the old system are already appearing.
At the risk of oversimplification, there are three basic tribes populating the political science field. One tribe comprises those who “get it” when it comes to the importance of policy relevance, a second eschews such engagement with the real world in favor of knowledge for knowledge’s sake, and a third is made up of anxious untenured assistant professors who seek to follow the path that will best provide them with secure employment. If war, as was famously said, is too important to be left to the generals, then the future of the political science field is too important to be left to the intellectual ostriches who bury their heads in self-referential esoterica. However, the first tribe needs to be supported, and the third tribe needs to be shown that there is professional value in engaging with the world, both to enlighten and, perhaps more importantly, to provoke—a sentiment the policy-relevant scholar and inveterate provocateur, Huntington, would surely have endorsed…(More)”
Paper by Max Craglia & Lea Shanley: “The global landscape in the supply, co-creation and use of geospatial data is changing very rapidly with new satellites, sensors and mobile devices reconfiguring the traditional lines of demand and supply and the number of actors involved. In this paper we chart some of these technology-led developments and then focus on the opportunities they have created for the increased participation of the public in generating and contributing information for a wide range of uses, scientific and non. Not all this information is open or geospatial, but sufficiently large portions of it are to make it one of the most significant phenomena of the last decade. In fact, we argue that while satellite and sensors have exponentially increased the volumes of geospatial information available, the participation of the public is transformative because it expands the range of participants and stakeholders in society using and producing geospatial information, with opportunities for more direct participation in science, politics and social action…(View full text)”
The Platform for Political Innovation …”is a project aiming to strengthen the role and efficiency of Civil Society in Greece, focusing on the imperative need for innovation in policy-making. The project is based on the collaboration of three Greek Civil Society Organizations which combine and build on their experience and know-how in order to maximize the impact of activities for Political Innovation. From October 2014 to May 2015, experimental applications of innovative processes and tools are initiated in different Greek cities, focusing on the re-design of decision-making processes at local and national level. The proposed action plan constitutes the phase B of the wider social project POLITEIA 2.0 which won the Audience Award in the 2012 European Investment Bank Social Innovation Tournament.
The activities of the Platform for Political Innovation focus on Research, Networking, Training, Digital Tools and Innovation Workshops Development in 4 Greek cities….including:
Syntagma 2.0: workshops for the participatory design of a new Constitution for Greece by its citizens.
Pedio_Agora: workshops for the participatory design of a public space. Focus area: Varvakeios Square, Athens….(More)”
Paper by Johan Hellström in the International Journal of Public Information Systems: “Uganda has democratic deficits where demand for democracy exceeds its supply. As a consequence it is argued that a segment of Ugandans might participate and honour the freedom to speak out, assemble, and associate given new opportunities outside the traditional political channels. With expanded mobile coverage and access to mobile devices and services in mind, and using the concept of open crowdsourcing, the platform UgandaWatch was launched prior to the 2011 general elections with the intention to meet the demand, to offer increased equality of political participation, and to advance efforts toward increased citizen engagement in Uganda. From a community informatics point of view, the study examined how and under what conditions access to ICT tools (mobile devices, networks, and a crowdsourcing platform) can be made usable and useful for people and communities for increased political participation in a given context. By combining the collection and analysis of quantitative (SMS-survey) and qualitative data (focus groups) through a mixed-method approach, this study answers the questions, What are the key factors that influence users’ willingness to use mobile phones and crowdsourcing platforms as a channel for political participation?, and What concerns do users have with respect to using mobile phones and crowdsourcing platforms in the participation process? The study shows that users participated because they hoped it would bring real change to Uganda’s electoral and political landscape, that it was a convenient channel to use (quick and easy) and that confidentiality was assured. The user concerns relate to costs, trust, and safety. Crowdsourcing offers an alternative channel and may substitute or supplement traditional means of political participation. It can increase participation in some groups, including among those who normally do not participate—something that increases equality of political participation in a positive direction….(More)”
SiliconRepublic: “Algorithmia, an online marketplace that connects computer science researchers’ algorithms with developers who may have uses for them, has exited its private beta.
Algorithms are essential to our online experience. Google uses them to determine which search results are the most relevant. Facebook uses them to decide what should appear in your news feed. Netflix uses them to make movie recommendations.
Founded in 2013, Algorithmia could be described as an app store for algorithms, with over 800 of them available in its library. These algorithms provide the means of completing various tasks in the fields of machine learning, audio and visual processing, and computer vision.
Algorithmia found a way to monetise algorithms by creating a platform where academics can share their creations and charge a royalty fee per use, while developers and data scientists can request specific algorithms in return for a monetary reward. One such suggestion is for ‘punctuation prediction’, which would insert correct punctuation and capitalisation in speech-to-text translation.
While it’s not the first algorithm marketplace online, Algorithmia will accept and sell any type of algorithm and host them on its servers. What this means is that developers need only add a simple piece of code to their software in order to send a query to Algorithmia’s servers, so the algorithm itself doesn’t have to be integrated in its entirety….
Computer science researchers can spend years developing algorithms, only for them to be published in a scientific journal never to be read by software engineers.
Algorithmia intends to create a community space where academics and engineers can meet to discuss and refine these algorithms for practical use. A voting and commenting system on the site will allow users to engage and even share insights on how contributions can be improved.
To that end, Algorithmia’s ultimate goal is to advance the development of algorithms as well as their discovery and use….(More)”
Paper by Nunzio Casalino and Peter Bednar: “Recent debate and associated initiatives dealing with public sector innovation have mainly aimed at improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the delivery of public services and improved transparency and user friendliness. Beyond typical administrative reforms, innovation is expected to help address societal challenges such as the aging population, inclusion, health care, education, public safety, environment and greenhouse gas emissions reduction. The public sector consists of a complex open system of organizations with various tasks. Therefore, decision-making can be slower than in the private sector because of large chains of command. Innovations here will often have an impact across this complex organizational structure, and thus must be supported by a robust strategy. To strengthen democracy, promote government efficiency and effectiveness, discourage wastes and misuses of government resources, public administrations have to promote a new stronger level of openness in government. The purpose of this manuscript is to describe an innovative approach for the governance of public systems and services, currently applied in the Italian public administration domain, which could be easily replicated in other countries as well. Two initiatives, to collect and provide relevant public information gathered from different and heterogeneous public organizations, to improve government processes and increase quality of services for citizens and companies, are described. The cases adopted have been validated through a case analysis approach involving the Italian Agency for the public administration digitalization to understand new e-government scenarios within the context of governmental reforms heavily influenced by the principles of Open Government Model….(More)
Paper by Nahon, Karine and Peled, Alon and Shkabatur, Jennifer for The International Conference for E-Democracy & Open Government: “This paper develops and tests a theoretical model, which assesses the commitment of cities to the concept of open government data (OGD), according to three levels. Level 1, ‘Way of life,’ reflects a high commitment to OGD; Level 2, ‘On the Fence,’ represents either a low or erratic commitment to OGD; Level 3, ‘Lip Service,’ refers to either scarce or no commitment to OGD. These levels draw on four key dimensions: 1) Rhythm; 2) Span of Issues; 3) Disclosure; and 4) Feedback. We empirically examine this theoretical framework using longitudinal mixed-method analysis of the OGD behavior of 16 US cities for a period of four years, using a large novel corpus of municipal OGD metadata, as well as primary qualitative and secondary quantitative indicators. This methodology allows us to represent, for the first time, the evolving OGD commitment — or “OGD heart beat” — of cities….(More)”
Michael Blanding interviewing Mitchell B. Weiss for HBS Working Knowledge: “…In the past five years, cities around the world have increasingly become laboratories in innovation, producing idea labs that partner with outside businesses and nonprofits to solve thorny public policy problems—and along the way deal with challenges of knowing when to follow the established ways of government and when to break the mold. States and federal government, too, have been reaching out to designers, engineers, and entrepreneurs to help redo their operations. The new US Digital Service, for example, follows other federal efforts like 18F and the Presidential Innovation Fellows to streamline government websites and electronic records—adapting from models in the UK and elsewhere.
“We have many talented people in government, but by and large they have tended to be analysts and strategists, rather than inventors and builders,” says Weiss, who hopes his course can help change that. “One reason we didn’t have them is we weren’t training them. At policy schools we had not been training people to be all that entrepreneurial, and at business schools, we were not prepping or prodding entrepreneurial people to enter the public sector or even just to invent for the public realm.”
“Government should be naturals at crowdsourcing”
Government entrepreneurship takes many forms. There are “public-public entrepreneurs” who work within government agencies, as well as “private-public entrepreneurs” who establish private businesses that sell to government agencies or sometimes to citizens directly.
In Philadelphia, for example, Textizen enables citizens to communicate with city health and human services agencies by text messages, leading to new enforcement on air pollution controls. In California, OpenCounter streamlined registration for small businesses and provided zoning clearances in a fraction of the usual time. In New York, Mark43 is developing software to analyze crime statistics and organize law enforcement records. And in Boston, Bridj developed an on-demand bus service for routes underserved by public transportation.
The innovations are happening at a scale large enough to even attract venture capital investment, despite past VC skepticism about funding public projects.
“There was this paradox—on the one hand, government is the biggest customer in the world; on the other hand, 90 out of 100 VCs would say they don’t back business models that sell to government,” says Weiss. “Though that’s starting to change as startups and government are starting to change.” OpenGov received a $15 million round of funding last spring led by Andreessen Horowitz, and $17 million was pumped into civic social-networking app MindMixer last fall….
Governments could attract even more capital by examining their procurement rules to speed buying, says Weiss, giving them that same sense of urgency and lean startup practices needed to be successful in entrepreneurial projects…(More)”
Paper by Michael L. Barthel, Ruth Moon, and William Mari published by the Tow Center: “When bloggers and citizen journalists became fixtures of the U.S. media environment, traditional print journalists responded with a critique, as this latest Tow Center brief says. According to mainstream reporters, the interlopers were “unprofessional, unethical, and overly dependent on the very mainstream media they criticized. In a 2013 poll of journalists, 51 percent agreed that citizen journalism is not real journalism”.
However, the digital media environment, a space for easy interaction has provided opportunities for journalists of all stripes to vault the barriers between legacy and digital sectors; if not collaborating, then perhaps communicating at least.
This brief by three PhD candidates at The University of Washington, Michael L. Barthel, Ruth Moon and William Mari, takes a snapshot of how fifteen political journalists from BuzzFeed, Politico and The New York Times, interact (representing digital, hybrid and legacy outlets respectively). The researchers place those interactions in the context of reporters’ longstanding traditions of gossip, goading, collaboration and competition.
They found tribalism, pronounced most strongly in the legacy outlet, but present across each grouping. They found hierarchy and status-boosting. But those phenomena were not absolute; there were also instances of co-operation, sharing and mutual benefit. None-the-less, by these indicators at least; there was a clear pecking order: Digital and hybrid organizations’ journalists paid “more attention to traditional than digital publications”.
You can download your copy here (pdf).”